tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28010314068437483972024-03-27T12:50:23.036-07:00 THE GOSPEL COALITION AND TRUTHJ.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-32171460746842063592017-11-26T17:14:00.000-08:002018-03-27T16:00:13.651-07:00Five Problems with The Gospel Coalition’s Statement on Truth (Can We Know the Truth? by Richard Phillips)<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;">1. When they affirm, “with the postmoderns we are skeptical
that finite, fallible humans are the agents of truth” (p. 12), they deny what
is essential to the integrity and evidentiary weight of the apostolic witnesses
God has appointed to confirm the truth that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from
the dead and is both Lord and Christ (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">e.g</i>.,
1 John 1:1-3). The logic goes like this:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>(1) Humans are
not agents of truth.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>(2) The
apostles are humans.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>(3) Therefore,
the apostles are not agents of truth. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;">2. When they affirm that there is no “objective
epistemological common ground” between a believer and unbeliever (p. 8), they
deny what is consistently assumed by the apostles in the way they preached and
reasoned with unbelievers in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Acts of
the Apostles</i> (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">e.g</i>.,<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Acts 2:14-36). For instance, the apostles
spoke to the unbelievers in Jerusalem, as if those unbelievers <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">did know</i> certain things (such as the miracles
of Jesus). The apostles built on that knowledge certain things these
unbelievers did not know but would know after hearing the apostles preach. If
there were no “objective epistemological common ground” between believers and
unbelievers, would this not be evident in (1) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how</i> the apostles communicated with unbelievers and (2) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what</i> the apostles actually said to them?
If the apostles had believed (consistent with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Gospel Coalition’s</i> statement on truth) that all facts are
relative to the perspective from which they are viewed — that is, that there
are no neutral facts — then why did they consistently present the facts of the
gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) as if they were neutral? </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;">3. When they affirm, “our theory of knowing presupposes
certain truths” (p. 8), they deny what Scripture everywhere assumes, namely,
that the truth of the gospel is absolute, objective, and knowable for everyone.
(That is, it may produce but does not require Christian presuppositions.) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Gospel Coalition</i> maintains, on the
other hand, that unbelievers need, first of all, a Christian perspective,
worldview, or way of knowing before they can believe in Jesus as the Messiah. In
adopting this approach, they alter the task of evangelism as presented in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Acts of the Apostles</i> from what is absolutely
and objectively known and knowable <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for all</i>
to what is relatively and subjectively a way of knowing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for some</i>. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;">4. When they affirm that because of human finitude truth is
subjective (p. 14), they cite no Scripture—indeed, they provide no argument,
authority, evidence, or reason for such a conclusion. They simply declare it as
if it were a self-evident truth. It is not, however. Besides being self-contradictory (if truth is subjective, is that objectively true?), truth as the Bible
presents it (and as it is commonly understood) is “conformity to fact” or “what
corresponds to reality.” (See Roger Nicole's "The Concept of Truth," in <i>Scripture and Truth</i>, edited by Carson and Woodbridge) That is, truth is (or may be) objective. All the apostles and prophets assume such an understanding of truth. And there is nothing about being finite or limited compared to God that necessarily means that our knowledge of truth is (or can only be) subjective or partial (which is to say: <i>wrong</i>). God would never have established truth by witnesses as he does in Scripture, if that were so.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia";"><span style="font-size: large;">5<span style="line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;">.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia";"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"> When they affirm that because of the effects of sin on the
mind humans cannot know truth truly at all (p. 14), they cite as support for this claim
two verses which do not actually serve their purpose: (1) Romans 1:18, which is
about unbelievers who because of sin suppress the reality that God exists; and (2)
1 Corinthians 2:14, which is about Christians (not unbelievers) who are in an
unspiritual state and unable, therefore, to understand or receive spiritual things. The
Bible nowhere states that the effect of sin on the mind is that the mind cannot
know truth, generally speaking. To be sure, sin does darken the mind such that
it, for instance, resists the truth of the gospel. However, to resist that
truth is different from not understanding it at all. In brief, the effects of
sin on the mind are not so much a question of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">whether</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the mind can know
truth </i>as it is a matter of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">what the
mind does with that truth which it knows</i>.<span style="margin: 0px;">
</span>Much of Western philosophy itself is, for instance, a good example of
the effects of sin on the mind. One could even say that philosophy’s skepticism
about truth (the belief, for instance, that truth is subjective and relative) is an effect of
sin on the mind. What better strategy could our Adversary employ than the
notion that all people are shut up to their various perspectives or
rationalities on reality and locked out of a common acquaintance or universal
and rational capacity for truth? God is a God of truth. God’s Word (the Bible)
is the Word of truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. The Gospel is the truth and
involves facts about Jesus Christ. Again, what better strategy is there to
block the nature of this truth than by denying its objectivity or know-ability
or by claiming that facts are entirely conditioned in their possible meaning by
the perspective from which they are seen—as if a direct acquaintance with facts can never break through a
perspective hostile to them?<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia";"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 11px;">
<br /></div>
<b></b><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-56943218583839448602017-11-15T08:29:00.002-08:002017-11-15T08:32:08.818-08:00Can We Know the Truth? (A Review)<div aria-expanded="true" class="a-expander-content a-expander-partial-collapse-content a-expander-content-expanded" data-hook="review-collapsed" style="padding-bottom: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><i>[Below is a review of Richard Phillip's </i><u><i>Can We Know the Truth?</i></u><i> I offer it here as a more concise statement or summary of the concerns I have raised in the previous posts.]</i></span></div>
<div aria-expanded="true" class="a-expander-content a-expander-partial-collapse-content a-expander-content-expanded" data-hook="review-collapsed" style="padding-bottom: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This is <i>The Gospel Coalition’s</i> (hereafter TGC) booklet on truth which is part of a series dealing with matters foundational to the Christian faith. Regrettably, while addressing “today’s crisis of truth,” TGC is at certain points on the wrong side of that crisis. That is, if the challenge to truth in our time is the belief that truth is subjective, relative, and not objectively accessible to everyone, then TGC in its statement on truth is part of the problem and not the solution. For instance, to the question which serves as title for this book, “Can we know the truth?,” TGC replies: (1) because of human finitude, truth is “subjective,” “partial,” and “selective” (p. 14); (2) because of sin’s effect on the mind, “humans are no longer able to know truth truly at all” (p. 14); and (3) there is no “objective epistemological ground” between believers and unbelievers that “does not require Christians to ignore the lordship of Jesus” (p. 8)—which is to say, truth is relative to the Christian perspective (broader implication: all knowing is relative to one’s perspective).</span></div>
<div aria-expanded="true" class="a-expander-content a-expander-partial-collapse-content a-expander-content-expanded" data-hook="review-collapsed" style="padding-bottom: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br />It is not insignificant that all these conclusions are in conflict with what a number of respected groups and individuals (both Reformed and evangelical) believe about the concept of truth, such as, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the Truth Project with Del Tackett, D. Martyn-Lloyd Jones, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, R.C. Sproul, Art Lindsley, David Wells, Norman Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, Douglas Groothuis, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, R. Scott Smith, and others.<br /><br />More importantly, these conclusions derive not from Scripture but modern epistemology (particularly the succession of theories of knowledge from Descartes to Kant), which holds that objective truth or reality exists but is unknowable directly or as it is in itself; it is only knowable indirectly and subjectively based on how the mind views things. (That is, human knowledge cannot be verified against external reality itself.) What TGC is doing is a Christian spin on this epistemology. They have exchanged the humanly centered knowledge of modern epistemology for (as they conceive it) the Christ-centered knowledge that comes subjectively by regeneration through the Spirit, which, in turn, enables them to understand God’s Word. Since God knows everything objectively and perfectly, regenerate persons (again, based on Scripture) escape their unknowing. That is, God’s people only know truth insofar as they know Scripture by the Spirit --- a view of truth which is more narrow than the understanding of truth assumed in Scripture.<br /><br />There is, of course, truth to what they are claiming but it is an unbiblical exaggeration. For instance, when Moses provides a test for identifying a true prophet (Deuteronomy 18:21-22), he says that if what the prophet predicts come to pass, then the prophet is from God. If it doesn’t come to pass, the prophet is not from God. If we think of the prophet as a potential author of Scripture, then consider what God is saying here. In order to confirm such the people had to know the meaning of what the prophet said and know whether or not it came to pass. That is, there is in this case an underlying assumption that the prophetic text had meaning and people could reliably and objectively know it. There is also an assumption that the small sliver of history involved in confirming (or not) that the prophecy was true was also reliably, objectively knowable. Do we understand what this means for knowing? The people were obviously finite and sinful, yet God is commanding them through Moses to use their minds to know the meaning of the prophecy and determine through empirical observation whether or not the prophecy came true. What does God not say? He doesn’t tell them to rely on regeneration or the inner confirmation of the Spirit to determine whether or not the prophecy was from God. (Not that the Holy Spirit doesn’t do this in believers.) He also doesn’t point them to Scripture, since what qualifies truly as Scripture is what is at issue here. So, the point is that due to the latter, the people couldn’t rely on Scripture as a condition for knowing in general that would provide presuppositions necessary to determine whether or not someone was truly a prophet. Apparently, being made in the image of God as knowers and sustained by His providential goodness for knowledge, the people were able—again, finite and sinful though they were—to reliably and objectively know whether or not a prophecy had come to pass and, hence, whether or not a particular person was a prophet from God.<br /><br />Consequently, TGC has, in my judgment, mistakenly associated human finitude and the effects of sin on the mind with a general errancy or defectiveness for knowing which, again, derives from philosophy but is foreign both to the assumptions of Scripture and our common experience. The difference between God as infinite and humans as finite entails no innate necessity that our knowledge of things like 1+1=2 or at what temperature water boils, etc. is defective or errant. And the effects of sin on the mind does not mean people cannot know truth in any sense. Obviously, we regularly observe unregenerate persons (scientists, doctors, professors, construction workers, etc.) knowing truth at some level. I suggest that sin’s effect on the mind concerns not whether people can know truth but what they do with it.<br /><br />In general, TGC’s apparently adopting modern epistemology’s problems for knowing for explicating human finitude and sin shifts the Bible’s diagnosis of the problem of humankind from that of sin (which involves, at some level, successful knowing as Romans 1-3 clearly demonstrates) to that of knowledge. Accordingly, the solution to this problem (as TGC presents it) is not, as a matter of priority, a Savior from sin but a way of knowing (the basic tenets of Christian belief) which first makes truth or knowledge possible in general and, second (or afterward), appropriately frames the belief that Jesus is Lord. Hence, when modernists and postmodernists claim that truth is relative, in a sense, TGC agrees with them. Only TGC would say that truth is relative to Christian presuppositions. This also means that when unbelievers reject TGC’s invitation to, “Please try our way of knowing,” they will tend to walk away feeling—precisely because of this approach—justified and confirmed in their own relativism.<br /><br />The “crisis of truth” in our time, I suggest, is not all that different from what was in the air in the first century due to ancient Greek thinkers like Plato, Protagorus, Pyrrho, and the Sophists. Jesus and the apostles did not respond to such a “crisis” of their age by accepting or integrating some of its problems for knowing (certain skeptical tenets) with what Scripture teaches about human finitude or sin. A bit more bluntly, Jesus and the apostles (including the apostle Paul who was no doubt familiar with such) ignored what the Greek philosophers said about truth. They held, for instance (in contrast to what skeptics have always believed on this), to the important, even foundational, role of the “witness” (what we might call a “knowerness” or “knower in state”) for grounding truth (see what Jesus says in John 5, for example). This contrasts starkly with the view stated in TGC’s booklet on truth: “With the postmoderns we are skeptical that finite, fallible humans are agents of truth” (p. 12). (That is, TGC is saying: “we are skeptical that people can be witnesses for truth.”)<br /><br />If one does nothing more than study carefully the apostle Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and notice that there is no indication that the unregenerate persons to whom he is addressing himself are unable to know things generally or reliably—that there is no objective ground for truth between him and them. Peter doesn’t, first, make an indirect appeal for Christianity as a belief system or perspective before presenting his argument for Jesus as the Messiah. He directly builds his case for the latter explicitly noting that the people to whom he is preaching (though unregenerate) knew certain things, such as, that the languages they were seeing (as tongues of fire over heads) and hearing were miraculous; that Jesus had worked miracles among them as a divine attestation to his ministry; that King David died, his body was in the tomb they all knew about, such that the prophecy, “you will not let your holy one see corruption,” must have been intended not for David but for one of David’s sons. Peter then claims that he and the other apostles and disciples were eyewitnesses (yes, as in a court room, “agents for truth”) that Jesus, a descendant of King David, had been raised from the dead. Peter then closes his sermon with: “let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ.”<br /><br />Three thousand people were persuaded by the compelling case Peter made that day for the verdict that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. The presentation of the case demonstrates that Peter, regenerate as he was, nevertheless saw himself as on the same objective ground for truth with these unregenerate people. The established truth that Jesus is Lord became the basis, then, for a change in presuppositions held previously by the people. Importantly, however, their unbelieving presuppositions did not prevent them from intelligibly encountering the truth as Peter presented it. (We can know things that don’t fit our presuppositions.) What happened to those persuaded of this truth, afterward, is that a whole new set of presuppositions began to be developed (that is, the appropriate Christian presuppositions).<br /><br />Therefore, however, we conceive of regeneration by the Spirit and knowledge gained through Scripture, it must not conflict with apostolic assumptions and practice as found in places like the Book of Acts. Undoubtedly, the unregenerate do not know the truth as it is in Jesus with the life-changing, spiritually enlightening power that the regenerate experience. But there is a sense in which truth—even the truth of the good news of Jesus Christ—is public truth and as such is knowable for everyone. This is what makes people accountable for disobeying that message (2 Thessalonians 1:8), since they would not be so, if for lack of Christian presuppositions they were entirely ignorant or did not understand its truth in any sense.</span></div>
J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-51697010106981778312016-04-11T07:44:00.003-07:002016-09-11T07:50:12.903-07:00Ten Problems with Presuppositionalism (A Summary Including a Response to John Frame)<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;">
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;"></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">As is evident in their booklet, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can
We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, by Richard Phillips, The Gospel
Coalition tacitly supports presuppositionalism. This is
the view, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">first</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, that our presuppositions (things we suppose before
we know anything else) </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">entirely</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> condition knowledge or truth for us
— that is, are nothing less than the very basis for rational thought. Put
differently, when it comes to knowing reality, presuppositions are like glasses
cemented to our faces. We cannot see God or other persons or anything else
outside of us directly but only indirectly through the conceptual framework or
presuppositional state of the mind. Second, the only appropriate
presuppositions to know God and objective truth come to believers through
regeneration by the Spirit and the knowledge of Scripture. It is the adoption
of this approach to reality which explains why The Gospel Coalition claims that
there is no common ground for truth between believers and
unbelievers. According to presuppositionalism, then, those with
non-Christian presuppositions (lacking the appropriate glasses) cannot know
objective truth and must therefore, first, be taught to accept Christian
presuppositions (the appropriate glasses) so they can know
truth in general and, in particular, that Jesus is Lord. Below I
provide ten problems associated with presuppositionalism, as I have defined it,
and then list these problems again with explanations. </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">***</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><u>Update</u>: I have appended below a response to Dr. Frame's "<a href="http://frame-poythress.org/ten-problems-with-presuppositionalism/">Ten Problems with Presuppositionalism Answered</a>." Many thanks to him for graciously taking time out of his busy schedule to answer my ten problems. I trust my readers will understand that though I am sure Dr. Frame is greatly esteemed by the members of The Gospel Coalition council and would, perhaps, be in agreement with much of what they have written at their website and in their booklet on truth, yet he is still his own thinker. For instance, in his answer to problem #7 about how presuppositionalism denies that the unregenerate can know truth objectively, Frame says: "Rom. 1 tells us that non-believers know God clearly from the things he has made. So in fact they CAN know truth truly and objectively." I was pleasantly surprised by that but it shows, at least on that point, how he differs with The Gospel Coalition.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><u>Update #2 (09/09/2016</u>): To their credit, on March 12, 2012 The Gospel Coalition posted <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/questioning-presuppositionalism">an article by Paul Copan</a>, which thoughtfully highlights certain problems with presuppositionalism (such as its question-begging nature, its denial of a common ground or public case for the truth between believers and unbelievers, etc.).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">***</span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ten Problems with Presuppositionalism</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">1. Presuppositionalism denies the biblical
assumption of the public nature of the truth of the gospel.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2. Presuppositionalism alters the task of
evangelism such that the priority of presenting the apostolic case for Jesus as
Lord takes a back seat to first persuading people to accept
the general tenets of Christian belief.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">3. Presuppositionalism adopts a coherence rather
than correspondence account of truth which is assumed in Scripture and by our
God-given, common sense.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">4. Presuppositionalism is a relatively new,
twentieth-century doctrine, philosophical in nature and unknown to the
apostles and prophets through whom God gave us the Scriptures.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">5. Presuppositionalism, as a doctrinal
mixture of philosophy and Christian Reformed theology, violates a
cardinal principle which is perhaps most distinctive to that theology,
namely, sola Scriptura (or Scripture </span><u><span style="font-size: x-large;">alone</span></u><span style="font-size: x-large;"> as the basis for
our faith and practice).</span></span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">6. Presuppositionalism boldly recasts what the
Bible says is fundamentally a problem of sin as a problem of
knowing.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">7. Presuppositionalism claims that apart from
regeneration in Christ and the Scriptures people cannot know or convey
truth truly or objectively.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
8. Presuppositionalism weakens by implication the church's public stance for
truth.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
9. Presuppositionalism indirectly confirms the relativism of our age by
affirming that truth is relative to Christian presuppositions.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
10. Presuppositionalism burdens uneducated (and
even educated) persons in the church both here in America and
throughout the world with obscure problems about knowledge or truth that they are in
no position to understand or evaluate.</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">***</span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
<i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Ten Problems with
Presuppositionalism Explained</span></i></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">1. Presuppositionalism denies
the biblical assumption of the public nature of the truth of the gospel.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
Presuppositionalism's
"for believers only" approach to truth rejects what the Bible
assumes about the gospel as is evident in the apostolic sermons
in </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Acts</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (for instance, see Acts 2:1-36)
namely, the court room, public, shared-objective-ground nature
of its truth, including the role of witnesses and
evidences supporting the reasonable conclusion (or verdict) that Jesus of
Nazareth is Lord and Messiah</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">. </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">By implication, presuppositionalism
leads one to conclude that in the book of </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Acts </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">the
apostles mistakenly and routinely appealed to "neutral
facts" and a common ground for truth between believers and
unbelievers. </span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> For instance, in the passage just
highlighted (Acts 2:1-36), Peter begins his sermon to people who did not have
Christian presuppositions (a reasonable assumption since they had just recently
crucified Jesus) with the exhortation, "let this be known to you" (2:14).
Now if Peter thought (as presuppositionalists do) that the absence of the tenets of the Christian faith in
these people to whom he was preaching prevented them from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">knowing anything at all</i> —
that is, kept them from having what was necessary for rational thought — would we not see him first
providing such tenets before continuing with what he had to say? Instead, what
does he do? Peter exhibits throughout his sermon a <i>confidence</i> that these people
with non-Christian presuppositions did know certain things and at the same time
did not know certain other things critical to their salvation. That is, Peter did not
relate to the people as if all their knowing up to this point was false or
untrue, because they lacked Christian presuppositions. There was, indeed, not a
hint of that notion that what Peter had to say to the people was “for believers
only.” What he offered was truth, in an important sense, for everyone. Hence, as Peter
proceeds with his intention to “let this be known to you,” let us notice that
he always (as in a court of law) assumes a shared ground for objective truth between
himself and his audience of unbelievers:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 1. Peter says that the people with
tongues of fire over their heads who were speaking of the mighty works of God
in languages they had not learned were not drunk since it was about nine o’clock
in the morning (2:15). Notice that this is an inductive argument based on
probability. Technically, the whole lot of them could have been hitting the
bottle that early in the day but, based on what people generally do, such a
thing is highly improbable. Let us notice here that Peter is reasoning with the
people as if what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they</i> knew and what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">he</i> knows are, in some sense, the same (that is, the same basic, rational framework).
They have the same intelligent experience of the world: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">people don’t generally get drunk at nine o’clock in the morning. </i>Without
this shared ground for truth, Peter couldn’t have argued even this little point. So whatever
Peter is going to make known to the people here in his sermon in Acts 2 belongs, in some important sense, to
the same universally knowable reality everyone is familiar with. </span><br />
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 2. Peter says in the early part of his message in Acts 2 that the miraculous
ability these disciples had to speak of the “mighty works of God” in
languages that they had not learned was the fulfillment of something else they
knew about: the prophecy in Joel 2 of an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the
last days. He is implying that the people are successfully knowing that these
people are miraculously speaking in foreign languages and can know that this
special demonstration of God’s power is the fulfillment of an Old Testament
prophecy. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 3. Next, Peter speaks of Jesus of
Nazareth, “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs
that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know” (2:22). Again,
there is no indication of a problem for knowledge. Peter states plainly, “as
you yourselves know,” to remind them that they do know certain things. Again,
he does not treat their knowledge, thus far or on these particular specifics,
as a problem. We observe, instead, that Peter in carrying out his intent to “let
this be known to you” (2:14) is presenting — one after the other — all these
items of knowledge together as he prepares to deliver some knowledge (that is,
the gospel) to the people that they don’t know. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 4. Peter now addresses directly the
crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth “by the hands of lawless men” (2:23). They all
knew about the death of Jesus. This is “neutral ground,” we might say. Shared, objective
ground for truth. But then Peter suddenly adds something to this knowledge that
they didn’t know: “God raised him [Jesus] up, loosing the pangs of death,
because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (2:24). Realizing that
this is a controversial claim (no doubt many had heard about it and taken it to be a false
rumor), Peter quotes King David from Psalm 16:8-11, and, in particular, I note
(as Peter himself does) this particular Messianic promise, “For you will not
abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption” (v. 10). Peter
says, “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David
that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day” (2:29).
What is it for Peter to speak “with confidence” that David is dead? Is it not
the same thing as saying, “<i>I know for certain </i>that David is dead, and if anyone
has doubts about this, go check out his tomb.” Implication? The prophecy of a “Holy
One” whose body God would not allow to “see corruption” cannot apply to David,
because if it did, then clearly it is false. Is this confident knowing
something only Peter had? When he says, “I may say to you with confidence,” is
it not true that everyone among those thousands listening to him that day could
say <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the same thing</i>? Did anyone doubt
that David was dead? Is this not common knowledge? Wasn't David's tomb a shared, public certainty for
knowing that David was dead? More importantly, for the broader question of presuppositionalism
itself: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Has Peter said anything up to
this point that might support presuppositionalism? That is, has he said anything that might encourage the people to whom he was speaking to believe that
their knowledge of the things set forth so far was not rational, not true knowledge,
or not reliable as an apprehension of reality, particularly, because they lacked Christian
presuppositions? </i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> 5. Since the prophecy could not have
applied to King David, to whom did it apply? Peter has an answer for that: “Being
therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he
would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the
resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his
flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are
witnesses” (2:30-32). Again, this is what we might call court room
epistemology, that is, the same conceptual framework for truth and knowledge that
undergirds testimony in a court room. If the defendant and his lawyer, on the other hand, had a special way of
knowing things and tried to make a case based on such, would it not be thrown out?
Why? Without a common ground for truth, the very purpose of a trial
would be thwarted. Underlying court room epistemology assumes that truth — however difficult to obtain — is
nevertheless <i>knowable</i>, and we all have the same way of knowing it. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> What is a “witness”? A “wit”
is one who knows. The suffix, “ness,” indicates the office, state, or quality
of something. A “witness,” we might say then is a “knower-ness, “knower in state,” or “knower
of interest.” A “witness” is someone who knows something pertinent to a case
and knows it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the same way</i> everyone
else (the judge, the attorneys, the jury, those present in the court room, and
the public beyond the court room) involved in the trial knows things. A “witness,” we might say,
is a <i>surrogate knower</i> for the rest of us who do not have the particular experience
of that “witness” but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">could have had such</i>
if we had been where they were — or saw or heard what they did. A “witness” is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> someone who knows things in a unique, special, or esoteric way <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">different from
others</i>. Anything uniquely subjective in that manner may be interesting or even
inviting but cannot be binding as public knowledge on others nor helpful in an objective veridical quest. When the apostles, therefore, claimed to be (as Peter says in 2:32) “witnesses” of the risen Lord, they meant that they saw Jesus in the same way others <i>could</i> have seen him had they been there (see also 1 John 1:1-3). The apostles heard the risen Jesus the same way others <i>could</i> have. The apostles ate with Jesus in the same way others <i>could</i> have done had they been there. The apostles were (and are for us who weren’t there) — again — <i>surrogate knowers </i>and assumes (obviously) a shared, universal ground for truth. Otherwise, it carries no weight toward the public or true-for-everyone conclusion that Jesus <i>truly</i> has been raised from the dead (see also 1 Corinthians 15:4-8). Finally, all of the foregoing implies that a "witness" — though not always reliable — may actually offer objective truth or serve faithfully as <i>an agent of truth. </i>This is why our Lord and his apostles employ Moses's standard for establishing the truth of a matter by the evidence of two or three witnesses (see Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1). If, on the other hand, presuppositionalism is correct in its denial that humans can even have reliable, objective knowledge — or, as The Gospel Coalition puts it, "With the postmoderns we are skeptical that finite, fallible humans are the agents of truth" (<i>Can We Know the Truth?,</i> p. 12) — then the Bible is, on that account, simply in error when it assumes that witnesses can settle the truth of a matter. Under such skepticism, it would amount to a rule that witnesses cloud more than clarify whether or not something is true or false. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> As we return to the sermon before us in Acts 2, Peter is now at the end of making his case
for Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. He has made the connection between David’s
prophecy of a Messiah whose body would not be subject to decay and Jesus of
Nazareth as risen by God from the dead. Then he makes the connection between
the outpouring of the Spirit they were all beholding (the fulfillment of Joel
2) and the exaltation of Jesus as the Messiah (2:33). That is, “Being therefore
exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise
of the Spirit, he [Jesus] has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing
and hearing” (2:33). Again, Peter goes back to King David, “For David did not
ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The LORD said to my Lord, sit at
my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” (2:34) Then notice
how Peter delivers the conclusion of his argument: “Let all the house of Israel
therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom you crucified” (2:36). So what begins with Peter’s “let this be
known to you” (2:14) and is marked by reminders of knowing throughout — “as you
yourselves know” (2:22), “I may say to you with confidence” (2:29), “of that we
are all witnesses” (2:32), “he has poured out this that you yourselves are
seeing and hearing” (2:33) — ends with, “Let all the house of Israel know for
certain” (2:36). </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> Given this plain evidence,
therefore, that the apostle Peter in Acts 2 and the other apostles in general
(including Paul) always spoke to unbelievers (or those who had no Christian
presuppositions) as if there was common ground for truth between them, it
clearly puts the apostles in a bad light — makes them in
effect what presuppositionalists pejoratively call: "modern
evidentialists," if presuppositionalists are correct in their
account of knowledge or truth. Moreover, if it dishonors the lordship of Jesus
Christ (as presuppositionalists claim — see <i>Can We Know the Truth?</i>,
p. 8) to relate to unbelievers as if there is such a neutral or common ground
for truth, then obviously the apostles routinely dishonored their Lord in their
way of reasoning with unbelievers.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;">
</span>
<span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><i>2.
</i><i>Presuppositionalism alters the task of evangelism such that the priority of presenting the apostolic case for Jesus as Lord takes a back seat to first persuading people to accept the general tenets of Christian belief.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
In a sense, the Bible is
God’s case, fifteen hundred years in the making, for Jesus of Nazareth as Lord
and Messiah. God made this case for the whole world, not just believers. It is
true for <i>everyone</i>, understandable in some sense by <i>everyone</i>. Everyone,
presented with that case, is thus accountable to God in a way they
wouldn't be, if it had not been presented to them. This is part of the
rationale in Christ's command to take his gospel to all the nations. When
Christ appears, every knee will bow — not just those who are regenerate. At
that time, everyone will </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">know</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (even the unregenerate) that Jesus is
Lord. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
When Paul reminds the
Corinthian saints of the gospel that he had received and faithfully delivered
to them, what one reads is this very case God had made: “Christ died for our
sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on
the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to
Cephas, then to the twelve [and then to] more than five hundred brothers at one
time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1
Corinthians 15:3-6). Indeed, with respect to this gospel, the apostles saw
themselves as stewards and messengers under God’s authority — not to “practice
cunning” or “tamper with” God’s case for Jesus as Lord (2 Corinthians 4:2) but
— to boldly and faithfully repeat that case to the nations (1 Corinthians
4:1-2; Ephesians 3:2; 1 Peter 4:10). Accordingly, the apostles did
not alter or play with that message — or deliver it as an afterthought. They
knew what they were supposed to say to people, right off, in obeying the Great
Commission. And they said it wherever they went. (Again, a study of the sermons
in the book of </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Acts</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> makes this quite clear.) </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
In contrast, presuppositionalism undermines this faithful,
apostolic stewardship of the gospel by getting things </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">backward</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> —
that is, it argues first and directly for </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">the tenets of the Christian faith</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">,
as the framework for knowing in general and then indirectly for knowing in
particular that Jesus is Lord. In contrast, the apostles (as just
stated) make a public, argumentative case </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">directly</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> for
the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord, thereby implying that the
tenets of the Christian faith will be embraced by people (as they devote
themselves to the apostles' teaching as in Acts 2:42) </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">after</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> they
are first persuaded of that conclusion. In any case, there is not a single
instance in </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Acts </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">of an apostle first persuading unbelievers of the
tenets of Christian belief before making the case that Jesus is Lord. </span><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">3. Presuppositionalism adopts a
coherence rather than correspondence account of truth which is assumed in
Scripture and by our God-given, common sense.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
A coherence view of
truth holds that “truth is what coheres with everything else we believe,” while
a correspondence understanding of truth is that “truth is what corresponds to
reality” [1]. Because presuppositionalism overstates the role of
regeneration and the Bible by claiming that these are necessary </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">to
know truth at all (or objectively)</span></i><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">, it actually has a coherence view
of truth. When a presuppositionalist claims to support a correspondence account
of truth, this is justified by defining truth as “that which corresponds to
what the Bible says.” However, the father of presuppositionalism,
Cornelius Van Til, understood that presuppositionalism, technically speaking,
is a coherence theory [2]. He called it a correspondence account to
differentiate it from the coherence associated with modern idealism (from
Descartes to Kant) which viewed knowing as subjective, autonomous, and
man-centered. To be sure, Van Til also believes that since God alone
has knowledge of objective reality and has made, at least in part, that
reality known through Christ and Scripture, what the regenerate receive by that
means does indeed correspond to reality (at least, in an analogous sense).
It is important to recognize, nonetheless, that presuppositionalism has a “for
believer’s only” approach to truth which means that truth is entirely
presuppositional or perspectival in nature — that is,
presuppositionalism fundamentally supports features for knowing (the Bible made
known subjectively through regeneration) that begin first with the inside
(or the mind and its conditions for knowing), and then looks outward to assess
what it sees. This internal conditioning for knowledge is consistent,
therefore, with a coherence view of truth. Therefore, its claim that
truth corresponds to reality represents a philosophically non-orthodox
understanding of correspondence-truth and is actually (again, consistent with
modern epistemology) internal to a coherence view of truth that arose
historically in distinction (if not opposition) to a correspondence
view of truth. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
</span>
<i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">4. Presuppositionalism is a
relatively new, twentieth-century doctrine, philosophical in nature
and unknown to the apostles and prophets through whom God gave us the
Scriptures.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
Presuppositionalism is
foreign to Scripture and church history until the twentieth century, when
Cornelius Van Til (just mentioned) integrated modern philosophy and Reformed
theology in a unique manner. Since then it has become increasingly
popular, particularly, as a belief inseparable from what it means to be
appropriately “Reformed” (or Calvinistic) in one's approach
to communicating the gospel to unbelievers. However,
presuppositionalism </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">would not have been possible</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> apart from
philosophy — particularly, its idealistic, subjective, or
mind-centered proposals for knowing. The
latter means that truth is regarded as primarily mental or
perspectival in nature. Presuppositionalism accepts this aspect of modern
epistemology. Notably, on the other hand, it rejects what
idealism ordinarily entails, namely, man-centeredness. Instead of
that, presuppositionalism recenters knowledge in the mind of Christ
as made known to us by the Spirit and Scripture. In other words, Van
Til offers a Christian Reformed version of an idealistic epistemology (way of
knowing). However, as Christ-honoring as this doctrine seems to be, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">truth
is not primarily mental but extra-mental in nature</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, as is abundantly
clear based on what the Bible assumes and our God-given,
common sense. If we apply a right answer (which surely Van Til attempted
to do) to a wrong problem (invented
by modern philosophers), the result will be wrong — even
if clothed in (or recast by) Scripture [3]. It will also lead to a new
nest of problems (detailed here and throughout my posts).<br />
<br />
</span><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">5. Presuppositionalism, as a
doctrinal mixture of philosophy and Christian Reformed theology,
violates a cardinal principle which is perhaps most distinctive to that
theology, namely, sola Scriptura (or Scripture </span><u><span style="font-size: x-large;">alone</span></u><span style="font-size: x-large;"> as the basis
for our faith and practice).</span></span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
The question we must ask ourselves here is this: Is Scripture </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">sufficient</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
for the Christian faith — or not? Are we getting the <i>content</i> of truth from
Scripture, while turning to philosophy for our <i>concept</i> of truth? Do we not
understand how the concept of truth can affect the content of truth,
even when it comes from Scripture? Does Scripture make the man or woman of
God </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">complete</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> — or not (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? Does not </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
Westminster Confession</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> declare that "the whole counsel of God
concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and
life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture: </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">unto which nothing at any time is
to be added </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">[emphasis mine - jnp], whether by new revelations of the
Spirit, or traditions of men" (chapter one, section six)? If
philosophy, as applied or mixed with Christianity or Reformed
theology, is thus elevated in status as divine revelation in
some sense on a par with Scripture (let's say, as "general
revelation"), then the concept of truth will always be subject to the
experimental and ever-changing work of the philosophers. And what else should
the church be learning and mixing with the Christian faith from
philosophy, the various fields of learning, or other extrabiblical
sources? Do we now have, basically, two sources of revelation? Scripture
and human tradition? (That combination which Reformers like Luther
and Calvin rejected, particularly, as found in Roman
Catholicism.) Furthermore, did Jesus or the apostles ever concern
themselves with what the philosophers were saying? Did they ever appeal to what
the philosophers thought </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">on any topic at all</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">? Did Paul, who no
doubt knew much of what the various Greek philosophers believed —
including ideas similar to the mind-centered and
relativistic proposals for knowing associated with the modern
philosophers in that lineage from Descartes to Kant — ever show any
deference or the slightest concern for such things? Did he not,
rather, warn the church against the deceitfulness and captivity associated
with such (Colossians 2:8)? In another place, did Paul not warn us of
what passes for "science" or knowledge among worldly
authorities (1 Timothy 6:20-21)? In sum, John MacArthur wisely writes, "Whoever criticizes, questions, challenges, subtracts from or adds to the authoritative Word of God is ultimately undermining the divine authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and putting man, the creature, in a place of authority instead" (<i>Why Believe the Bible?,</i> p. 81).<br />
<br />
</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">6. Presuppositionalism
boldly recasts what the Bible says
is fundamentally a problem of sin as a problem of knowing.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
Presuppositionalism changes what the Bible presents as </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">a problem of sin</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
(which involves a certain level of successful knowing) into </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">a problem of
knowing</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> or epistemology (see, for example, Romans 1-3); this sets up its
apologetic need to first address the issue of knowing by convincing people of
the coherence of the tenets of Christian belief (point #3 above) so they
can know things in general and then know, in particular, that Jesus is
Lord. However, the Bible teaches that Jesus saves us from </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">sin</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, not </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">a
state of unknowing in general</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">. The Scriptures make clear that we are born
again </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">unto God</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> — not </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">knowing or intelligence in general</span></i><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
</span>
<i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">7. Presuppositionalism claims that
apart from regeneration in Christ and the Scriptures people cannot know or
convey truth truly or objectively.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Presuppositionalism holds (elaborating on point #6 above) that due to human
finitude and the effects of sin on the mind there is a universal
problem for knowing itself — that is, apart from regeneration
and the Bible people cannot be agents for truth or serve the
important, biblical and civil role of witnesses (knowers of
interest) on behalf of truth. The latter is held to be true because,
again, presuppositionalism maintains that regeneration and the Bible are
the very conditions for knowing not only the gospel but truth in
general. This means that apart from the Bible we cannot know anything
truly or reliably. It also implies, at a minimum, that people who
are made new in Christ and have the Bible will far exceed in
knowledge those who are unregenerate and ignorant of the Bible in every
field of endeavor (such as, for example, doctors, lawyers, business
persons, teachers, construction workers, etc.). However, common experience
clearly indicates that this is not the case. Thus presuppositionalism overstates
the negative effects of finitude and sin in relation to knowing truth, as
well as, what regeneration and the Bible actually provide for truth. <br />
<br />
The Bible assumes, on
the other hand, that people can know truth in an ordinary sense. Without
that assumption, the people of Israel could not have observed Moses's
test for identifying a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). That is,
if what the prophet said did not come to pass, then, according to
Moses, that person was a false prophet. We may reasonably assume that
to make such a determination people would need to be able to know the
truth about what the prophet had predicted and the truth as to whether or not
the prophecy had come to pass. True prophecy is on a par with Scripture (as
God's Word), if not part of Scripture itself. In this case, a
prophecy is identified as true (or on a par with
or as Scripture) based on human reason and observation </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">apart from
Scripture</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (since what potentially qualifies as Scripture is what is at issue). If
because of the negative effects of finitude and sin on
knowing, regeneration and Scripture provide the only conditions for
knowing anything truly, Moses's test would not have worked. That is, the
people of Israel did not in this case have prophecy or Scripture as a
standard (or condition for knowing) to determine whether or not a particular
prophecy was true or from God. Therefore, if "unaided reason" is
defined as "reason and observation apart from Scripture," the
people were commanded by God through Moses to use their "unaided
reason" to determine if a particular prophecy (and prophet) was
false.<br />
<br />
Some say, as Van Til
did, that this problem of knowledge that unbelievers have is true “in
principle.” However, a comment like that is ambiguous. Notice that we wouldn’t
say that “in principle” an apple loosed from its branch falls to the ground.
Strictly speaking, of course, as a matter of “principle” (gravity) an apple
thus loosed does fall to the ground. But this is not how we use the expression
in question. What we generally mean when we claim that something is true “in
principle” is that </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">in reality</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> it is not always so or that there are
other principles or factors that must be accounted for. For instance, “in
principle” Christians are indwelt by the Spirit, while “in principle” they are
also indwelt by sin (see Romans 7 and 8). Hence, Christians do not always
behave righteously. If presuppositionalism’s qualification that the state of
unknowing the unregenerate have is “in principle,” does that mean that there is
another sense which “in principle” the unregenerate </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">do know things in
general</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">? And if the latter is true, does that knowledge have anything to do
with a common ground between believers and unbelievers both for presenting
and receiving the truth of the gospel? The point is that if the state
of unknowing which presuppositionalism claims for the unregenerate is
"in principle" </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">only</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> — that there is another
"principle" or sense in which such persons can know
truth truly — then it seems there could be "neutral facts" or
a common ground for truth between the regenerate and the unregenerate
(as is evident, again, in the manner in which the apostles reasoned with
the unregenerate in </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Acts</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">). One cannot have it both ways: either people
can know things in some sense relevant to the argumentative and
public case God has made for the truth that Jesus is the
Messiah, or they cannot know things such that any such argumentative
case would be like speaking to people in an unknown
tongue.</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><i><s><u><sup><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></sup></u></s><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">8.
Presuppositionalism weakens by implication the church's public stance for
truth.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
Presuppositionalism in
its rejection of public truth (or common ground for knowledge between believer
and unbeliever) </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">implies</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> that on issues pertaining to civic morality
(such as, abortion or same-sex marriage) the public does not have the
appropriate presuppositions to understand biblical truth and, hence, that it
doesn’t make sense for the church to confront these issues directly and in a
public manner. However, when John the Baptist confronted Herod for living with
his brother’s wife or Jesus testified of the world that its deeds were evil or
Timothy (as tradition says) confronted an idolatrous parade with its
foolishness, did any of these men think that because the people they confronted
had the wrong presuppositions that it wouldn’t make sense to confront them with
the truth? We are living in a time when it is particularly important for the
church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy
4:15). Sadly, the tendency both in and outside the church is "to
live and let live" — to be silent in the face of a
rapid cultural descent into evil. Truly, the fields are white unto
harvest. What if the Lord is calling his church to be a Daniel,
Elijah, or Stephen — a Peter or a Paul — but what the
church learns from its leaders is that </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">it doesn't have a shared basis
for truth in speaking to outsiders</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">? That if people aren't
Christians — or don't think Christianly — they won't understand what we're
talking about? Wouldn't that belief's influence, therefore, be more
consistent with silence rather than speaking — with a reed shaken by
the wind rather than a pillar and foundation for the truth?<br />
<br />
</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">9. Presuppositionalism
indirectly confirms the relativism of our age by affirming that truth is
relative to Christian presuppositions.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
Presuppositionalism indirectly justifies the subjectivism and relativism
of our time by holding that the truth that Jesus is Lord is relative to
Christian presuppositions which must be embraced subjectively (through regeneration
by the Spirit to understand Scripture) before that truth itself can make sense
at all (that is, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">people need to believe in order to believe</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">); hence, in
making such a claim, presuppositionalism implies that it embraces the broader
claim that truth itself is relative to one’s presuppositions, perspective, or
viewpoint. Consequently, when unbelievers say “no thank you” to
presuppositionalism’s relativistic offer (the “try it you’ll like it” approach)
of putting on Christian glasses to experience the world (and the possibility
that Jesus is Lord while they’re at it), they will go away perhaps feeling </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">confirmed
in their own relativism</span></i><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> saying to the presuppositionalists talking to
them “that’s your thing not mine” or, more pragmatically, “that may work
for you but it’s not for me.” </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
</span>
<i><span style="font-size: x-large; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">10. Presuppositionalism
burdens uneducated (and even educated) persons in the church
both here in America and throughout the world with
obscure problems about knowledge or truth that they are in no position
to understand or evaluate.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
Presuppositionalism risks
introducing into the church, globally speaking (and particularly under The
Gospel Coalition's influence), speculative, complex, and controversial
problems from philosophy which most of its people (including pastors) are
not able to understand or evaluate. If, as Jesus indicates, our Father’s
good pleasure is to reveal the things of the kingdom to “babes” in
understanding (the uneducated; Matthew 11:25) and if, as Paul says, there are
not, by the world’s standards, many who are “wise” in the church (1 Corinthians
1:26) — or we might say: “up to speed on things philosophical” — then,
again, do we not risk (through a doctrine like presuppositionalism)
placing a burden on the church which, to borrow Peter’s words from a different
context, “neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear”? Whereas we
are surely warranted in affirming as a creedal statement the </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">clarity</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> of
Scripture (as </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Westminster Confession of Faith</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> does) pertaining to
“those things [in Scripture] which are necessary to be known, believed, and
observed for salvation” (chapter one, section seven), are we in like manner
prepared to say the same thing about the tenets of
presuppositionalism? Especially as we think of the large growth of the
church in non-Western parts of the earth (Africa, China, South America, etc.)
do we really think that indoctrinating them in Jesus's name to
embrace claims like “there are no neutral facts” or “because of finitude and
sin we cannot know truth truly” or “all knowledge is presuppositional” or “there
is no shared, objective ground for truth between Christians and non-Christians
that honors the Lord” — that they can understand claims like these? That we are
serving the global church well by introducing them to such speculative and
skeptical notions about truth? And where would they go in Scripture to
test such claims? Wouldn’t they have to go to the philosophers to really
understand them? <br />
<br />
In addition, there have
always been philosophers who did not buy the idea that our knowledge of reality
is mind-centered (as the philosophers in the succession of Descartes through
Kant believed). One has only to note that in the late twentieth century and up
to the present time, the methodological aspect (its subjectivity and
mind-centeredness) of modern epistemology that Van Til accepted so as to
re-interpret it as a Reformed Christian thinker is now rejected by many
philosophers in our time. That conflict between realists and idealists
(or, since the terms have changed, externalists and internalists) is tilting
toward realism or externalism. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga
believes the mind-centered construction of reality represented by modern
philosophers like Kant is itself (apart from any possible Christian
re-interpretation of it) </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">completely wrong</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> and incompatible with
Christianity. </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></a><span style="font-size: x-large;">
In </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Seeing Things as They Ar</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">e (2015), John Searle calls this
notion that we can only know things as they appear and not as they
are “the bad argument.” He argues that that sort of
thinking amounts to “one of the biggest mistakes in philosophy in the past
several centuries.” </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></a><span style="font-size: x-large;"> My point is, of course, that for his
presuppositionalism Van Til accepted an aspect of modern epistemology that has
been soundly discredited by respected philosophers. I mean, so as not to
be misunderstood: </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">the view that our knowledge of reality is
entirely presuppositional, idealistic, or perspectival due to the
subjective nature of knowing itself is regarded by many
respected philosophers today as untenable.</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> And even if
one clings to that view in the face of such formidable opposition, at
least it would seem reasonable (would it not?) to acknowledge that the introduction
into the church of a questionable doctrine like presuppositionalism — a
philosophically controversial and obscure matter — surely
warrants concern, if not reevaluation.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">[1] Some mistakenly suppose
that this definition of truth as "what corresponds to reality"
originates from philosophy, is foreign to the Bible, and thus a threat to sound
Christian doctrine. Actually there is nothing philosophical about it.
It might seem different or technical in its wording to those who are
unfamiliar with philosophy, but the philosophers themselves recognize
this definition as a "naive" or common sense understanding
of truth — that is, what most people in all places and times mean
by "truth." Hence, a dictionary, for instance, will
typically define "truth" as "conformity to fact or
reality." Whether one says "conforms" or
"corresponds" or "matches" or "agrees with"
— it is all the same thing. Quite importantly, for Christians,
it is also what the Bible assumes as </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">its</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> definition of
truth. In </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Scripture and Truth </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">("The Biblical Concept of
Truth," pp. 287-298), edited by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Roger
Nicole presents a comprehensive study (Old and New Testaments) of what the
Bible means by "truth" and concludes that it means "conformity
to fact." For instance, in the ninth commandment when God
commands Israel, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,"
he means (put positively) that we are to speak the truth or what conforms
to facts or reality concerning our neighbor.<br />
[2] See, for example, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">A Survey of Christian Epistemology </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">(chapter one,
sections 3-6), where Van Til explains that his view of correspondence is
not the traditional one, that is, not about an idea one may have and
its correspondence to what is "out there" in the world; rather, truth
is a correspondence between our ideas and God's ideas or, to express the same
thing, "truth is what corresponds to God's
self-disclosure in Scripture." Van Til's only complaint with the
coherence account of truth is that it is man-centered (or a law to itself)
and so has no place for the self-disclosure of God in Scripture as the
ultimate reference point for truth. But in terms of "the form of the
matter" (ch. 1, sect. 5; or what we might call the shape or
structure of knowing), Van Til clearly states that
an appropriate Christian epistemology actually "stands closer
to" coherence than correspondence. In sum, Van Til's
presuppositionalism gives us a theory of knowing that is neither a matter
of correspondence nor of coherence, as those terms generally are
understood in philosophy; however, if his theory is compared to either of
those, it is (by Van Til's own admission) </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">more like coherence than
correspondence.</span></i><br /><span style="font-size: x-large;">
[3] Presuppositionalists use Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 and 2
Corinthians 6:14-15 to support the idea that there is no common ground for
truth between a believer and unbeliever. However (and as I argue at
greater length elsewhere in these posts), in these passages Paul was
obviously not integrating epistemological problems (of the sort
raised by modern philosophy) with Christianity. That sort
of interpretation has to be artificially read into (or imposed
upon) the text rather than found in it. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 is written
to and about those who are regenerate (that is, the Corinthian Christians,
not the unregenerate in general); it concerns the inability
of "the flesh" or "natural man" to appreciate
(not understand or apprehend in any sense) the things of God about
which the apostle wanted to write. In addition, 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 is a call to the
people of God to be holy — to realize that, religiously and spiritually,
they had no common ground with idolators and their evil
practices. Christians share life in the Spirit with one
another but not with those who aren't Christians. Such a statement,
however, is a far cry from claiming that Christians have no shared ground (in
any sense) for truth with unbelievers.</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></a><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Alvin Plantinga, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, ed.
James F. Sennett (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1998), p. 331.</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></a><span style="font-size: x-large;">
John Searle, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 10-11.</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="font-size: medium;">
<br />
</span></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="font-size: medium;">***</span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Ten Problems with
Presuppositionalism Revisited </span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">(Response to John Frame's "<a href="http://frame-poythress.org/ten-problems-with-presuppositionalism/">Ten Problems with Presuppositionalism Answered</a></span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">")</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: #500050; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">1.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism denies
the biblical assumption of </span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">the public nature of the truth of the gospel.</span></span></i></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: There are, of course, different kinds of
presuppositionalists. I cannot speak for all of them. I myself am closest to
Van Til and Bahnsen. I don’t believe that either of them said anything in
conflict with the public nature of the truth of the Gospel. It is clear that
Scripture refers to public events—the history of Israel, the events of Jesus’
earthly ministry, his cross and resurrection, the apostolic expansion of the
church. Many of these events were miraculous, and Scripture (as in 1 Cor. 15)
stresses the public nature of the events and the testimony about them. Van Til
always insisted that factual evidences were an important aspect of apologetics.
But of course he also insisted that these evidences be presented in the context
of a biblical epistemology, not as a conclusion of autonomous thinking. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: I did not question that presuppositionalism
recognizes </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">in some sense</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> the public
nature of the gospel. In my explanation of problem #1, I said that presuppositionalism’s
“for believers only” approach to relating the gospel to others denies its
public nature. For example, what makes an otherwise public joke private is that
there are people in the audience who don’t know something essential to the
punch line. Perhaps only a few people are in the know and thus able to get the
joke. Moreover, if one were to object to the private nature of such a joke, it
wouldn’t help to get the reply: “But the joke was told </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">publicly</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">.” One might even
say that compared to a private joke, things are even worse for knowledge in a
presuppositionalist’s denial that an unbeliever has what is necessary for
rational thought itself or any common ground for truth with a believer. At
least with a private joke, even those who aren’t on the inside have common
ground enough to know what was said, even if they don’t know what wasn’t said
that made the joke funny. Hence, a presuppositionalist views a presentation of
the truth of the gospel — however </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">public </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">it
may otherwise be — as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">more private</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
than the most private joke. It is only in the last sentence that the actual
issue problem #1 highlights is touched on: “But of course he [Van Til] also
insisted that these evidences be presented in the context of a biblical
epistemology, not as a conclusion of autonomous thinking.” What is meant by Van
Til’s insistence on “a biblical epistemology” and no “autonomous thinking” in
relation to evidences accounts for what I am identifying as presuppositionalism’s
non-public approach to the truth of the gospel. Put simply,
presuppositionalism’s claim that between a believer and unbeliever there are no
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">common</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">neutral</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> facts means that there are no </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">public </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">facts — facts are relative to (or made </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">private </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">by) one’s presuppositions.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 23.25pt 8pt 57.3pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 23.25pt 8pt 57.3pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i><b>2.</b></i></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i><b> Presuppositionalism alters the task of evangelism such that the priority of presenting the apostolic case for Jesus as Lord takes a back seat to first persuading people to accept the general tenets of Christian belief.</b></i></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: I know of no presuppositionalist who fails to
present Jesus as a historical figure who taught, worked miracles, and rose from
the dead. Nor do I understand the contrast you draw between “the apostolic
case” and the “general tenets of Christian belief.” We can agree that the
gospel focuses on what Jesus said and did, and particularly his death and
resurrection. But in the present age, nobody should question the fact that we
must also set forth the biblical world view: creator/creature, revelation, etc.
Many people don’t understand the Gospel story, because they come at the facts
with an unbiblical epistemology. Paul says that Jesus’ resurrection is
validated by 500 people who witnessed the resurrection together. A powerful
piece of evidence, surely. But when you tell people that today, some will
reply, “ well, David Hume taught us that there is NO believable testimony about
a supernatural event; because it is always more probable that an event has a
natural explanation than a supernatural explanation.” At this point, the
Christian must say something about Hume, or general epistemology. We must make
sure that the evidence for Jesus must be understood on a biblical epistemology,
not a Humean or deconstructionist one. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph Partain</span></span></u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: What I mean by the
difference between the “apostolic case” and "general tenets of Christian
belief" is that there is a difference between making a case to the
public </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">specifically</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> for
Jesus of Nazareth as Lord (as Peter does in Acts 2) and
convincing that public to accept Christian or
biblical presuppositions (doctrines related to creation, the Fall,
redemption, etc.) as a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">precondition</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
for knowing things in general and ultimately for knowing Jesus is Lord in
particular. What one sees in Acts is that people were first convinced by the
case that Jesus is Lord (again, as in Acts 2:14-36) and then, having received
Christ, they devoted themselves to the apostolic teaching (as in Acts
2:42). In that way, the people of God gradually grew in their
understanding (2 Peter 3:18) so as to have truly Christian or biblical
presuppositions. Presuppositionalists put the cart before the horse.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 23.25pt 8pt 57.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">3.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism adopts a coherence
rather than correspondence account of truth which is assumed in Scripture and
by our God-given, common sense.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Scripture and common sense do not accept a
“correspondence account of truth” as opposed to a coherence or pragmatic
theory. Scripture and common sense don’t endorse theories; rather they provide
part of the basis for theories. The correspondence theory is one attempt to
formulate the way we know things, but it is philosophically controversial. In
my </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Doctrine of the Knowledge of God</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (hence DKG) I argue that
correspondence, coherence, and pragmatics, in their best form, are not
incompatible with one another, and, indeed, reduce to one another. We cannot
tell what our ideas “correspond” to unless we have a system of ideas that deals
with various things including the concept of correspondence itself. But
certainly the correspondence theory is right in saying that our ideas must
align with the facts of the world. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph Partain</span></span></u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: “Truth” in our ordinary,
dictionary usage and in Scripture (see, for example, Roger Nicole’s “The
Biblical Concept of Truth” in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Scripture
and Truth</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, edited by Don Carson and John Woodbridge) is defined not as
“what coheres with everything else we believe” (coherence theory) or as “what
works” (pragmatic theory) but as “conformity [or correspondence] to fact [or
reality]” (correspondence theory). The correspondence theory of truth is
distinguished from coherence and pragmatic theories in its attempt to make
interesting or philosophically viable what is otherwise a commonsense, naive,
or non-philosophical understanding of truth. Coherence and pragmatic theories
of truth, on the other hand, are in their pedigree philosophical through and
through. As such, they are interesting and do not need philosophical treatment
to be made so. In addition, these theories originated, significantly, because
of a prior rejection (or as alternatives) to correspondence. They assume,
contrary to a correspondence account, that we cannot have direct and verifiable
knowledge of reality. That is, if correspondence as an understanding of truth
is “controversial” (as you say), the controversy comes not from correspondence
itself — that is, from what most people have always believed about truth — but
from philosophical skepticism (such as what is behind coherence and pragmatic
theories of truth). As Bishop Berkeley says, “We </span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see.” Most of us all the time and the rest of us most of the time believe the air for truth is clear and the seeing is fine. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Now to focus for a moment
specifically on correspondence and coherence: it isn’t that there are no
coherence or pragmatic aspects to truth in a correspondence account, nor that
there are no correspondence or pragmatic aspects to truth in a coherence
account. However, the way one discusses these two theories of truth may well
differ according to whether one has a correspondence or coherence understanding
of truth. (It is apparent, for instance, that this answer to problem #3 derives
from coherence: “</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">We cannot tell what our ideas ‘correspond’ to unless
we have a system of ideas that deals with various things including the concept
of correspondence itself.”) With that said, there is still life outside the
philosopher’s shade, as Hume reminds us. This is where everyone (including all but the most fanatical skeptic) lives and must
live, regardless of their theory of truth. This is where truth conforms to
facts or reality. It’s where we say this is true and that is false. It’s where
the Bible gets written, and Jesus is attested as the Messiah. And, finally, it
explains Peter’s lawyer-like approach in Acts 2 to presenting evidences for the
truth, again, that Jesus is Lord to people who didn’t have biblical or
Christian presuppositions. In conclusion, therefore, it is important to recognize that a correspondence understanding of truth has both a pre-theoretical and theoretical status, and that even in its theoretical status what is being philosophically justified is the same thing: the every day, common sense definition of truth as "conformity to fact or reality."</span></span></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span><br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">As for your statement that Scripture does not endorse theories, I believe we would agree
that Scripture does not have to have a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">theory</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
of history to have an </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">account</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> of history which says something significant about its nature.
The same is true of a theory of ethics or philosophy of
religion. Admittedly, the Bible doesn't approach its subject matter the way the philosophers do who generally begin and end with Man and human experience. (Van Til's major and righteous complaint against philosophy.) However, if one were to argue
that since Scripture offers nothing theoretical as history,
ethics, and religion, it must be subject to the problems and
directions of philosophy in those areas — fill the gap in that sense — we would agree, I think, that such a
person fails to fully honor the primacy or authority of Scripture as truth or knowledge. That is,
whatever philosophy does at the conceptual level in these fields does not give it authority
or precedence over Scripture, because Scripture doesn't handle its subject
matter </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">as the philosophers do</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">. Accordingly, to claim (as you do) that Scripture does not have a correspondence account of truth implies that Scripture reveals truth's <i>content </i>but not truth's <i>concept</i> (as if the concept of a thing does not hold considerable power over the status and shape of its content). And, it seems that, as you view things, this lack opens the way for philosophy to step forward and provide its various theoretical proposals for truth <i>conceptually</i>. With such a supplementation, we get the result of a hybrid of Christianity and philosophy identified in my problems #4 and #5. However, what I said about history is also true of truth itself: Scripture does not have to have a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">theory</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> of truth to have an </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">account</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> or <i>definition</i> of truth which says something significant about its nature. Moreover, just as we would not bend to a philosophy of religion that is looking for some common denominator among religions to determine what religion is, why would we bend to a philosophy of truth that begins and ends with the human mind as if the fear of God is a non-factor? Now I know that Van Tilian presuppositionalism, aware of the problem of this man-centeredness, approaches an idealistic, mind-dependent knowledge of reality (what one finds among the most famous modern philosophers), surgically removes the human aspect of that dependence, and replaces such with the mind of the Christ (known through Scripture and a regenerate heart). But the problem is that knowledge never has been nor will be <i>mind-dependent</i> to the extent that Descartes, Kant, and other modern philosophers in the epistemological idealist camp thought. Furthermore, by remedying a wrong problem with a right solution in this manner, Van Til created something that Scripture doesn't recognize: the denial that the unregenerate have knowledge at all or have a common basis with the regenerate for truth which includes the role of evidences and facts to establish that truth. </span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></span>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 23.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 23.25pt 0in 0in; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">4.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism is a
relatively new, twentieth-century doctrine, philosophical in nature
and unknown to the apostles and prophets through whom God gave us the
Scriptures.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: The apostles and prophets were not philosophers,
so they did not develop philosophical theories of knowledge. But of course
later theological reflection legitimately tries to analyze and apply the
implications of what the apostles and prophets taught. So theologians talk
about the “Trinity,” though you will not find that term in the Bible. The
question is whether the idea of the Trinity is consistent with what the Bible
teaches and whether it helps us in understanding the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Same with epistemological theories. The Bible doesn’t mention presuppositions,
let alone presuppositionalism, but many of us have made the case that
presuppositionalism is helpful in formulating what is implicit in the biblical
doctrine, e.g. of revelation.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Why weren’t the apostles and prophets philosophers?</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Why didn’t they at least make some effort to integrate the ideas
of the philosophers with what God had revealed in Scripture? A historical
review of Western philosophy clearly shows that modern and postmodern ideas
today — even if more advanced — are quite similar to ideas that go back to the
ancient Greek thinkers, such as, Plato, Pyrrho, Protagorus, and the Sophists. These
ideas would have been available to educated Jews in the time of Jesus and his
apostles. Paul certainly would have been familiar with such. Why did Jesus and the
apostles ignore the philosophers, except when having to deal with their errors?
Is it not because they believed Scripture (or special revelation) was sufficient
for their faith and practice? What am I saying? There was enough in the
philosophical tradition in the days of the apostles and prophets for them to
have devised a quite similar doctrine to presuppositionalism for apologetics in
their time. Yet they didn’t. One can’t even imagine the apostles and prophets
directing the church to consider what the philosophers are saying on this or
that matter. Surely what they didn’t do in that respect should carry more
weight with us today.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;">The more troubling aspect of this recognition that "the apostles and prophets were not philosophers" is an implication that these men weren't as sophisticated about truth as they could have been had they been philosophers. And when a presuppositionalist considers that Peter appealed to common evidences and facts in Acts 2, would this not seem to indicate that he didn't know the presuppositional nature of truth? And wouldn't Peter's confident use of evidence and reason in that same sermon qualify him as a "modernist" (as presuppositionalists say of one who makes such an appeal)? </span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">As for comparing
presuppositionalism with the doctrine of the Trinity: presuppositionalism (as
reflecting a coherence view of truth) is simply not in the Bible the way the
doctrine of the Trinity is. The doctrine of the Trinity identifies and accounts
for what is there in many places of Scripture. Presuppositionalism, on the
other hand, first, denies in Scripture the presence of a common sense notion of
truth as what corresponds to reality (see my response under problem #3 above),
and, second, imports its own alien philosophical idea into Scripture, namely,
that we cannot know reality directly due to finitude and/or sin and must have
biblical or Christian presuppositions to have facts, truth, or knowledge in
general. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">5.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism, as a doctrinal
mixture of philosophy and Christian Reformed theology, violates a
cardinal principle which is perhaps most distinctive to that theology,
namely, sola Scriptura (or Scripture </span><u><span style="font-size: x-large;">alone</span></u><span style="font-size: x-large;"> as the basis for
our faith and practice).</span></span></i></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Presuppositionalism seeks to show precisely why
and how we must base our teaching on Scripture alone. You may prefer
“correspondence” or “evidentialism” or “Classical apologetics.” But those
systems are no less philosophical than presuppositionalism, and they are no
less controversial. All of them go beyond Scripture in the LANGUAGE they use.
All of them seek to defend sola Scriptura. What presuppositionalism says about
sola Scriptura is that we should develop our doctrines in a way that renounces
autonomy and recognizes only Scripture as the foundation of human thinking. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: To clarify, problem #5 is speaking of the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">derivation </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">composition</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> of presuppositionalism — </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">not</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
the role presuppositionalism assigns to Scripture in relation to knowledge. <i>The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms</i> rightly defines presuppositionalism as "a philosophical approach to theology." Without philosophy (particularly Van Til's Reformed and interpretive appropriation of epistemological idealism) presuppositionalism would not exist. It is in that sense presuppositionalism violates <i>sola Scriptura</i>. As
for the claim, "presuppositionalism seeks to show precisely why and how we must base our teaching on Scripture alone," presuppositionalism may seem to honor Scripture in that way but there
is still a problem: Presuppositionalism teaches what Scripture itself does
not, namely, that without Scripture one lacks “the foundation of human thinking.”
Consequently, presuppositionalism simply goes too far. It exaggerates the Bible’s
own claim as truth. There is a significant difference between the claim that Scripture is
able to make us “wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15), and the claim that
without Scripture we have no basis to know anything. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">6.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism boldly recasts
what the Bible says is fundamentally a problem of sin as a
problem of knowing.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: No. Sin affects every area of human life,
including knowing. The fall affected the </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">thought</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> of Adam and Eve, not
just their actions. Evil actions, indeed, flowed from evil thoughts. So Paul
says that sinful man “represses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1). The
Gospel reorients both our thoughts and our actions to serve Jesus as Lord. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Again, my explanation of this problem clarifies
what I mean. I did not deny that sin affects the mind, nor would I hesitate to affirm
that “the Gospel reorients both our thoughts and our actions to serve Jesus as
Lord.” Rather, I said Romans 1-3 presents the universal problem of mankind not
as a problem of knowing or that people cannot know things in general. Paul says
nothing about how people have the wrong presuppositions, and, therefore, have
no basis for rational thought. Rather, he declares that all are under sin. The
Law, Paul says, was given to impart the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">knowledge</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
of sin (Romans 3:20). If one follows Paul’s argument closely, one observes that
he is calling attention </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">not </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">to what
people </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">can’t know</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> due to their wrong
presuppositions but to what indeed </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">they
do know</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, namely, that they have not kept the Law. Whether it is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">the knowledge</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> implied in the conscience
of a Gentile (Romans 2:1-16) or a Jew needing to confess </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">the knowledge</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> that having the Law hasn’t made him any less a sinner
than the Gentiles (Romans 2:17-29), Paul is concerned not with epistemology (again,
what people need to know anything at all) but soteriology (what people </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">who know</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> they are sinners need to be
saved). This shift from soteriology to
epistemology is particularly evident in Van Til’s expression: “we are born
again unto knowledge.” However, the gospel was not given by the Lord to be an
answer to a problem for knowing raised by the misguided, mind-centered knowing
of certain modern philosophers. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">7.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism claims that apart
from regeneration in Christ and the Scriptures people cannot know or
convey truth truly or objectively.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Rom. 1 tells us that non-believers know God
clearly from the things he has made. So in fact they CAN know truth truly and
objectively. So Jesus commends the teaching of the Pharisees, telling us to
believe what they say, but not to do what they do. The problem is not so much
with their knowledge as with what they do with it. Paul says that these
nonbelievers “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” So that actually their
thinking is a mess. Sometimes the truth they know bubbles up, and they admit
it; other times they deny what they know deep in their hearts. Only
regeneration in Christ and the Scriptures can restrain this suppression of the
truth. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: If unbelievers or the unregenerate “CAN know truth
truly and objectively,” it would seem that (1) neither finitude nor the effects
of sin on the mind keep them from knowing things in general; (2) they can know
things that may not fit their presuppositions (that knowledge is not entirely
presuppositional); and, hence (3), they could be persuaded (for instance) by
the argumentative case Peter is making in Acts 2 — based on evidence and reason
— that Jesus is Lord. That is, if they can know truth “truly and objectively,”
would that not mean that there is, at least, some common or neutral ground for
truth or facts between a believer and unbeliever? If that is so,
presuppositionalism is no longer presuppositionalism. It is just a commonplace,
though helpful, insight that our presuppositions tend to influence (not wholly
determine) what we know. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">8.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism weakens by
implication the church's public stance for truth.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: On the “public stance,” see my answer to question
one. Since the events of salvation were public events, the apostles proclaimed
them in public. We should do the same today, and no presuppositionalist denies
this. </span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Since I respond to this answer about the “public”
nature of truth under problem #1, I will elaborate a bit on this problem
itself. If due to an acceptance of presuppositionalism God’s people believe
that unbelievers don’t have the presuppositions necessary to know truth, then
there will be an understandable or logical tendency to be silent on matters
like abortion or same-sex marriage or other evils in society. To be sure, as
the church, we are not here to condemn the world. Our mission is to bring to
our world the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ who died for
our sins. Our mission is to love people into the kingdom. However, love includes
standing up for the truth and calling things what they are as God sees them or
as clearly set forth in Scripture. This includes defending truth when it is
under assault. On the other hand, if one is convinced that unbelievers don’t
even have a basis for rational thought — if they believe that truth is relative
to one’s presuppositions — then what sense would there be in speaking out
publicly on issues like those just mentioned? </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">9.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism indirectly confirms
the relativism of our age by affirming that truth is relative to Christian
presuppositions.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Not true. Presuppositionalism emphasizes strongly
that the Gospel is objective. Now of course, when someone comes to the Gospel
with ungodly presuppositions, he can make it look bad. In that situation (as in
the case of Hume, question 2 above) we insist that the objective truth must be
understood by the objectively true biblical epistemology. God has revealed in
history who Jesus is and what he has done. He has also revealed (objectively)
how we should think about it. It is not very helpful; to say that truth is
“relative to Christian presuppositions,” though with sufficient analysis that
statement can be affirmed. Better to say that truth is objectively fixed in the
mind of God, and that we must believe it as God has revealed it to us. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: I did not say there is no claim of objective truth
for the gospel in a presuppositional (or coherence) approach to the truth. But
what it claims as objective, however strong, is only as strong as an internal
or subjective coherence can bring to a belief system. A correspondence view
(whether non-philosophical or philosophical), on the other hand, is stronger in
its objectivity as a claim for truth, because it holds that truth is “out there”
and reliably knowable for everyone. Of course, a coherence approach denies there is any
such objectivity on those terms, but, I think, one who embraces that theory would have to admit,
nevertheless, that if there were, it would offer a stronger objectivity than a
coherence account of truth. It is also worth noting, here, that when I claim
that presuppositionalism holds that “truth is relative to Christian
presuppositions,” the answer, though qualified, ultimately comes back: “with
sufficient analysis that statement can be affirmed.” Hence, if “sufficient
analysis” is done such that this claim holds true, then what I state about how
presuppositionalism indirectly supports the relativism of our age would seem
also to hold true. So, as I’ve said elsewhere in these posts, when an
unbeliever who already believes that truth is relative says “no thank you” to a presuppositionalist’s proposal that truth is relative to a Christian worldview, they will walk away from that conversation all the more
confirmed in their relativism. What they need to hear, on the other hand, is that there is objective truth that everyone can know and on that basis God has made a case for the verdict that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 29.25pt 8pt 63.3pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">10.</span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Presuppositionalism
burdens uneducated (and even educated) persons in the church
both here in America and throughout the world with obscure problems
about knowledge or truth that they are in no position
to understand or evaluate.</span></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">John
Frame</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: Presuppositionalism is no less philosophical or
technical than any other epistemology. It raises no problems that rationalism,
empiricism, correspondence, coherence, pragmatism don’t also raise. It just
answers those questions differently. It does not require uneducated people to
study philosophy. It only points out that anyone who wants to be a disciple of
Jesus must apply his lordship to all areas of his life. If you are a telephone
lineman, you should do that to the glory of God. If you are a homemaker, the
same. If you are a philosopher, then you should seek to do that to God’s glory.
But there is no reason why everyone must be a philosopher, any more than that
everyone should be a homemaker. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 29.25pt; margin-top: 0in;">
<u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Joseph
Partain</span></span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-size: x-large;">: My explanation of problem #10 clarifies what I
mean. First, as I explained under problem #3, the common sense understanding of
truth one finds in every day life and Scripture itself is not in itself,
strictly speaking, an epistemology. From that standpoint, it is not only </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">less</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> philosophical or technical than
other epistemologies, it is, indeed, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">not </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">philosophical
or technical at all. When a witness is sworn in to tell the truth under a court
room proceeding, it isn’t necessary to ask the witness what epistemology he
supports. We know the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie.
Now if one were to ask that witness to define “presuppositionalism” or a
“coherence theory of truth,” it would be a different matter. A common sense
view of truth is mankind’s default understanding of truth. It requires no
philosophical justification. Consequently, to claim that all approaches to
truth are equally philosophical, controversial, or technical is to speak from
an incomplete and thus distorted account of our experience of knowing. Or: it
is to speak from within the whirl of dust the philosophers have raised, as if
there were no clear air anywhere. Second, problem #10 is not settled by a
vocational appeal, for instance, whether one is called to be a homemaker or a
philosopher. The point is that the homemaker and lineman are having to deal with
these things, particularly, if they are learning from their well meaning,
presuppositionalist pastor that their unbelieving neighbors don’t have a basis
for rational thought. Or they are taught that there are no “neutral facts” — no
common, objective ground for truth between them and their unbelieving
neighbors. Or that truth is relative to one’s presuppositions or perspective. If
they aimed to be noble as the Bereans, where would they go as they are
searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so? (I am thinking, in particular here, of the possible influence of presuppositionalism over the rapidly growing church in Africa, China, South America, etc.) </span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: 24.0pt;"><br />
<br />
</span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="font-size: small;"></span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></div>
</div>
J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-35638273000418568592016-02-20T04:18:00.002-08:002016-02-20T04:27:02.118-08:00The Gospel Coalition's Claim that There Is No Christ-Honoring Common Ground for Objective Truth between a Believer and Unbeliever (Part 3)<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">In my last post, I stated that the claim that
there is no common objective ground (no neutrality or, as Van Til says, “point
of contact”) between a believer and unbeliever is inseparable from the claim
that there are no “brute facts.” I argued that this view (what I also called
“hard presuppositionalism” or “epistemological idealism”) conflicts with our common—actual
and routine—experience of knowing. We can indeed, as I suggested, observe and
identify the properties of things </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in
themselves</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. I called this Interpretation 1 and illustrated it with a
lectern, beef stew, and a toothpick. Our knowing, then, as humans is not
confined, exhausted, or totally determined by our presuppositions, as “hard
presuppositionalism” (or what I called Interpretation 2) maintains. Put
differently, there is a decisive role for the non-mental (that is, external
reality itself) in determining truth, which means that reality has a physical,
non-mental, or material aspect to it that is what it is objectively regardless
of what the human mind attempts to make of it subjectively. </span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As
is perhaps evident by now, my general concern is that the adoption of this kind
of integration of philosophy with Christianity/Reformed theology was not, in
the first place, critical </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">enough</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> from
a biblical standpoint. I suggested earlier that in a quest to enhance Reformed
theology, philosophy in its arrogance seemed to offer an understanding of
knowing so centered and absolute in the human mind (“all knowledge is human
knowledge”) that were one to substitute that centeredness with the mind of God
(“all knowledge is divine”—and known for believers through regeneration and
Scripture), it would seem to glorify God all the more. One could extend,
thereby, the dimension of sin to include a problem of unknowing in general due
to the absence of knowing God’s mind. Consequently, the gospel would be
construed as first addressing this problem of unknowing by putting in place
what Christians believe (based on Scripture) as the condition for knowing
anything at all. The only problem, however (as I’ve been arguing), is that the
theory so used to create this hybrid of philosophy and Christian/Reformed theology
is itself wrong or untrue to the nature of the reality of knowing as we commonly
experience it. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> There
is, however (and as already indicated), another (even more important) test on
which, I trust, we may agree: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Whatever
our epistemology, if we find that it is inconsistent with biblical assumptions
or apostolic practice pertaining to truth, should we not prayerfully reconsider
it?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> That is, if the hybrid doctrine of Christian/Reformed theology and
philosophy I’ve been examining is true and from God, would it not have always
been so? Would it not, therefore, be reflected in biblical assumptions or
apostolic practice? Or are we as the church today claiming to know something
about the nature of truth that the apostles and prophets didn’t know—that the
Spirit never guided them to recognize in Scripture? Moreover, did the church
have to wait until that succession of modern philosophers from Descartes to
Kant (the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries)—wait even longer until Van Til
interpreted them for Christian/Reformed purposes in the twentieth century—to
get an upgrade on how best to glorify God in its apologetics? That is, did the
church wait almost two thousand years before it discovered that there are no
“brute facts,” that external reality (or objective truth) is not directly
knowable, that there is no public or universal truth for—no common or neutral
ground between—believers and unbelievers? If so, do the Scriptures truly make
“the man of God” complete, fully prepared for every good work? If so, what
about the work of defending the faith? And do we truly have the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">whole</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> counsel of God in Scripture (the
assumption behind the historic Reformation appeal to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sola Scriptura</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">)? Or did the church have to wait, late in its
history, until certain philosophers came along to inform us (with the help of
Christian/Reformed theology) that there cannot be common ground for truth
between a believer and unbeliever? If so, what else will the church learn in
the future from the philosophers? And should we not be encouraging the church
to start reading the philosophers—not just the Bible—to build ourselves up in our
most holy faith? If we as the church, for lack of philosophical insight, have
been always so deficient in understanding on such an important matter throughout
our long history, why would we not get wise to the situation and start devoting
outselves not only to the apostles’ but also</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
the philosophers’</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> teaching?</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I
don’t believe that TGC council members would support that. But, sadly, even in
Christian/Reformed academic circles (colleges and seminaries) one often finds
the view that philosophers are the experts on things like knowledge and truth,
because it is thought that the Bible simply has nothing to say about such
things. This is why we may not discern the nuance in a statement like that made
by TGC, when it says (at its website under its Confessional Statement on
“Revelation”) that Scripture is “final in its authority over every domain of
knowledge </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">to which it speaks </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[emphasis
mine—jnp].” I mean that for Christians who respect the Bible as God’s Word and,
hence, authoritative and final as truth over all the fields of learning, it may
not be readily understood that there are Christian leaders and scholars (and I
am not implicating TGC here but just speaking generally) who might say things
like: “Yes, the Bible is the final judge and standard of truth in our belief
and practice but the Bible does not intend to give us knowledge about things
like how the world began (cosmology) or what we are to do with the
philosopher’s questions about knowing (epistemology).” That is, if it has been
determined that the Bible does not speak to a particular domain of knowledge
(let’s say, a scientific or philosophical theory), then it is perceived as
having no authority </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truth on that
matter. (As someone has said, “the Bible is not a little black book of
theories.”) </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> However,
one problem with this approach to biblical authority in relation to the various
fields of learning is that apparently it assumes the Bible has to raise certain
questions and deal with them as the various fields of learning do in order to
be understood as offering knowledge on such. We seem to be claiming that if on
any question the Bible does not play, for instance, philosophy’s games or dance
to its theoretical melody (didn’t Jesus encounter that sort of challenge in his
public ministry?), then, again, it doesn’t have anything to say in that regard.
But does the Bible, for example, have to treat ethics the way philosophy does
to have a divinely authoritative position on ethics? Does the Bible have to
theorize about history as philosophers do to have a divinely normative
philosophy of history? (Obviously, Augustine didn’t think so.) And more
pertinently, does the Bible have to entertain the questions philosophers have
about knowing in order to have a view—even a decisive and normative one—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">about knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Here
is my concern: if we let philosophy, based on its methods, set the standard for
what qualifies as real or true knowledge, then it isn’t just truth which is at
stake (as if that were not enough!) but </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">nothing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Christians believe is safe. For instance, the Bible never handles the question
of whether one person can die for others (what is central to the atonement of
Christ) in the sophisticated manner Kant does in his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Does the Bible have a
theory on this matter? It does not in the sense that it does not treat this
subject matter as Kant does. But does it have a position on such? I’m sure we
would agree that it certainly does. On the other hand, what is the conclusion
of Kant’s philosophical treatment of this particular question? That as a matter
of justice, the vicarious suffering and death of one man on behalf of others is
simply not rational. As such, therefore, the doctrine of Christ’s atonement is,
on Kant’s account, unworthy of an enlightened human race.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> There
are many other things to be considered on this question of biblical authority,
epistemology, and philosophy. But this is not the appropriate context to
enlarge on such. However, I could not proceed with a presentation of biblical
assumptions and apostolic practice without anticipating a dismissal of
everything I am about to say based on a prior decision that the Bible has
nothing to say about epistemology. What this tends to mean, as just stated, is
that philosophy will in some sense (however slight or limited) occupy the
driver’s seat for epistemology. The net result will be the real risk that
certain biblical prerequisites for the self-disclosure of the God of truth to
people on earth will be altered, adversely affecting the dynamics of its
reception at the level of human knowing itself. Whereas Christian conservatives
today, thankfully, are quick to stand against schemes that charge the Bible
with errors—knowing the negative effect this would have for confidence that we
can know God and his will—we seem naive or strangely gullible to the possibility
that essentially the very same loss occurs when we accept philosophy’s
skepticism (cloaked as “Reformed theology”) about human knowing itself.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But
I leave that topic and proceed by restating the question already introduced: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Whatever our epistemology, if we find that
it is inconsistent with biblical assumptions or apostolic practice pertaining
to truth, should we not prayerfully reconsider it?</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Biblical
Assumptions about Knowing</span></b></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Let’s
consider, first, biblical assumptions. As already stated in different ways (such
as my tri-level illustration for knowledge) that the Bible clearly and
consistently treats truth similarly to the way we understand truth in a court
room or every day life: it is knowable, can be discovered through evidence and
witnesses, can be (contrary to Phillips) reliably known and carried
successfully by humans to others, etc. For example, the ninth commandment which
forbids bearing false witness about one's neighbor and implies positively a
command to bear true witness (be faithful or reliable </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">agents of truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) that way presents us with a God who is not so much
concerned (as philosophers are) with the question of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">how</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> we know as much as he is with </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> we know—and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what we do
with what we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. From that standpoint, there may even be a problem with
bearing false witness about knowing itself—that is, what we indeed do know and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know that we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> under God's common
grace (as quoted earlier, what Calvin calls “common experience”) outside the
philosopher's shade—under which, I repeat, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">neither
the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament apostles ever sat.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This
seems especially true if our questions about knowing are encouraging us as
Christians to bury our epistemic talent or not act on or be faithful to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—or be fully engaged in
making it known (talking, reasoning, preaching, etc.) to others—perhaps because
we think our Lord, like many philosophers, is a hard epistemological
taskmaster. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Unquestionably,
Scripture presents everywhere on its sacred pages an epistemic confidence about
ordinary knowing and truth-telling in general. Indeed, the Bible assumes what
is called “epistemological realism” throughout its pages. By the latter, I mean
the view that, first, knowing is not just mental but also physical in
nature—that contrary to Descartes and others in the modern tradition, the
relationship between the mind and the body (or physical world) is not so
substantially different that there is no overlap, connection, or relatability
between them. As you know (and I often tell my students), quite different from
the ancient Greek thinkers to whom Western philosophy is greatly
indebted—Hebrew epistemology is “the kind of knowing that makes babies.” (I
might add: one doesn’t make a baby by thinking about it.) Second, by
“epistemological realism” I mean that knowing involves, positively, a
correspondence, accord, or match between the mind and the body (or physical
world) such that by God’s common grace (being made in his image and sustained
by his goodness) we ordinarily and reliably do know the truth—and can tell the
truth—about many things. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This
God-given ability for truth is also implied in the assumed integrity of the
relationship between simple seeing and knowing in the quite significant role of
the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">witness</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in relation to God’s
standard method of establishing truth. That is, for instance (and as we know),
under the Law of Moses every charge had to be established by the testimony of
two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). Now if we consider an answer
to a particular query concerning truth as similar to ascertaining what
something weighs, we might say that having “two or three witnesses” to confirm
the truth of a matter is what God has appointed as scales for weighing it. Accordingly, if “a false balance is an
abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight” (Prov. 11:1), would
it not follow that if truth by virtue of human finitude (not to speak of sin)
is necessarily “subjective,” “partial,” or “selective” and that even one
witness, on that account, would be defective for ascertaining truth—not to
speak of the additional problems that would result from compounding the
testimony of two or three persons thus defective—wouldn’t God, in that case, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">hate</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—certainly not command—reliance upon
such witnesses to weigh the truth of a matter? Is there not, therefore, an
implied divine, though qualified,</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
vote of confidence here in the “scales” of human knowing? And are we not even
called by God to recognize, if not uphold, that epistemic confidence when as a
church we follow the Lord’s instruction requiring two or three witnesses to
confirm any charge (2 Cor. 13:1)?</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What
all this clearly implies, from a biblical standpoint, is that there must be in
some sense a reliable overlap in what the philosophers call “substance” between
levels one and two (respectively, body and mind) of my earlier tri-structure
illustration for knowing. However, as we know, this is precisely what Descartes
in his own epistemology rejects from the outset in favor of his mind-body
dualism (as inseparable from his subjectivity with all its problems for truth).
Nonetheless, this philosophically innocent relationship of simple seeing with
knowing is necessary, from a biblical standpoint, to give epistemic weight or
value to what a witness knows. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Hence,
in contrast to the foundational, first-person knowing (the “I think therefore I
am”) of Descartes and his modern successors, the Bible is third-person oriented
throughout. The Bible teaches us to say: “God is, therefore, I am.” It teaches
us to look away from ourselves—not within—to get to the foundation for
knowledge. “Thus saith the Lord,” as the prophets declared, is integral to
their task as witnesses for God—a third-person way of speaking.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Or: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” is, again, a
third-person way of knowing. We begin not with ourselves but God—one who is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">other to us</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. In short, God is the
foundation for knowledge that Descartes exchanges for his own subjective consciousness.
As knowers, we always open our eyes, first of all, to the God who powerfully
shines through all that he has made. We hear what is written, “In the
beginning, God made the heavens and the earth.” Babies see, first of all, not
themselves but their mothers. Life is objectively oriented by nature. It takes
deliberate, contrived, self-conscious effort to become (allegedly for the sake
of knowledge) introvertedly subjective in the manner of a Descartes and the
entire modern, philosophical tradition that succeeds him. By virtue of
creation, knowledge does not come that way to us naturally. All this
third-person confidence for knowing throughout Scripture, to be sure, is why
one also finds there, as already indicated, the significant, mostly problem-free
role of witnesses for establishing truth. Indeed, such a confirmation for truth
is designedly not subjectively centered but, as just indicated, depends on at
least two or three persons who are objectively other to us. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Unsurprisingly,
this is also why modern philosophy in the tradition of Descartes undermines the
role of the witness (this plays out even more in Locke and Hume); it is because
its own first-person knowing (whether rationally based as in Descartes or
empirically based as in Locke and Hume) provides its foundational confidence
for what it knows. This is why the famous question as to whether or not other
persons even exist arose in the first place. If their very existence is in
question, where does that leave their testimony to truth as witnesses? Hence,
anything (the external world, other persons, etc.) outside that inner,
subjective consciousness amounts to a reality radically less certain and
ultimately unverifiable objectively as truth.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> On
the other hand, under Hebrew realism, there is no such skepticism. For
instance, this is evident in the original word for “witness,” which is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">ed</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. This word means simply: “to repeat”
or “re-assert.” The implication is that a “witness” has the epistemic potential
or ability to make what they have experienced as reliable knowledge (or truth) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">occur again</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in a sense for others </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">through words</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. It is not complicated. In
the Greek, the word for “witness” is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">martus</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
which means, “one who attests to or reports what he has seen or heard.” It can
be applied to a person, such as what was required of an apostle in Acts 1:22,
namely, that he had seen Jesus after he was raised from dead. The implication
is that, when someone sees or hears something related to a case where truth is
needed and yet is uncertain (as in a court of law), a witness tells, repeats,
or attests to what they know (along with evidence and testimony from other
witnesses) as part of a discovery process designed to ascertain that truth.
Hence, I offer the following definition: </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">A
“witness” is one who by the ordinary powers of intelligence or perception has
seen or heard something and therefore knows something of interest—occupies the
role of an agent for truth in that
regard—and offers it as testimony to others in a particular veridical quest.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">When I speak of a
“witness” as one who “has seen or heard something and therefore knows
something,” I mean, to go a bit deeper, that in the Bible and everyday knowing,
there is an operating assumption which both modern and postmodern philosophy
reject, namely, that we as humans made in God’s image have a direct (or
unmediated), epistemically reliable relationship to external reality.
Philosophers in the modern-postmodern mold deny that there is an “immediate
beholding” between a knower and the known. They maintain that our “beholding”
is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">mediate</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or that all knowing is
mediated by subjective ideas, representations, or “sense data.” That is, the
only direct relationship had between the mind and its world are these inner
states or conditions which supposedly derive in part from the real world but
mostly have more to do with the way our minds subjectively process things.
Consequently, on this view (as I’ve been saying), how we process or interpret
external reality cannot be checked against that reality itself. This has been
called the “egocentric predicament” or the “categorio-centric predicament.” The
former holds that knowing is centered in (or locked into) the ego, while the
latter maintains that the way our minds see or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">categorize</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> the world is not something we can escape or get outside
of to verify if how we see things truly corresponds to the way things really
are.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">However, one has only to
insert such a skeptical notion into a biblical context to see how alien it is
to the confidence for knowing one commonly finds there. Imagine, for example,
Moses responding to the Lord’s “What is that in your hand?,” with: “I have a
categorio-centric predicament, Lord. I don’t know what’s in my hand.” Or:
imagine Jesus Christ saying something like, "It seems to me (though I realize
others may have a different perspective on this) that I am the way, the truth,
and the life." Or: what if John the Baptist said: "To my mind, you
perhaps may want to think through the possibilities of repentance; for it
appears to me (and this may just be me talking here but) many people in our
culture seem to feel that there is a high degree of probability that the
kingdom of heaven is—all things being equal—at hand!"? Or: consider what a
more skeptical apostle Paul might say in his last letter to Timothy: “My dear
Timothy, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to claim either that ‘</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> whom I have believed,’ or that ‘</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I am convinced </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that he is able to guard
until that Day what has been entrusted to me.’ I will only say that, in my
view, what really counts, in the midst of all my doubts and uncertainties about
God and everything else, is to just keep believing. Faith is, as I’ve often said,
what you do when you don’t know. Do you understand, Timothy? We </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">make</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> the road we are walking.” </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">As I was saying, there is
a strong biblical emphasis on the role of the “witness” in relation to truth.
There is also something interesting about its composition as a word. It
combines “wit,” which, as we know, means (among other things), “a knower or
something that conveys knowledge,” and “ness,” which is a suffix meaning “the
quality or state of something.” In the current, skeptical atmosphere, it might
be helpful, therefore, instead of “witness” to employ a somewhat awkward
expression, such as, “a knower in state.” Keeping in mind my earlier
definition, what I mean by a “knower in state” is someone who we have grounds
to believe is in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">a state of knowing or
truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> with respect to a particular matter—one which is of particular
interest to others who do not have that same knowledge, and for whom the
absence of that knowledge has created a problem or urgent need. Of course, I
would be quick to recognize that there are problems with witnesses (imperfect
memory, lying, wrong motives, a political agenda, etc.). However, the Bible,
our court system, and every day life (for example, reporting the news or what
happened at school or who said what on the political stage) all provide
contemporary weight and justification for the ongoing and important role of
witnesses. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Henceforth, also, I will
mostly use the expression “knower in state” instead of “witness” as I consider
the use of this important word in Scripture to emphasize the importance of
truth as objective, reliable, or trustworthy knowledge both in terms of God’s
self-disclosure and in what Scripture assumes about what humans can have or
grasp as truth both generally and particularly with respect to the truth of the
gospel. That is, contrary to Phillips’ statement that “with the postmoderns, we
are skeptical that finite, fallible humans are the agents of truth,”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
the Bible assumes that humans are and can be such agents in situations where
public truth is needed. My purpose in all this is to juxtapose biblical
assumptions or confidence in objective knowing with what I interpret as
Phillips’ (and TGC’s) variety of biblically qualified skepticism or
subjectivism, as I seek from TGC a reason or justification for this disparity.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I begin with what God says
about himself: "I am the one who knows, and I am a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knower in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, declares the Lord" (Jere. 29:23). Here God
equates “one who knows” with a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knower in
state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Moreover, that God is all-knowing in his role as a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knower in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is spoken of elsewhere
in this way: "The eyes of the LORD
are in every place" (Prov. 15:3); or in another verse, "all are naked
and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Heb. 4:13).
In this anthropomorphic understanding of what it means to know (and, again,
contrary to what many philosophers believe), </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">seeing is knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—that is, there is an implied successful or
reliable correlation between physical seeing and mental seeing such that truth
or knowledge is the result. Of course, it isn’t that this correlation is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">always </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">right or always results in
reliable knowledge; rather, that there is the assumption that it </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">ordinarily</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> does so when there aren’t
internal and external conditions that might distort perception (such as drunkenness,
intent to lie, darkness, etc.).</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Obviously, as already
stated, God's self-description here is an anthropomorphism. Importantly,
however, it is an anthropomorphism God has chosen to make himself known to us.
It indicates a direct relationship between human seeing and knowing, I say,
which seems to have an integrity </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sufficient</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
to provide an apt analogy for God's own knowing. Similarly, we see this same
correlation of seeing and knowing when Jesus says to Nicodemus: "we speak
of what we know, and bear </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in
state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony" (Jn.
3:11). Or John the Baptist's description of his task of testifying to Christ:
"I have seen and borne </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in
state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that this is the Son of God" (Jn. 1:34). Conversely, if there
were (as many philosophers maintain) a radical problem for human knowing, such
that there is no simple or unmediated seeing, would God have used this
anthromorphism to disclose the certainty of his own knowing? More to the point,
if Phillips were right that human finitude in itself means that human knowledge
of truth is only and always “subjective,” “selective,” and “partial”—if this
sort of errancy was the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">constitutive</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
state for mental seeing (that is: “seeing is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> reliable knowing”)—again, would God have borrowed this feature
of what it means to be human to assure us that he, too, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sees and knows</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I realize that there is an
immediate counter to this last statement: “Yes, but God also uses
anthropomorphic features like anger to reveal himself but in no way associates
himself with the humanly negative or sinful aspects of such.” This is true. But
when that occurs, Scripture tends to make such clear or obvious. For instance,
there is a human anger which is righteous (“Be angry but sin not; don’t let the
sun go down on your wrath”—Eph. 4:26) and unrighteous (“the anger of man does
not produce the righteousness of God”—Jas. 1:20). However, Scripture </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">never</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> identifies constitutive or innate
human problems with seeing and knowing (or pertaining to physical and mental
seeing) itself—that is, problems pertaining to every day matters of observation
and truth, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in the manner of the
philosophers. </span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Now,
to take this a step further, as one considers the way in which God discloses
himself in the Bible, it is also apparent that he condescends to people on
earth by placing himself on trial not only through his Son in an actual trial
with its subsequent verdict and ultimate result but also epistemically with
respect to his truth as revealed in the Bible concerning his Son. Although in
his sovereignty, God could have simply declared his Word and left it to the
Holy Spirit to confirm that word directly as his Word in the hearts of his
people, God did not do that. Undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit does confirm the Word
to the heart but does so, according to God’s own counsel, in conjunction with
and through his own appointed evidence, testimony, or witnesses</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">of various kinds. I repeat: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">by God’s own sovereign design, he has not
appointed his truth to be believed based </span><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">merely</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> on his own authority as
God or the internal witness or work of the Holy Spirit. </span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">W</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">e may think that this is unworthy or
unspiritual of God as God to do such a thing—that is, to make himself subject
to such a trial. We may say to ourselves, "All God has to do is tell me
something. I don't need evidence for it. I don’t need his miracles. I don’t
need his witnesses. His Word is true, and that's all I need." But if God </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">himself </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">has sovereignly given such
evidence and summoned us to this trial, who are we to reject what God has
appointed? Admittedly, it is wrong to put God to the test, for example, in the
way that Satan tempted Jesus to jump off the temple so as to confirm that God
would catch him. On the other hand, when God commands us to test him, for example,
in the giving of tithes and his promise to bless us for such or when he says,
"Taste and see that the Lord is good," it amounts to sin or unbelief
if we don’t. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Moreover,
this kind of testing as testimony or confirmation of his truth is consistent in
general with God's way of dealing with us.
For example, when Paul says to those in Lystra, "He did not leave
himself without </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">"
(Acts 14:17), this is true not just when it comes to God's faithfulness to
maintain seasons of the year but true in general of God's entire way of
revealing himself through the prophets and the apostles: That is Heaven's first century verdict issued
by the apostles beginning at Jerusalem and spreading throughout the entire
world, namely, that Jesus is God's Messiah, came through apostles who had been
prepared and appointed by God to be </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers
in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—people who had seen and who knew things about Jesus of Nazareth,
the way other people know things by hearing and seeing and touching (see 1 Jn.
1:1-3). Jesus had said to the apostles:
"You will be my </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth"
(Acts 1:8; see also Acts 10:41). </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Furthermore,
their role as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or
“agents for truth” was simply the last stage in which God spoke to the world
through His Son who is himself identified as "the faithful </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knower in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">" (Rev. 1:5). The
apostolic testimony as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
had itself been preceeded by over 1,500 years of testimony in which God spoke
through the prophets who were also God's </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers
in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> for the coming Messiah: "To Him all the prophets bear </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">" (Acts 10:43). </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Having
heard this, someone once objected that the apostles were given by the Spirit
special faculties of hearing and seeing. They were made infallible, therefore,
not merely in what they taught or wrote but also in the use of their senses.
God gave them abilities different from the rest of us. Hence, when they saw
Jesus after his resurrection, what they saw, heard, and touched—their ability
to exercise sensory perception—was supernatural. And this is what commends
their testimony as witnesses and makes it reliable. Now I hope the problem such
a hypothesis presents is obvious. Besides the fact that this shows how far some
have gone to accommodate modern and postmodern skepticism and that Scripture
nowhere indicates that the apostles had special sensory powers, the more
significant problem with such a proposal is that the only reason a witness has
a role in discovering or confirming the truth in relation to others (in quest
of the same) is as a kind of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">surrogate
knower</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> for them.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
That is, there is a fundamental assumption behind the role of a witness in
helping us arrive at the truth of a matter: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">such
a person knows what they know in the same way others could have known had they
been there to witness the same things.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As I stated at the beginning, if a
witness claims a special knowing for sensory matters, their testimony is not
useful for attaining the needed truth (that is, the judge would throw it out).
This is because, in that case, for everyone else (the judge, the other
attorney, the jury, etc.), the problem of what they need to know gets
compounded by the introduction of a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way
of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to which they are strangers. That is, such a witness is
disqualified as a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">surrogate knower</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.
It is true that prophets and apostles have many things to say that “no eye has
seen or ear heard or the heart of man conceived” (1 Cor. 2:9). However, when
the apostle John says, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with
our hands, concerning the word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1-2), he is claiming to be
(along with the other apostles) a surrogate knower in an ordinary sense (as in
a court of law)—a compelling and convincing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knower
in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—so as to assure our hearts that his testimony about Jesus Christ
is wellfounded, true and reliable. This just means that knowledge proceeding
from God and by the Spirit through regeneration in the heart—as truly
supernatural as it is—has by God’s design and for its confirmation a natural,
external, or physical aspect to it. Consequently, God’s truth is not full-orbed
or fully biblical unless we recognize this public, even ordinary, dimension.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Furthermore,
what we see with the apostle John in the passage just quoted is just the
culmination of God’s way of showing himself as God to all the nations. And he
does so (again, contrary to Phillips) in a way that assumes a common
epistemological ground not only between believers and unbelievers but also
between himself and the nations (that is, mostly unregenerate people). We see
this, perhaps most graphically in Isaiah 43:8-12 and 44:6-8, where we find God
looking at earth and all its history, again, as a kind of court room process in
which all of earth's inhabitants (including Israel) are under a divine subpoena
to show up as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. What
God does here is evidence of his concern for discovery (similar to the court
room) on the part of all people with respect to an ultimate veridical quest to
know who the true God and Savior of the world is. He turns to the nations
themselves (that is, other than Israel) and challenges them to look at their
history. They are asked to consider whether they can produce as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> the evidence of
fulfilled, predictive prophecies that one finds with God's prophets or
Scripture itself. "Let them declare
what is to come and what will happen" (Isa. 44:7), God says to the nations
gathered in his court room. And again, he says, "Let them bring their </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to prove them right,
and let them hear and say, It is true" (Isa. 43:9). Then, in that same
court room, God turns to assembled Israel and says, "You are my </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> [</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">i.e</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">., you have </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">seen</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> my
prophecies fulfilled, you know these things are true]...that you may </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">believe</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">" (Isa. 43:10). </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Later,
God challenges Israel in its state of apostasy to argue with him, again, as in
a court of law: "Let us argue together," God says, "set forth
your case, that you may be proved right" (Isa. 43:26). He is asking them
to pit their own </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
against the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> of
prophecy or Scripture and see what the veridical results might be. Therefore,
to both the nations and Israel God is declaring that the miraculous aspect of
fulfilled, predictive prophecy is itself a </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge
in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> supportive of the truth that he as the God of Israel is indeed God
alone, that what his prophets are saying is true and truly from him. The
implication is that the nations of the earth can produce no testimony or
knowledge or truth either equal or opposite to God's testimony so as to
overturn the verdict established by God's own </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that He alone is God and there is no other. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In
Jesus' earthly ministry, this planetary court room process orchestrated by God
himself continues in that final period of time in human history known as “the
last days”: the verdict to which the
process was aimed is that he is truly the Messiah, the Son of God. We see this
especially in John's Gospel (5:30-47), where Jesus supports the statement,
"my judgment is just" (concerning his identity as the Son of God), by
pointing to an array of weighty </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. It is indeed
very much like he is conducting a trial:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(1)
</span><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">John the Baptist</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">There is another
who bears </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">about
me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to
John, and he has borne </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in
state</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to the truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (5:32-33).</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(2)
</span><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Miracles of Jesus</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the
Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> about me that the
Father has sent me</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (5:36).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(3)
</span><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Father Himself</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">And the Father
who sent me has himself borne </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge
in state</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> about me</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (5:37).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(4)
</span><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Holy Scriptures</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">You</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">search the Scriptures because you think that
in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> about me</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (5:39).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(5)
</span><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Moses</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Do not think that I will
accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have
set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of [bore knowledge in state about] me </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(5:45-47).</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">John sums up his gospel with the words:
"These things are written that you might believe" (Jn. 20:30-31);
and, again, "This is the disciple who is bearing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> about these things, and who has written these
things, and we know that his testimony is true" (Jn. 21:24). In Luke's
gospel, we find Jesus saying, "</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">That
you may know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> [emphasis mine - jp] that the Son of Man has authority on
earth to forgive sins," [he said to the man who was paralyzed] "I say
to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home" (Lk. 5:24).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Therefore,
what the Bible says about the evidential role of fulfilled prophecy, miracles,
and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in relation to its verdict that the Bible is the
Word of God and that Jesus is the Christ, would seem to indicate that arriving
at the point of belief in the verdict or truth itself is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not merely a result of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the
heart, imparting faith. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">If it had been so, all that would have been
necessary is for God to declare by his own sovereign authority that Scripture
is his Word and Jesus, his Christ.
Instead, what we find in the Bible is that belief (again, as in a court
of law) includes rational persuasion based on evidence, which in turn, depends
upon the reliability of ordinary knowing (what is common to everyone) based on </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowers</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge in state</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> with their ordinary or "simple seeing"
regarded </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> reliable knowing. The
Bible does not, in this sense, set up an antithesis between faith and ordinary
or natural knowing of a "simple seeing" sort; surely, faith involves
more than ordinary or natural knowing (such as eyewitness testimony to the
miracles or resurrection of Jesus) but just as surely </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not less than that.</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Ultimately,
therefore, it seems that what we do with respect to evangelism comes down to
this broader, underlying question of epistemology: Does God intend for the
truth or knowledge of the gospel of His Son to be understood—particularly with
respect to unbelievers—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as non-public or</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">objectively inaccessible</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">? As only
true under (or relative to) Christian beliefs or presuppositions? Or accepted
as true merely on divine authority or because of the direct operation of the
Spirit on the heart? Is it, again, a kind of witness or testimony with a
special, group-oriented, or private way of knowing (reflecting a coherence
theory), which would be thrown out in a court of law or which is different from
how we understand and seek truth generally?</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I have noted repeatedly that Phillips makes this claim of no objective truth
between believers and unbelievers—again, as he does with his claim that truth
is subjective—without direct Scriptural support.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
He merely delivers it, quite confidently and dogmatically. Whereas in other
places in his booklet, Phillips seems concerned about an appropriate reserve or
humility with respect to any claim of knowledge. In this particular case,
however, Phillips seems unconcerned about any possible charge of arrogance in
making such a claim. He seems to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know for
certain</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—seemingly, based on a firm, common, objective ground for truth
which is the same and knowable for everyone—that there is no firm, common,
objective ground, etc., </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">for truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.
Notably, neither finitude nor sin keep him from being confident on this.
Somehow he is in this one respect impartial and non-selective. Somehow he has
clarity now, indeed knows the truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
about one of the most momentous questions one could ask about the nature or
concept of the truth of the gospel itself: Is such knowledge “true truth” (as
Schaeffer says)—objective and accessible to all—and consistent with an ordinary
court room epistemology or what is actually, universally, knowably there in
reality? His answer is distinct and clear: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">No.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
However, biblical assumptions, as just presented, indicate otherwise.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Apostolic
Practice and Knowing</span></b></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Now let’s consider
apostolic practice. When Peter stood up with the other eleven apostles on the
Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, he was facing thousands of Jews and devout people
from all over the world, who did not share his presuppositions (or religious
“as-structures”) as a Christian. There were, however, certain facts or
realities (“is-structures”) that, like the toothpick or the lectern in earlier
illustrations which, for these people, were universally knowable and not
negotiable for reality. Obviously, Peter did not see it as his task to first
convince the people to adopt a “way of knowing” or what Christians generally
believe such that the crowd might have the necessary presuppositions to know
anything, including that Jesus is Lord. Instead, he directed their attention to
something objectively available and reliably knowable by all, namely, the
miracle presently being witnessed by everyone, as the small company of the
Lord’s disciples with tongues of fire over their heads were declaring the works
of God in languages they had not learned. To state the obvious, this was
something the people were experiencing firsthand, as Peter himself indicates:
“for he has poured out </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that you
yourselves are seeing and hearing” (2:33). And, obviously, there is no
indication of some philosophical mind-body problem here that would make
(whether through finitude or sin) what they knew, to that limited extent,
unreliable as knowledge, or even errant.
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">He says to the crowd,
“These people are not drunk,” as some had supposed, “since it is only nine
o’clock in the morning” (2:15). Notably, the apostle is making an inductive
argument here with people who did not share his presuppositions concerning
Jesus Christ. That is, there is an implication here that it never entered
Peter’s mind that he could not reason with these people about the gospel
because (a) they had no basis for knowledge, (b) they did not share his
rational framework or view of truth as a Christian, or (c) it would—because of
(a) and (b) and, thus, through an inappropriate presumption about knowledge
itself—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">dishonor the lordship of Jesus
Christ</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Instead, Peter’s argument at this point assumes such ground, as it
relies on probability derived through common experience. That is, most people
do not drink and get drunk at nine o’clock in the morning. Peter could also
have said (again, based on a commonly shared knowledge about life) that drunk
people, however otherwise creative they may be in that state, are not able to
speak fluently languages they have not learned. Next, though, Peter goes
directly to the point that what people were observing that day with this small
company of believers was a fulfillment of Joel 2, where the Lord says that in
the last days he would pour out his Spirit on all flesh. So far, then (and,
again, similar to my illustration with the lectern and the toothpick), Peter
presents an objective, non-negotiable reality true and knowable for everyone,
regardless of their presuppositions. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Let’s listen now as Peter
continues:</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">"Men
of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God
with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst,
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as you yourselves know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> [emphasis
mine—jnp]" (2:22).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><span style="color: black;"></span><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Again, is there anything here that would make us
think that Peter (as speaking to unbelievers) didn’t believe these people had
the appropriate presuppositions or “as-structure” for reality necessary to
understand or reliably know the things he is presenting concerning the gospel?
Is he not, again, assuming a basic and common objective epistemological ground
shared between himself as a believer and the unbelievers to which he is
preaching? Does he not, even by the Spirit, clearly affirm that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">they indeed had knowledge</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (“as you
yourselves know”) of these things—even the attestation of Jesus of Nazareth by
God through miracles? Were they regenerate at this point? There is no
indication that they were. How, then, did they know such things? Undoubtedly,
these people didn’t know things the way Christians or the regenerate do and
yet, in some important sense, they </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knew</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
what Peter was talking about. The Holy Spirit, I’m sure we would agree, would
certainly not have led Peter to say something untrue about the state of
knowledge these people had, even though they were, at this moment, unbelievers
and unregenerate. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Was
Peter just ignorant of epistemology? Did he need the modern philosophers to
educate him on the nature of knowing (that is, through human finitude, its
alleged subjectivity)? And was he unaware of the effects of sin on the mind (as
Phillips says, “humans are no longer able to know truth truly at all”)? Why is
Peter seemingly assuming that these finite, sinful humans can know truth? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But
let’s continue with Peter’s sermon:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">"—this Jesus, delivered up
according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and
killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of
death, because it was not</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">possible for him to be held by it" (2:23-24).</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">“</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Jesus,” Peter says. In God’s wisdom and foreknowledge, a simple word from
Scripture like “this” may become very important. As we know, “this,” is a
demonstrative pronoun. In the present context, “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Jesus” refers to the one of whom Peter had just been
speaking—that is, Jesus of Nazareth through whom God had worked miracles in the
midst of the people to whom Peter was speaking. Again, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> much of what Peter wishes to communicate to his audience is
indisputably (between him and the people) and in some important sense </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">shared knowledge</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. It is, indeed, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—even the whole, objective, and
absolute truth—particularly, if it serves as the answer to the question: “Did
Jesus of Nazareth in fact work miracles in the midst of these people to whom
Peter is speaking and did they, as a result, commonly and reliably know </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this much</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to be the case?” Therefore, to
claim, as Phillips does, that humans are finite (or limited)—as these Jews and
devout people were—such that their knowledge can only be “subjective,”
“partial,” or “selective”—or that humans are sinful—as, again, these Jews and
devout people were—such that they </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">cannot
know truth truly at all</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—is belied or flatly contradicted here by what Peter
both assumes and boldly declares to be true.
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> When
Hegel, consistent with modernity’s epistemological idealism, says that the
demonstrative “this” from a common sense standpoint and as reflective of what
is objectively gathered by the senses is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">empty</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
he means that it only gains its richness </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowledge through subjectivity.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
That was his way of saying, “there are no brute facts” or (by implication) there
is no shared neutral ground for knowledge among the various worldviews. By so
claiming, Hegel agrees with the modern philosophers in the succession of
Descartes to Kant that the mind is primary for knowing. Hegel differs from
Kant, however, in that he believes the phenomenal </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">is</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> the noumenal (or all there is for reality). And whatever possibility an objective “this”
has had, it is not, in Hegel’s view, what actually makes things rich,
interesting, or valuable as truth. Instead, it is what we as humans
subjectively and creatively (that is, in the spirit of what the Bible calls
“the wisdom of the world”—1 Cor. 1:20) bring to what is there in reality—not
what is there outside and apart from us (such as, facts, God, absolutes,
Scripture, etc.)—which constitutes its real value </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> meaningful. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> On
the other hand, what Peter says with his repetitive use of the word, “this,” in
Acts 2 implicitly assumes precisely the opposite to all this. No doubt these
Jews and converts to Judaism gathered before Peter as he is preaching brought
with them their own subjective view of what it means to please God. And no
doubt, their subjective view was interesting and valuable to them. Indeed, it
was </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">their</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> rationality, perspective,
or way of looking at things. The only problem was that, up to that point, such
subjectivity did not include Jesus as Messiah and Lord. The apostle Paul will
later speak of unbelieving Jews who had a zeal for God but not according to
knowledge (Rom. 10:2). Paul could have said their zeal was not according to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">reality</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Clearly, it isn’t that these people did not have knowledge
at all—nor that they did not consider such interesting or valuable,
subjectively speaking. It is just that they were wrong, as Paul implies. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> We
observe this same attitude in Peter, as he is preaching in Acts 2. Peter did
not regard “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Jesus” as a reality
completely unknown or unknowable to his audience. We could even say that Peter
is deliberately working with and from this level of knowledge </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">common to all</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—what they already knew—in
order to supplement it with more knowledge intended to convince them that “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Jesus” they crucified was not (as
they thought) an impostor or blasphemer but indeed the very Messiah he claimed
to be. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> After Peter speaks of how God had
raised “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Jesus” from the dead, he
quotes King David’s prophecy recorded in Psalm 16:8-11, as further confirmation
of this fact:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> "</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I saw the Lord always
before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my
heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For
you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You
have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with
your presence."</span></div>
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Peter had already drawn the correspondence between
the prophecy in Joel and the outpouring of the Spirit the crowd was witnessing.
Referring to the disciples speaking in languages they had not learned, Peter
had said “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">was uttered through the prophet
Joel” (2:16; emphasis mine—jnp). We might say that, throughout this sermon,
Peter is matching certain “this” statements with “that” statements, not only
for explanation but also as confirmation of the ultimate conclusion that Jesus
is Lord. And so what is the “that” to which “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Jesus” (the miracle-working Jesus attested by God—things of
which the people already knew, as Peter says in 2:22) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">corresponds</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">? That is, if the tongue-speaking (the people were
witnessing) corresponds to the outpouring of God’s Spirit foretold in Scripture
(Joel 2), to whom does the miracle-working Jesus, the people had also witnessed
(in that sense, “knew”), correspond in Scripture? This is the direction Peter
is going.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Admittedly,
there is a difference to be noted at this point. The people directly heard the
tongue-speaking and could relate it to the aforesaid prophecy highlighted by
Peter. On the other hand, they were not witnesses to the apostolic claim (2:24)
of the resurrection of Jesus. The apostles, however, were. And Peter was
speaking to a crowd of people who generally knew that God had said in Scripture
that when a matter comes to trial every truth shall be confirmed by two or
three witnesses. There were, indeed, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">twelve
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">apostles serving as such witnesses. There were also, presumably, many (or
all of the) others in the small company of 120, who served as witnesses to
Jesus’ resurrection, not to mention other witnesses, such as (in another
context) the 500 brothers and sisters Paul identifies in 1 Corinthians 15. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> To
continue, it was Peter’s concern in this part of his sermon to show the
correspondence between Psalm 16 (a prophecy concerning a “Holy One” whose body
would not be left in the grave to decompose like other dead bodies do) and the
risen Jesus (its fulfillment), just as earlier it was his concern to establish
a correspondence between Joel 2 (a prophecy) and the disciples who were
miraculously declaring God’s works in languages they had not learned (its
fulfillment). Peter is connecting, in both cases, the truth of something
present with the truth of something past. The past involves what God has both
predicted and purposed to happen in “the last days.” The present is the time
when these predictions are coming or have come true. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> After
quoting from Psalm 16, where it is said that God would not let his “Holy One
see corruption” (v. 10), Peter says, </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Brothers, I may say to you
with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and
his tomb is with us to this day. (2:29)</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The “confidence” Peter speaks of pertains to the
quality or state of his knowledge. He could have said, “I </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know for certain</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that David died, was buried, and his tomb is with
us to this day.” He also is saying something not only he but his audience
confidently knew. They could have said: “We </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know
for certain</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that David died, etc.” Again, their different presuppositions
did not prevent this. Their finitude and sin did not prevent this. I repeat: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in terms of knowledge and beyond dispute,
Peter is on common objective epistemological ground here with the people (the
unbelievers) to whom he is preaching.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> He is setting forth public truth,
truth that everyone shared.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now
this fact that David is dead, of course, presents a problem for what is written
in Psalm 16:8-10. We read there: “You will not let your Holy One see
corruption.” That is, you will not let your chosen king die and stay in the
grave. About whom is God speaking here? Clearly, King David died, was buried,
and is still in the grave. The prophecy could not have been referring to King
David personally. It had to be indicating something true of the Messiah who was
in his lineage. And this is, indeed, what Peter argues, as he says of David:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Being therefore a prophet,
and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his
descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the
Christ, that he was not abandoned in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
(2:30-31)</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Hence,
Peter is now ready to wrap up his case for Jesus as the Messiah. What he has
told the people so far, as I’ve been indicating, amounts to a pairing of things
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">they knew</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (tongues-speaking people,
Jesus’ divinely attested through miracles, and David’s tomb) with Scriptural
prophecies they could also know. The one thing left is to pair </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Jesus whom they knew as divinely
attested by miracles with the fact that he is not only from God but Israel’s
long-awaited Redeemer and Hope, indeed the Messiah of God. That is, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">he is the very one about whom David is
speaking in Psalm 16. </span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But
there is one more item of knowledge necessary to make this final pairing,
namely, that “this” miracle-working Jesus </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the
people knew</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is the Psalm 16 Messiah raised from the dead </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">they did not know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Accordingly, Peter
supplies this missing piece, as he finishes his case:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This Jesus God raised up,
and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">of that we all are witnesses</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.
Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the
Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">you yourselves are
seeing and hearing.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he
himself says, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make
your enemies your footstool.” Let all the house of Israel therefore </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know for certain</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that God has made him
both Lord and Christ, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Jesus whom
you crucifed. (2:32-36; emphasis throughout mine—jnp) </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black;"></span><br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The last item of knowledge supplied, then,
completes the pairing of the Jesus they knew with the Jesus they didn’t know,
who is the Messiah of Psalm 16—the “Holy One” raised from the dead. As
knowledge, it comes to the people not directly but indirectly through the
apostles who were divinely appointed witnesses. These witnesses are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">good</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> witnesses, prepared as such, by the
Lord. They are persons in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">a state of
knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (or agents for truth) which is as reliable as a good set of scales
(what God loves) and what they have to offer is, therefore, of interest to
others for what they don’t know but need to know. In this case, what they don’t
know is that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Jesus they
crucified is indestructibly, eternally alive and is now King of kings and Lord
of lords. Everything Peter has been saying has gone toward arriving at this
final conclusion, about which he exhorts “all the house of Israel” (and by
implication, the whole world) to “know for certain.”</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Admittedly,
“hard presuppositionalism” maintains that the unregenerate cannot possibly
piece together what they already know with what they need to know in order to
be saved. This is because, according to that view, without Christian
presuppositions such persons cannot know </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">anything</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
(or anything appropriately)—that none of the pieces can make sense the way they
need to. The conditions necessary to know anything at all (that is, at least
the basic tenets of the Christian perspective itself) are not in place. But,
contrary to that assumption (though there is some truth in it), is this not
precisely what Peter is doing here? Piecing together what unregenerate people
knew with things they didn’t know? Is Peter not demonstrating, what I indicated
earlier (with my tri-structure for knowing), that there is no problem at the first
two levels of knowing (physical and mental seeing)? </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">That even if the knowledge they had was not integrated and appreciated
the way it is for those in Christ, yet, it was sufficient for the apostolic
purpose of establishing that Jesus is the Christ? </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">No doubt, he and the
other apostles knew that there would be people who would hear this same case
for Jesus as the Messiah—have it all pieced together for them successfully at
these first two levels for knowing—and still not know it in that third level
sense of spiritual knowing, which occurs only with regeneration and is
necessary for salvation. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> And
what is the result of this strong, argumentative case for Jesus as Lord and
Christ? The people are “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37) and say to Peter and the
rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” As it says later in Acts
17:4 concerning others who also had been convinced by apostolic argument that
Jesus is the Messiah, they were “persuaded.” The Bible presents no problem between
faith arrived at through reason and evidence and faith as a gift from God
through regeneration by the Spirit. Nor should we. Surely, for those three
thousand who were baptized in Acts 2, being convinced by empirical evidence
that Jesus was raised from the dead was no less important for truth than the
authoritative declaration of God’s Word that Jesus indeed is the Messiah. Consistently
throughout the pages of Scripture itself, the authority of Scripture as God’s
Word or truth is never pitted against external evidence and reason in support
of that truth. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Again, why would we accept
some view of epistemology that emboldens us to slight the latter, presumably to
exalt the former, when Scripture never does?</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> The
apostle Paul, of course, provides another example of apostolic practice with
respect to epistemology, particularly, with his reasoning about the gospel
among the Greeks. The latter were undoubtedly influenced by philosophical
trends quite similar to our own modern/postmodern trends. With his education,
there is no doubt that Paul was well versed in Greek philosophy. His world, in
that sense, was very much like our own in the Western world today. But whether
encountering the skepticism of thinkers like Pyrrho (who held that reality is
not knowable and our unverifiable interpretation of the same is conventional or
cultural in nature) or the relativism of Protagorus (with his “man is the
measure of all things”) or, in general, the ideas of the Sophists who were
quite similar to postmodernists in our time (as both Lyotard and Derrida
maintain), do we ever find Paul telling the church, “We live in an era which is
skeptical of truth, and we ought to learn from their insights as well as
recognize how the Spirit remedies or compensates for the philosophical problems
of our age?” Or do we ever see Paul, in relating to the Greeks, following
Phillips’ recommendation of not preaching, not reasoning, but merely handing
people an Old Testament scroll with perhaps another scroll containing his
apostolic message concerning Jesus as the Messiah? Can we even imagine Paul
making a subjective or experiential appeal with such people, again, as Phillips
does: “Jesus promises that his Spirit will give understanding to anyone who sincerely
seeks the truth in God’s Word”? Would Paul not (if what he did in Athens is any
indication), rather, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">open his mouth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—reason
with them and preach the truth of the gospel </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">directly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to them—regardless of their philosophical bias or
conditioning? Would he ever say something like, “Here, try on these Christian
presuppositional glasses, first, so you can know things in general; second,
that you might know something in particular, namely, that the gospel is the
truth”? Or: “I am not going to tell you </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what
I know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> until you accept </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">how I know it</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">”?
Rather, did he not simply (and faithfully) relate the same case God had already
made through fulfilled prophecy and the eyewitness testimony of the apostles
for the truth that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah? Whether Paul or the other
apostles, were they not by the Spirit fully committed to make </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this same court-like case</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (the case God
had already made) as faithful stewards and in a simple, even philosophically
unadorned, naive manner? And is this not why we hear them saying things (as
Peter did) to those they would evangelize (who, again, often had the wrong
presuppositions), such as, “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Know for
certain</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is the
truth!”? Or, as Paul says to Greeks in
Athens: “What you therefore worship as unknown, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this I proclaim</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to you” (Acts 17:23)? Did the apostles not
demonstrate in this way of relating to unbelievers a certain confidence that
the “what” (the case made or truth defended) would bring people, if they were
brought at all, to the “how” (the appropriate Christian perspective with its
biblical presuppositions)? Was not the apostolic approach to evangelism
somewhat similar to what any of us would do if we lived in an apartment
building that was on fire? Even if there were people who lived there who were
skeptics about reality or who (from an Eastern influence, let’s say) thought
life was just a dream or illusion, would we hesitate to cry out, “Fire! Fire!”?
Not that their message was that simple but that whatever presuppositions the
people may have had, the apostles seemed confident that by a faithful,
passionate proclamation of the truth as well as the heart-work of the Holy
Spirit, all those who were going to believe would believe. Those who did not
believe were, nevertheless, considered accountable or disobedient to the gospel
(2 Thess. 1:8)—neither of which would be possible, if there were no common,
objective epistemological ground between believers and unbelievers. (As I said
before: one cannot disobey something one does not understand in some sense.) </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In sum, when we apply the litmus
test of biblical assumptions and apostolic practice to the three claims
Phillips (or TGC) makes about knowing—namely, that due to human finitude truth
is subjective, due to sin truth is not knowable, and due to the relative or
perspectival nature of truth it is not universal for believers and unbelievers—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">all fail as foreign to or inconsistent with
those standards. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Additionally, if these claims TGC and Phillips are making were
true, then all that the Bible says about the witness in relation to truth is
naive and misguided. Moreover, the apologetic work of Peter and Paul (for
instance, their assumption of common ground for truth with unbelievers) would at
best, appear in a poor light. It would also mean that, in that respect, they
did not appropriately honor the lordship of Christ. Projecting the future into
the past, it would mean (to employ the jargon of presuppositionalists) that the
apostles were the first “modern evidentialists.” Because they clearly did not
require unbelievers to first accept Christian presuppositions (or a Christian
worldview) as a framework for, first, knowing anything at all, and, second,
accepting Jesus as the Christ. To the contrary, employing neutral, or universal
standards of truth (oblivious to the concerns of epistemological idealists),
the apostles made a public case for the truth that Jesus of Nazareth is the
Messiah, apparently knowing, that once Jesus is lord of one’s heart through
believing the gospel and regeneration by the Spirit, a life of coming to know
the tenets or presuppositions of the Christian faith (devoting themselves to
the apostles’ teaching—Acts 2:42) will have begun. Once the cornerstone is in
place, then the edifice is built. Therefore, selling people on the coherence of
the Christian perspective (as if the truth of the gospel is only </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">indirectly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> knowable relative to a
framework of Christian beliefs) is not the same as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">directly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> making a public case for Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
A correspondence view of truth—with a universal access (in some sense) to
knowing reality as part of that view—has the potential to challenge or take us outside
of our presuppositions. It is, admittedly, more minimal than that, and yet, as
minimal, can bring great change in our presuppositions. It can be (as it is
with the truth of the gospel) the very stone on which </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">everything</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (including the main tenets of the Christian faith) is
built. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px;">
<br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I say, “qualified,”
because God requires not one but two or three witnesses to confirm the truth of
a matter. Allowing one witness as adequate to establish the truth of a matter,
though it is technically all that is needed, seems to be an arrangement too easily
abused in the event that someone has an agenda to harm another. This doesn’t
mean that two or three might not also conspire to lie in a particular case (as
we know, this happened at the trial of Jesus). </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I am not, of course,
intending to minimize first-person knowledge of God or second-person knowing,
for instance, the relationship of a child of God who by the Spirit relates to
God through Christ and says, “Abba, Father.”</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 12.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If a “friend” is, as
Aristotle says, “my other self,” perhaps we could also say that a “witness” is
“my other knower”—the knower I would have been had I been there.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> By “direct Scriptural
support,” I mean that there is nothing in what Scripture plainly says or in the
relevant examples it provides that would support the idea that there is no
“epistemological common ground” between a believer and unbeliever. Instead,
Scripture teaches just the opposite. </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> G. W. F. Hegel, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Phenomenology of Spirit</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1977), pp. 58-66.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></div>
J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-11869761964532782972016-02-19T09:11:00.001-08:002016-02-19T09:16:35.815-08:00The Gospel Coalition's Claim that There Is No Christ-Honoring Common Ground for Objective Truth between a Believer and Unbeliever (Part 2)<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I stated in my last post that Phillips’ (and TGC's) support of a
coherence theory of truth is evident in his rejection of public or universal
truth. I said that the “for believers only” approach to the truth of the gospel
means that the gospel is a kind of private or exclusive truth, received only by
those who have already accepted or been initiated into Christian beliefs, which
is to say, the appropriate biblical beliefs concerning (as Phillips says) “God,
mankind, sin, salvation, and more.”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
My claim is that this is a Christian form of relativism. What may not be
evident to those unfamiliar with modern philosophy is how Phillips’ denial of a
common ground for truth between believers and unbelievers pertains to the
problems raised by that philosophy. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If
there is a mind-body dualism, as the modern philosophers in the succession of
Descartes through Kant believed, then reality, for all we know, may exist but
cannot be known as it actually is. Kant puts it this way: we can know how
things appear to us but we can’t know the way things really are. (He called the
former, “phenomena,” and the latter, “noumena.”) This is just another way of
claiming that the mind puts its own unique spin or construction on what is out
there in reality; hence, we cannot know, reliably or verifiably, objective
truth itself. Subsequently, the focus for knowing becomes: what are the
subjective conditions by which we know things? In other words, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">how</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> we look at things—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not the things themselves</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—is everything
for knowledge. Which is to say, truth is relative to the way one looks at
things. If we accept that, we are in famous company, as all the philosophers in
the modern, subjectivist tradition from Descartes to Kant would have agreed
with that statement.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But
more importantly for the present discussion, in his own treatment of truth, Phillips
himself (or TGC he represents) apparently agrees with </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that much</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> of what the modern philosophers believed about knowledge.
To be sure, he certainly does not accept what they recommend in other ways, such
as, an autonomous use of reason, God-rejecting independence, jettisoning of
biblical authority, or any thing of that sort. What Phillips does accept from
this epistemology, however, is the view that knowledge is non-verifiable by
external reality itself and is, therefore, a matter of one’s perspective. It is
just that, as Phillips presents things, the Christian view, as biblical and
given to people by the Spirit through regeneration, provides the appropriate
subjective conditions for knowing objective truth. Importantly, this means that
what we as Christians know as phenomenal (the way things appear) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">is </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">indeed noumenal (the way things
actually are) because God (who knows everything) has made the noumenal known to
us by the Spirit and through Scripture. That is, God comes to the rescue for
the epistemological problem the modern philosophers have created. By the
Spirit’s renewing power we understand Scripture and believe in Christ and so
are given divine, subjective conditions for knowing. When we present the gospel
to unbelievers, therefore, we must present unbelievers with these conditions (the
tenets of Christian belief) so they may also know that Jesus is Lord. And
without these conditions, any presentation of the gospel to unbelievers is neither
Christ-honoring nor meaningful in any sense.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Hence,
Phillips (whether wittingly or not) agrees with this basic problem modern
philosophers propose, namely, that we cannot know objective truth. He also
agrees with them, as another way of expressing the latter, that there is no
universal truth verifiably accessible to everyone. Or, again, the same belief
is reflected in Phillips’ view that there is no common ground for objective
truth (including the truth that Jesus is Lord) between a believer and an
unbeliever. So again, and as far as I can see, Phillips (or TGC) is putting a
Christian spin on—using Scripture and the gospel to remedy—a modern,
theoretical problem for knowing. </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But
are the modern philosophers right about this problem itself? I will not get
into an extended, technical discussion here on this question.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Philosophers, especially in the twentieth century, have debated it extensively.
My intent, instead, is to analyze how prior conditions for knowing (or the
things we presuppose) actually work in our experience. For instance, when
conversing with those who have conflated Christianity/Reformed theology with
philosophy in the manner I have been highlighting, what one hears is generally
not so much the bold claim, “there is no universal truth,” but, rather,
something that actually means the same thing, namely, “there are no brute
facts.”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Or, as Nietzsche says: “There are no facts,
only interpretations.” But is this not just another way of claiming that
subjective interpretation makes reality what it is to us for understanding?
That there is no way to get outside our minds to verify such interpretations?
And is not the self-defeating nature of this kind of thinking evident? That is,
when one says, “there are no brute facts,” is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> a brute fact? Or, with Nietzsche’s version of this view, when
he says, “there are no facts, only interpretations,” is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> an interpretation?</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
The point is that just as the theory that says we cannot know reality
contradicts itself when it proposes how reality is for knowing, statements like
this contradict themselves because, for the most part, they are not meant to be
understood as merely subjective or ungrounded in reality. If the latter were
true, they would lose their implied dogmatic force.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> However, there </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">are</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (in an important sense) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">brute</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">neutral</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> facts—things that are non-negotiably the same as knowledge
for everyone. What I mean is that language does not function merely as
interpretive or constructive (in a modern or idealistic sense) but also as
indicative or classificatory (in a realistic sense). That is, we use language
to name or point to things themselves (especially, as they are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in themselves</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) apart from any special or
particular way of looking at them. Perhaps an illlustration may help. I once
stood before a philosophy class and asked, “How much of this lectern is
negotiable for reality?” One of our esteemed philosophy majors responded, “All
of it.” Of course, what he meant by that is that we do not have immediate,
direct access to what the “thing itself” called a lectern actually is and that
what we do have direct access to is the way we think about it. And, no doubt,
there are other possible uses or interpretations of a lectern, such as,
something to break a window in an emergency. After admitting this, I asked my
class: “Is the material this lectern is made of negotiable for reality?” The
student who had said, “All of it,” remained silent, as others said, “No.” “Is
the weight of this lectern,” I continued, “under these present conditions
negotiable for reality?” Again, students responded in the negative. Then I
asked, “Is the length and width of this lectern negotiable for reality?” And,
again, they said, “No.” Then I asked a different kind of question: “If we were
able to line up a group of people in single file—people of different
rationalities, presuppositions, and perspectives on religion and life, etc.—and
they were to walk one by one vigorously and straight into this lectern, would
they feel substantially the same thing?” Several said, “Yes.” </span><br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">What I am getting at is
that whatever our presuppositions, we do encounter things—know them in a
certain sense—that at times do not fit our presuppositions. And we know them </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the same</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> no matter what our
presuppositions. Put differently, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the way
we know things is not so determined by what we presuppose that we cannot know
things which conflict with or stand outside what we presuppose. </span></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The presuppositional
aspect of knowledge, therefore, is just another way of speaking of how much
importance we believe the mind has for knowing reality. If we believe that
reality itself is not knowable and that the mind </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">completely </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">determines or interprets the version of reality we
have—especially if that version cannot be verified against reality itself—then
we are what might be called “hard presuppositionalists.” In the days of the
modern philosophers from Descartes to Kant, this kind of epistemology was
simply called (as I’ve been calling it) “idealism.” But later this theory was
so popular with philosophers that, perhaps for the sake of respectability, it
was renamed as “representative” (or “indirect”) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">realism</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. “Idealism,” on the other hand, tended as a classification
to be limited to the kind of metaphysical position one observes in philosophers
like Berkeley who held that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">only</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> the
mind and its ideas—not matter and the non-mental world—are actually real.
However, the word, “idealism,” though generally out of favor with philosophers
in our time, is quite helpful in understanding more clearly and precisely just
what is at stake and where the locus for knowing has shifted with this
particular theory of knowing.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
What it indicates is that the mind is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">primary</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
for knowing—not external reality itself. In other words, knowledge is more
subjective than objective—more about how the mind uniquely interprets things
than the way they actually are. And when, through such subjectivity, any </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">objectivity</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">foundational </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">support is claimed for knowledge (and the moderns
certainly made such claims, even defined themselves by that quest) this must
not be confused with what one would ordinarily mean by such terms when
employing them in a correspondence, naive, or common sense manner.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">“Hard
presuppositionalism,” then, as I define it, begins, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">at least to this extent</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, with what the modern philosophers
themselves held concerning knowledge. With the help of Reformed theology, then,
to recast these modern problems for knowing as the effects of finitude or sin,
which, in turn, are ultimately remedied by the gospel of Christ does not
actually change the fact that the problems themselves are artificial,
speculative, and at best questionable. If neither Scripture nor experience
shows that being finite or sinful means we have the kind of problems for
knowing that modern philosophers say we have, then wouldn’t we expect the result
to be that our attempt to deal with philosophy—not by ignoring or rejecting it
as Christ and the apostles did—but by unassumingly and quietly adopting certain
of its tenets in this manner (that is, integrating its basic methodological
assumptions with the Christian faith) would result in some imbalance (such as,
an over emphasis on our inability as humans to know), some harmful prescription
(such as, a non-reasoned, non-proclaimed gospel which leaves unbelievers
without the divinely appointed reasons or the earnestness of preaching
appropriate to that gospel), and some conflict with Scripture (such as, the
many examples in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Acts </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">of people with
the wrong presuppositions being, nonetheless, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">reasoned with</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">preached to</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
by the apostles)? </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">To deny “hard
presuppositionalism” is not to deny that presuppositions have an important role
for how we know things. The issue here is how much importance is placed on the
mind for knowing. Does the mind </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">entirely
or necessarily </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">determine reality as we know it? Or does a reliably knowable
external reality </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">itself </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(what the
mind can only passively recognize) have a role to play? “Hard
presuppositionalism” holds that the mind determines reality </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">completely</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (not non-mental, external
reality itself), and in its Christian or Reformed version, as I’ve been saying,
holds that those who are regenerate in Christ have through Scripture the mind
of Christ as God’s own interpretation of reality. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">However, as appealing or
spiritual as this may seem, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Scripture
does not teach it.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Instead, both Scripture and what we know from experience
demonstrate that God has equipped us by virtue of being made in his image so
that we can know things in general. That is, our own minds give us the ability
to know everyday things like whether or not it is raining outside or who the
president of the United States is or the current rate of silver. As Francis
Schaeffer says, “God made the knower and the known and he put them together.”
Or as the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga proposes: God has designed or
equipped us such that our common sense knowledge of things generally holds
true. This means that the mind is sufficiently related</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
(in “substance” as the modern philosophers say) to the body and external world
such that what it holds to be true may indeed be—and often is—so. Now, on the
other hand, this does not mean, of course, that we know things perfectly or
omnisciently or that we are never ignorant or just plain wrong. In so many ways
as individuals and collectively our ignorance and errancy with respect to
knowledge is always evident, even at times, appalling. My intention is not to
support an inappropriate or sinful pride in our knowledge-claims; rather, it is
to defend an important, even minimal, yet non-negotiable level of knowing characteristic
of our humanity as made in God’s image—one that both Scripture and common
experience assume we (can) have. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">What “hard
presuppositionalism” entails is the view, to resume my line of thought, that
knowledge is from the ground up entirely </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">interpretive
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">and not verifiable through a direct and reliable relationship to reality
itself (things as they actually are). Now there is an ambiguity here with the
word, “interpretation.” It might be helpful to explore this for a moment.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">When we see an interpreter
helping world leaders understand one another, the aim is to faithfully convey,
as much as possible, a one-to-one correspondence in meaning between the
languages. Hence, we assume that an interpreter in this knowing situation does
know the language of the person they are interpreting as well as the language
of the person to whom they are delivering the interpretation. Furthermore, they
must understand what is being said in particular with the use of the languages
represented by these two persons. The challenge, then, for the interpreter is
to know in reality what is actually meant by both persons and find words each
can understand to convey that reality successfully. Now I am not interested
here in a philosophical discussion about whether or not translation or
interpretation in situations like this is possible but intend to do nothing
more than think through what we ordinarily experience when translators are used
in these situations. And my point is that a good interpreter is not going to
intentionally or creatively embellish, add, or subtract from what one person is
attempting to say to another. Especially, there will be no philosophical
pessimism or cynicism about whether or not it is possible to have a verifiable
knowledge necessary to be a good interpreter (such as the view that all
interpretations are misinterpretations). Instead, there will be on the
interpreter’s part a good faith effort to be faithful and true to the meaning
of each participant. This is what I am calling the “classificatory,” identifying,
or indicative nature of language or knowledge. And to distinguish this meaning
of “interpretation” from another meaning I am about to address, I will call it
Interpretation 1.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">On the other hand (and
more commonly), there is an important sense in which what we mean by
“interpretation” is understood as something </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">creative</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">performative</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, or possibly even </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">constitutive</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> of reality in its own way.
In this sense, we assume an “interpretation” is by design something more or
less different from what it interprets. Therefore, it does not have the one to
one correspondence to what is interpreted which we observe as the aim and
sufficiently successful work of linguistic interpreters. We do this, for
instance, when we interpret sculpture, a painting, or, to some extent, a poem.
In this sense of interpretation, we may feel free to substract or supplement or
cloak the meaning of something—precisely because of its absence as an
objectively, reliably knowable, and verifying standard for what we claim to be
true. I identify this kind of interpretation as Interpretation 2.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">As already indicated, the
modern philosophers from Descartes to Kant believed to one degree or
other—because of its subjective nature—that “interpretation” in this second
sense is what human knowledge is all about, particularly in relation to
reality. They believed it to be true because it is the logical implication of
their assumption that we are subjectively shut up behind our “ideas” or
“representations” or other internal conditions of the mind and cannot escape or
get around those things to directly check what is out there truly and
objectively in the real world. Hence, on this account, knowledge has to differ
from what is actually there; it reflects the way things are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as humans interpret them</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> based on how
the mind works. This is, of course (and again), what Nietzsche means with his
statement: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” He means there are no
facts that can be related as having a reliable, verifiable, one to one
correspondence with external reality. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This is why when “hard
presuppositionalists” chime in here and confidently claim, “there are no brute
facts,” it is evident that they have adopted and are perpetuating modern
epistemology or, more precisely, what I am identifying as modern epistemology’s
idealism. The word, “brute,” refers to what is irrational. For instance, we
refer to animals as “brute.” In contrast, we speak of a human as “the rational
animal.” When someone is thoughtless, unreasonable, and hurtful in their
behavior towards others, we may say that person is a “brute.” So a “brute fact”
is a fact that comes to us without reason; it is irrational or mindless in that
sense. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Importantly, what this
means is different depending on whether it is spoken from a realistic or idealistic
standpoint. In a sense, it is self-evidently (even trivially) true that there
are no “brute facts,” because the moment we think of or express a fact,
obviously, reason is at work. We cannot even classify or identify something as
a fact without reason or the mind. But that trivially, self-evident observation
is not what is generally meant by the statement, “there are no brute facts.” </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">As observed already, an
idealistic epistemology maintains that reason as an activity of the mind </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">does everything</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> for knowledge, and, as
I’ve been saying, does so in a way that cannot be checked against external
reality itself. So when someone of that theoretical bent says “there are no
brute facts,” they are expressing in different words that they agree with the
majority report of modern epistemology that human knowing (or truth) is
interpretively, constitutively, or creatively subjective by its very nature.
Or: human knowledge is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">entirely</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> of
the nature of Interpretation 2. The claim, “there are no brute facts,” therefore,
is just another way of claiming that reality or the thing in itself is not
verifiably knowable and Interpretation 2 is all there is.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">However, one cannot provide the right remedy for a problem, if
one is wrong about the problem itself. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">If we seek to integrate Christianity/Reformed
theology with philosophy at this point of claiming that Interpretation 2 is all
there is for knowing, then it seems we have used a right answer in a wrong way.
The latter will only hide problems that will resurface in other ways for the
Christian faith (such as a non-reasoned, non-proclaimed gospel, mere
Bible-distribution, etc.). In other words, </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(1) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">if</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
we as Christians (and contrary, as I believe, to Scripture) agree with
philosophy that Interpretation 1 does not exist and that Interpretation 2 is
all there is for knowing; </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(2) and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">if</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
we then apply the Christ of Scripture (relying on an internal, subjective
regeneration for knowing which in combination with Scripture is seen as the
only way to reliably attain objective truth) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as an Interpretation 2 kind of remedy</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (that is, as supplying
conditions otherwise non-existent in humans for the universal and reliable
knowing of reality); </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(3) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">then </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">we
will have reduced the nature or concept of truth—and, by implication, the truth
of the gospel itself—from something universally accessible for everyone as
public knowledge to something only particularly and subjectively accessible for
some under the same methodological relativism or perspectivism one finds in
modern and postmodern philosophy; </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(4) finally, by so doing, we will have produced a
syncretism of Christianity/Reformed theology with skeptical philosophy and
undermined thereby not only the truth God has appointed to set people free but
also the very status of the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth (1
Tim. 3:15). </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">It is important also to
recognize the self-defeating nature of the claim that there is no
Interpretation 1. When someone denies as much, we may ask, “Do you mean for me
to understand this in an Interpretation 1 sense?” If so, then it </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">does</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> exist, and perhaps we could explore
other ways it might exist. If not, then there is no communication between us on
the matter, and we might perhaps spend our time more profitably doing something
else. Or, if one says, “there are no brute facts,” we may ask: “Is that a brute
fact?” Clearly, this is the force behind the claim. That is, those who make the
claim expect others to accept it as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">neutral
and universal way things actually are for knowing facts. Worded differently,
“there are no brute facts” may be put this way: “It is a fact that is the same
for all that there are no facts that are the same for all.” Or: “The nature of
reality is such that the nature of reality cannot be known.” But if the nature
of reality cannot be known, then how do we know it cannot be known? If it
cannot be known, then, for all we know, it could be the kind of thing that can
be known. If one replies, on the other hand, “No, the claim itself (there are
no brute facts) is not a brute fact,” then we might reply, “Why should we
believe the claim then? In that case, one person’s interpretation of the status
of facts for knowing is just as good as another’s. And for all we know there
may be brute facts.”</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As for the other word, “fact” (in
“brute fact”) this is just another way of speaking of absolute, neutral,
same-for-all, objective truth. From the standpoint of epistemological idealism,
on the other hand, we would say: “There are no non-interpreted,
non-rationalized, or non-mental truths of an objective nature.” Accordingly, on
this account, knowledge of reality as mediated subjectively through internal
conditions of the mind comprehensively accounts for </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">all</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> we have or experience </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as
knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. We have, according to this theory, no direct, epistemic
relationship with objective reality. Or as the British philosopher Bishop
Berkeley so famously pus it: “To be is to be perceived.” In other words (and
similar to the claim of “no brute facts”), there are no “naked” facts.
“Clothed” facts would be facts coming to us by (and only by) Interpretation 2.
Conversely, “naked” facts would be facts coming to us by Interpretation 1. For
epistemological idealists, knowing is of such a nature that Interpretation 1
simply does not exist. On that account, to assume Interpretation 1 exists is
the sort of belief only uneducated or naive people entertain. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> However, regardless of how
philosophical types may think of us, is this indeed what we experience about
knowing? Are we so presuppositionally hard-wired that facts have no accessible
objectivity for knowing, especially as a possible, external corrective which
conflicts with what we presuppose? I don’t believe so. There are, indeed,
“brute,” “naked,” (even “mute”) facts in the sense of a knowable reality which
is the same for all. That is, what these denials come down to (again) is simply
a denial that Interpretation 1 exists for knowing. In sum, what this means is
that when it comes to knowing facts, (1) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">reasoning</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
about them (in contrast to their “bruteness”), (2) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">clothing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> them with</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">meaning
(in contrast to their “nakedness”), or (3) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">speaking
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">of what is there (in contrast to their being “mute”) are not activities so
radically or comprehensively of an Interpretation 2 kind of understanding that
Interpretation 1 is not also always possible, present, or available for
ascertaining an objective truth which is true for everyone. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> For instance, I recall many years
ago that my wife phoned me at work and said we were going to have beef stew for
dinner. When I got home, to my delight, there was indeed a pot on the stove and
the smell of cooked beef in the air. She had told me, since she had to be
elsewhere, not to wait for her but eat when I got home. So I took the lid off,
served my plate, said grace and dug in. Now the presupposition that we were
having beef stew stayed with me all the way up to the point of my happily
devouring my meal. As I was eating I realized at some point that my wife had
actually made a roast with potatoes, carrots, and peas—instead of beef stew. To
state the obvious, what I presupposed definitely had an effect on what I was
experiencing. Surprisingly (perhaps my mind was elsewhere), I entertained that
interpretation with the lid off the pot, while observing its contents, serving
my plate, and beginning to eat. But the extent to which my presupposition was
carrying me ended with a direct experience of the reality in which I was
partaking. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">What I presupposed, therefore,
did not exhaust the possibilities for knowing. That is, I was able to know
something (the thing itself I was eating) which my presuppositions had not
accounted for or expected. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">By my experience, I learned that my
presupposition was a mistaken Interpretation 2 understanding, and I discovered
my mistake by an Interpretation 1 direct acquaintance with reality.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Another way to approach
this might be to ask: Is all our knowing a knowing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> this or that (what Heidegger calls the “as-structure” of
knowing) or is there a sense in which we may know something directly for what
it is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (what we might call
an “is-structure” for knowing)? To claim that we are hard-wired in our
presuppositionalism (or that we cannot remove our presuppositional glasses as
certain Reformed thinkers have said) is, as I’ve been saying, precisely what
the modern philosophers assumed to be the case. However, if this were so, it
seems reasonable to believe we would see this play out in our ordinary
experience of knowing. But does it? </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">For example, let us
suppose we find ourselves at a party. On a table, we see various foods and
drinks. On one platter are cantaloupe cubes. There are also paper plates and
cups but no forks or spoons. Not wishing to be impolite, we survey the table to
see if there might be utensils appropriate for eating cantaloupe cubes. We
notice that there is a small cup that contains toothpicks. Now the
presuppositional understanding or “as-structure” of a toothpick could be
characterized as “a thing with which to pick one’s teeth after a meal.” But I
propose that in this case the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">interpretation</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
of this thing (what it is for other things) does not exhaust what can be known
about it as it is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. The
presuppositional, “as-structure” of the thing certainly “rationalizes” or
“clothes” or “speaks for” it as knowledge. And we commonly would, if asked,
characterize knowledge of a toothpick in terms similar to the just mentioned
definition. However, its “is-structure”—what it is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (what in philosophy is called “the thing itself”) and not
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">for something else</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (its
presuppositional, “as-structure”)—is that it is a thing that is hard, small,
slender, and pointed. These are some of its properties, apart from any
applicatory, interpretive, or presuppositional uses it may have as an object.
Now we could also identify a cantaloupe cube in its presuppositional
“as-structure,” as something to eat or nourish the human body. But it could also
be considered in itself: a substance soft, squishy, yet firm enough when
speared to hold together. At this point, it seems we have examined the
properties of two different objects — completely apart from their usual,
“as-structure.” The benefit we derive from this exercise in classifying or
indicating these properties of things </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in
themselves</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is that we are able to form a new presuppositional
“as-structure”: the toothpick has become a “cantaloupe-pick.” What we observe
in this exercise is that important aspect or realm of human knowing that deals
in direct (or non-interpretive) identification of what is there, completely
apart from human uses, purposes, or agendas. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This is, again,
Interpretation 1 knowing. It is the knowing that belongs to direct or common sense
realism. It has to do with identifying, classifying, or indicating things that
are there. To acknowledge as much, to be sure, is not to diminish at all from
that realm of knowledge distinctly devoted to and identified by various
practical applications. It is, again, only to remind us that what </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">forms</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in the first place or even later
gets altered as a presupposition—even as, in some sense, a condition for the
shape of other things we know—are moments of epistemicly non-presuppositional,
non-mediated, and direct dealing with reality or things in themselves. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">All knowing is not, therefore, entirely
encompassed or comprehended as presuppositional in nature and thus blocked from
an objective verification in reality.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This is also what makes
Schaeffer’s epistemological counsel viable, when he says, “Wise men choose
their presuppositions.” To choose one’s presuppositions in this sense means
that one can peer over (or remove) one’s presuppositional glasses and get a
direct look at what is actually there. Contrary, therefore, to what some have
said in a manner bespeaking great philosophical profundity, our presuppositions
are not like glasses “cemented to our faces.”</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 8. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> For those who are
interested in a more technical treatment, John Searle’s </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is a good place
to start. Also important as a defense of epistemological realism is Dallas
Willard’s article (can be found online), </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">How Concepts Relate
the Mind to its Objects: The 'God's Eye View' Vindicated.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Briefly, I will say
that had Descartes known what scientists know today about the brain (matter) in
relation to the mind, he undoubtedly would not have supported the kind of
mind-body dualism which is fundamental to and inseparable from epistemological idealism.
I do not suggest he would have embraced a materialist or monistic account of
the mind and body relationship (as some philosophers have done); rather, that
he would not have proposed such a radical difference in substance with respect
to knowing. </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Another way to
put this is: “There are no neutral facts.”</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> To be fair,
Nietzsche recognizes that this statement itself is an interpretation and that
he is contradicting himself. As one of the fathers of postmodernism, he does
not believe that we do anything else but fabricate fictions, especially those
which seem to serve our own advantage in life. Hence, if enhancing life is
better served by such contradictions, so much the better!</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Critique of Pure Reason</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, Immanuel Kant
rightly identifies both his epistemology and that of his modern predecessors
(I’m thinking of Descartes and Berkeley here) as versions of idealism. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I am careful
here because I do not support a mind-body monism as a simplistic solution to
the dualism I have been addressing. I only intend to suggest, consistent with
Scripture and common experience, that there is a physical aspect to knowing
that connects us reliably and directly with the external world and implies that
we are not shut up behind our “ideas,” “representations,” or “sense data” (as
different philosophers label these internal conditions) such that we cannot
verify them against external reality itself.
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Though I am
identifying Interpretation 2 with epistemological idealism here, I do not
intend to imply (as my definition of it makes clear) that there is no place for
this kind of interpretation in epistemological realism. This just isn’t the
context for exploring such things further. But, to give other examples, in a
sense we are engaged with Interpretation 2, when we stage a performance of
Shakespeare’s </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Hamlet</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, explore
something an author didn’t say (but could or should have), construe purposes or
uses for things (such as turning a piece of wood into a baseball bat), or move
any field of knowledge in a different (or even opposite) direction from
anything it has ever considered before. In sum, Interpretation 2 is an
important aspect of the quest for knowledge. It only becomes potentially
detrimental under an idealistic epistemology which assumes that knowledge</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> of that sort is all that exists or is
possible.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="color: black;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span>J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-82032968116123188442016-02-17T16:13:00.002-08:002016-02-19T09:02:04.539-08:00The Gospel Coalition's Claim that There Is No Christ-Honoring Common Ground for Objective Truth between Believers and Unbelievers (Part 1)<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: medium;">
<br />
</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> The
Gospel Coalition's claim that there is no Christ-honoring objective ground
for knowledge between a believer and unbeliever is, first of
all, inseparable from the epistemological question of whether TGC actually
embraces a correspondence or coherence view of truth. Ordinarily, when
one claims (as the council does) “we affirm that truth is correspondence
to reality,” this means that propositions can be objectively and verifiably
tested against reality and thus proven to be true or false. It also implies that
truth is </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">in some sense </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">universal and accessible to everyone.</span></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref1"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn1"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref1;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> From
that standpoint, no matter what group, culture, or background one may
belong to, the same reality is there and reliably knowable. Hence, with a
correspondence approach, whenever the truth of a matter is under question,
we may often gain the public clarity we need through facts or
evidence. On the other hand, if only a specially qualified group of people can
know truth (because they know things others don’t or, especially, because </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">how</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
they know things is different), then truth is not what corresponds to reality
but what </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">coheres</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> with what those particular people believe—that is,
their presuppositions as a group. Such an approach to truth reflects a
coherence account of truth, which may be defined as, “truth is what
coheres or is consistent with everything else </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">we</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">—not as the public or
people in general but as a private or particular group—believe.” </span></span><br />
</span></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But
this presents a problem. Whatever its value in other contexts (such as
religion), where public truth is concerned, such as in a court of law or
everyday life, the coherence theory does not work. The reason is obvious: by
definition such a theory does not claim the kind of neutrality, universality,
or objectivity necessary for those contexts. Coherence truth is, in a certain
sense, private truth or truth “for members only.” It assumes
there are different rationalities or perspectives—no one rationality or
perspective. Hence, it cannot—in its claim to knowledge and by
definition—include everyone the way a correspondence account of truth does.
What would happen, for instance, if a defense attorney employed an argument
based on a way of knowing unique to himself or the defendant? How far would he
get in a court of law? His conclusion might be reasonable or true for him and
his client (his private club, in that sense), but it would not be reasonable or
true for the rest of those involved in the trial: the attorney for the
prosecution, the judge, the jury, and the public at large.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;">
</span></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;">
</span></span><div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
It may be helpful here to pause for a moment and recall that in
the history of Western philosophy the coherence theory was formulated specifically
due to a prior rejection of the correspondence theory.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref2"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn2"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref2;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Indeed,
the coherence theory serves for many (especially in philosophy) not only as a
counter to the correspondence theory but also a worthy substitute for it. This
does not mean, of course, that there is no coherence of beliefs within the
framework of a correspondence theory. Nor does it mean, on the other hand
(quite importantly in this context), </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">that there is no claim of
correspondence to reality within the framework of a coherence theory.</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (As I
will explain shortly, this is where I believe TGC’s own claim to correspondence
belongs.) It does mean, however, that with a coherence theory, at no point along
the range of what it claims to know (even when it is most confident) does it
propose for its knowledge the kind of correspondence to reality which,
consistent with the theory so named (and, again, to which coherence is
opposed), is </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">objective</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">verifiable</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, and </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">accessible to all</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">.
</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 24.0pt;">
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
This is why, of course, knowledge based on coherence is called “a web of
belief.” Knowledge of this sort—in contrast to the groundedness of
correspondence—is, as it were, suspended in mid-air. Such knowledge, though
held together, has no connection to the earth in the sense that it has no
foundation in what is (again) generally, reliably, and verifiably knowable
for everyone. A coherence theory, therefore, is a special approach to
truth, designed to accommodate what diverse groups, collectives, or
cultures believe </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">sans</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> any direct, objective, and universal epistemic
justification in external reality. </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Hence, this theory of truth is consistent with knowledge regarded as subjective
and relative. It is, in other words, pluralistic or perspectival in nature.
This is because its basic assumption is that, for any particular group, its </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">way
of knowing</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (distinct from </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">what it knows</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> that way) uniquely,
radically, and necessarily conditions what it counts as knowledge.
Consequently, its knowledge is not shared by other</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">groups. Put
differently, a coherence theory holds that there is no </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">one </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">way of
knowing available to everyone. In order, then, for Group A to convince Group B
to adopt its beliefs, its appeal to truth can only be indirect. That is, Group
A appeals </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">directly</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> neither to </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">what it knows</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (based on its </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">way
of knowing</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">) nor to something objective and knowable by all (since, of
course, it doesn’t believe that things are known that way) but to its </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">way of
knowing</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (its presuppositions). With a coherence theory, then, if Group A
wishes to persuade Group B to accept its truths, it does so by, in effect,
making the following proposal: “Please try our </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">way of knowing</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, and then,
perhaps, you will accept </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">what we know</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">—that is, become convinced of and
embrace </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">our</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> truths.” </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
With that said, I suggest that — notwithstanding its explicit
identification with a correspondence theory of truth and rejection of “truth as
nothing more than the internally coherent language of a particular faith-community”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref3"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn3"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref3;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> —
TGC actually supports a coherence theory that includes an internal claim to
correspondence. To make this case, I begin with Phillips:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
purpose of this booklet, then, is not to present an objective epistemology that
anyone—Christian or not—would adopt....Wouldn’t it be better, some will ask, to
meet our unbelieving neighbors on an objective epistemological common ground?
That answer is that no such objective ground exists</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">...</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref4"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn4"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref4;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[4]</span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
For the moment, I have intentionally omitted important qualifiers in this
quotation, which I intend to include and address shortly. However, I wish to
underscore in the quotation that in context the denial of an “objective
epistemological common ground” is not what unbelievers are espousing under the
sway of what Phillips elsewhere calls “today’s relativist hegemony.” Rather,
this is Phillips himself (on behalf of The Gospel Coalition) speaking.
That is, at this point, Phillips is not accommodating himself for the sake of
the gospel to a subjective or relativistic age. This means (or so I argue) that
what is both fundamental and critical to the correspondence theory of truth
itself, namely, the implied assumption of a reality which can be known and
verified by all, is not part of Phillips’ approach to truth. However, once this
assumption is rejected, some other theory of truth than that of correspondence
has to take its place. As I hope to show, next, that theory is one of
coherence. </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Now for the qualifiers I left out from the quotation: after rejecting “an
objective epistemological ground” which is the same, whether one is a Christian
or not, Phillips offers an alternative to that ground, which is an approach to
truth based on the Christian faith itself. The latter, he says, “reflects the
core beliefs of our gospel faith,” “validates our experience as Christian
believers,” “presents how we as Christians answer questions regarding the
knowledge of truth,” and honors “the lordship of Jesus.” Here the implication
seems clear that if in presenting the gospel to unbelievers Christians assume
that there is “an objective epistemological ground” between believer and
unbeliever (that is, make a direct appeal to </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">the truth</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">), then they are,
in that particular engagement, failing to honor (at least to some extent) their
Christian faith and their Lord. And, as for the unbeliever with whom we are
speaking about the gospel, there is apparently no basis for communication or
persuasion apart from getting them to first presuppose Christian beliefs in
general. (That is—and in a sense—</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">they need to believe in order to believe</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">.)
Thus we have something quite similar to my earlier illustration of the
coherence theory in action. Group A says to Group B, “Please try our </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">way of
knowing</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, and then, perhaps, you will accept </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">what we know</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">—that is,
become convinced of and embrace </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">our</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> truths.”</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
As for how, specifically, TGC and Phillips internalize their own claim to
correspondence within a coherence theory of truth, it seems to go something
like this. Because of finitude and sin, humans cannot know truth.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref5"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn5"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref5;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> However,
when someone is regenerated, they are able to understand the Word of God whose
perfect knowledge </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">alone</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> corresponds to reality. The regenerate,
therefore, have in this way unique access to objective truth; however, this
comes not directly but indirectly. It is mediated through God and the Bible as
the Spirit imparts understanding to the heart. Consequently, truth gets defined
as what coheres to what God says in Scripture (again, which is known
subjectively by the Spirit) and any claim of correspondence to external reality
is located within that coherence. Conversely, those who are not regenerate
(thus lacking the internal principle necessary for knowledge — and due to human
finitude and sin) have no reliable, epistemic access to objective truth.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
This means that there is a significant ambiguity in Phillips’ statement: “Prior
to giving our witness to Christian truth, we will often have to present clear
Christian views about truth itself.”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref6"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn6"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref6;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> If by a
Christian view of truth, Phillips means a correspondence view of truth (a
knowledge, in a sense, accessible to everyone the way other things ordinarily
are) as supported by the Bible, that is one thing. (That, however, doesn’t
seem to be what he is saying.) If, on the other hand, by a Christian view of
truth (or “our witness”), he means (or implies) that truth is itself </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">entirely</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
relative to one’s subjective presuppositions, experience, or perspective,
that is another. If he means the latter, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">he is saying something
philosophical not biblical</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">. He is also, quite significantly, conceding
considerable ground to relativism itself—albeit, in the name of a Christian
form of relativism. In that case, for instance, those postmodern unbelievers
who say, “No thank you,” to our invitation as Christians to, “Please try our
way of knowing,” will tend to walk away feeling — precisely because of this
approach — </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">justified and even confirmed in their own relativism.</span></i></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Now my claim that Phillips is enlisting a coherence approach to truth is
further confirmed by his account of a conversation between James Boice and a
woman on an airplane. As an unbeliever, the woman had objections to the
Christian faith.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref7"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn7"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref7;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> However,
Boice kept asking her, “But is it [the Christian faith] true?” Phillips asks us
to suppose that she was a relativist and did not believe in truth as a common
ground. In context, he is imagining for us a problem we may face in talking to
postmodernists about the gospel. And since we have already noted that Phillips </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">himself</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
does not believe in truth as a common ground, this is a bit puzzling, but let
us continue. He then asks: “How, then, are Christians to proclaim truth in a
world that no longer believes in it?” Phillips continues: “The answer to the
challenge of our times is surely not to turn aside from our biblical witness to
argue complicated theories of epistemology and hermeneutics.” Apart from what
might be a questionable assumption that arguing “complicated theories of
epistemology and hermeneutics” constitutes turning “aside from our biblical
witness”—not to mention that he is from the outset already significantly vested
in such “complicated theories”—Phillips’ encouragement is for us to simply
give this person a Bible, tell how God has met our own subjective need for
truth by sending his Spirit to provide what is written there, including what it
tells us of God’s own Son, Jesus Christ, who gives understanding to sincere
seekers of truth from God’s Word. However, again, is this not basically saying
to that person, “Please try our way of knowing”? And, as I already indicated,
is that not what relativists or those who support a coherence view of truth say
in commending “their” truth to others? </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Of course, it is a wonderful thing, when someone is willing to receive a Bible
from us, especially when they are intent on weighing whether or not the gospel
is true. However, as a general strategy for bringing the gospel to postmodern
unbelievers, I wonder: </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Is that sufficient?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Furthermore, if we do
persuade such people to essentially “believe in order to believe,” what kind of
converts will they be? Did they believe because the Bible and the Christian
faith are true (Boice’s concern)? Or did they believe because they </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">experienced</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
it as true? Did they separate reason from faith in their conversion? Did they
put their minds on hold, suspend their judgment, in order to believe? </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
In addition, Phillips says early in his book that “</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">it will not suffice</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">
[emphasis mine—jnp] to hold forth our Bible and walk friends down the famous
‘Romans Road’ series of evangelistic verses.”</span></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref8"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn8"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref8;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[8]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> He
explains that due to the relativism of our times, we will also need to answer
questions as to why we should accept the Bible as true or why we should think
what is true for us is true for others, etc.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftnref9"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn9"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftnref9;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[9]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Now I
must confess that when I first read this reference to “the famous ‘Romans Road’
series of evangelistic verses” I wasn’t sure what this meant. I found on the
internet that it involves a series of verses from Paul’s </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Epistle to the
Romans </span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">to support the following truths:</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">1.
Everyone needs salvation because we have all sinned (Rom. 3:10-12, 23).</span></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
2. The price (or consequence) of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).</span></span></i></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">
3. Jesus Christ died for our sins. He paid the price for our death
(Rom. 5:8).</span></span></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
4. We receive salvation and eternal life through faith in Jesus
Christ (Rom. 10:9-10, 23).</span></span></i></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">
5. Salvation through Jesus Christ brings us into a relationship of
peace with God (Rom. 5:1; 8:1, 38-39).</span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .3in; margin-right: .3in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">As I read
these bulleted points, it occurred to me that if one were to study all the
gospel messages recorded in </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Acts of the Apostles</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, these “Romans
Road” points are all either explicitly or implicitly expressed there. The only
difference is that in the apostolic presentation of the gospel, we find a
consistent pattern of appeal (summarized in 1 Cor. 15:1-8) to the fulfillment
of Scriptural prophecies as well as to their own eyewitness testimony as
apostles to argumentatively support the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is
Messiah and Lord. Hence, the “Romans Road” approach to evangelism is an elaboration
of appropriate conclusions related to and even inseparable from this central
conclusion of the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. As such (I trust this
is fair), Phillips may as well have said, “When it comes to evangelizing those
who are postmodern, it will not suffice to preach what the apostles preached in
</span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Book of Acts</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> or what Paul commends as the gospel with its evidence
and proofs in 1 Corinthians 15. We should, instead, hand them a Bible and
invite them to experience the truth subjectively for themselves.” This
also means, when Phillips says (as noted above) that “in many cases” the
“Romans Road” approach “will not suffice,” what in the end he really seems to
mean is that it “will not do.” </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Admittedly, at the risk of a simplistic reduction of Phillips’ argument, I
wonder if, even in our postmodern times, there is no relevance or direction
given us in Paul’s sacred charge to Timothy: “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2)?
That is, does Paul say, “Hand out the Scriptures” (though, if possible, that
would certainly be an important supplement to preaching the Word)? Such a
charge would seem to recommend, again, a silent approach to evangelism (to use
D.A. Carson’s phrase, a “gagging of God”). It seems to mean something like,
“Don’t talk to people about Jesus, especially if they are relativists. Let them
get the gospel on their own, subjectively, by reading the Scriptures and the
help of the Holy Spirit.” However, what Paul says to Timothy with this charge
to “preach the Word” (or what Peter says with his, “be prepared to make a
defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”—1 Pe.
3:15) seems to be a direct counter to any prescription for a silent,
subjective, or “try it you’ll like it” approach to evangelism. It is, notably
(in Paul’s case), even more than directing Timothy to use words or speak to
others directly about Jesus—even more than making a claim supported by reasons
(though it surely includes as much)—it is, indeed, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">proclamation of an
objective, public truth</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">
Hence, it seems to me that the explanation for why there is in Phillips a
questioning (if not abandonment) of the “Romans Road” (or, as I propose,
apostolic) approach to evangelism or of preaching and reasoning itself is that
activities of this nature are logically consistent with the correspondence
theory of public truth (which Phillips and TGC reject). However, a
coherence theory (which apparently Phillips accepts), as a non-public,
private, or exclusive account of truth, calls for a different approach
altogether. The latter is obviously more subjective in nature and
logically implies a manner of relating to people which is more indirect, less
confrontive, and gently encourages people to get things on their own. Hence,
instead of the urgent, direct, and passionate, apostolic call (such as one
observes consistently in </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Acts</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">) — expressed through </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">preaching</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> — to
consider what the Scriptures say about Jesus as the Messiah as well as the
apostles’ own testimony to the same (all accompanied with persuasive reasoning,
etc.), under a coherence approach (as we see with Phillips' and TGC’s
recommendation), it is </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">the Christian perspective itself</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> (not
specifically the gospel) which is presented in a more indirect manner, that
is, by handing someone a Bible and praying that through reading the
Bible that person will have a believer’s subjective experience of the
gospel as truth. </span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;">
</span><br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn1"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref1"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn1;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> In his </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Think:
The Life of the Mind and the Love of God</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, TGC council member John Piper
seems to recognize this universal aspect of truth in several places, for
instance, when in contrast to this aspect he characterizes relativism as the
belief that “there is no objective, external standard for measuring the truth
or falsehood of a statement” (p. 97). Also, in a message entitled, “The
Challenge of Relativism,” Piper says: “</span></span><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
claim that there is no one standard for truth and falsehood that is valid for
everyone is rooted most deeply in the desire of the fallen human mind to be
free from all authority and to enjoy the exaltation of self.” Additionally,</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> in </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">What
Ever Happened to Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, TGC council member Al Mohler writes, “It [the
truth of the gospel] is objectively, historically, and universally true” (p.
59). Now this may be a misunderstanding on my part, but I think this means that
Mohler believes that in some sense even unbelievers can understand the gospel
even if they reject or disobey what they know.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn2"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref2"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn2;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> The
coherence theory is generally regarded, particularly in its influence on contemporary
thought, as originating with epistemological idealists in the modern tradition
like Immanuel Kant. In his phenomenal-noumenal distinction, for instance, Kant
believes we can only know things as they appear to us (the phenomenal) and not
how they are in themselves (the noumenal). That is, we have no direct access to
external (non-mental) reality. This means that there is no objective truth
which is accessible to us as knowledge. Reality is conditioned by the mind such
that all we have are relative and subjective perspectives or interpretations
and never direct knowledge of reality itself. Put another way, knowledge is
mediated through the mind and there is no way to verify that knowledge, thus
mediated, actually corresponds to (or accords with) external reality. Hence,
the emphasis with respect to truth becomes a matter of how beliefs hold
together or cohere (as an internal, mental reality) rather than how they are or
are not true to external or objective reality. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn3"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref3"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn3;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This
quotation is from the statement on truth at TGC website.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn4"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref4"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn4;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can
We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, p. 8.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn5"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref5"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn5;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can
We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, p. 15.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn6"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref6"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn6;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can
We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, p. 7.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn7"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref7"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn7;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can
We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, pp. 22-23.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn8"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref8"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn8;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[8]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 16.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can
We Know the Truth</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, p. 7.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_ftn9"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref9"><span style="mso-bookmark: _ftn9;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large; text-decoration: none;">[9]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In the
end, Phillips’ recommendation that we simply hand someone a Bible implies that
in relating the gospel to a postmodern unbeliever we actually do not answer
these questions about the Bible’s authority or the objectivity of truth.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<br /></div>
</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="color: black;"><br /></span>J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-90014598512952719532016-02-17T12:35:00.002-08:002016-02-17T12:41:36.488-08:00The Gospel Coalition's Claim that Due to Human Sinfulness Truth Is Not Truly Knowable at All (Part 2)<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In my last post I said that the Christian/Reformed
mixture with philosophy I’ve been addressing inverts the order of knowing
assumed in Scripture and does so in a way more consistent with Descartes’ own method
of structuring the edifice of knowledge. You may recall that in his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Meditations </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Descartes sought a
foundation for knowledge which is conceptually clear, certain, and indubitable.
And, of course, one of the first things Descartes rejects as such a foundation
for knowledge is knowledge that comes by the senses (or what I am calling
“physical seeing”). This just means that Descartes rejects at the outset what
both the Bible assumes and our common experience teaches us, namely, that there
is an important sense in which “seeing is knowing.”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Importantly, if what Descartes sets out to
prove succeeds, then it changes everything about how we conceive of truth and
how it is known. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Let's follow Descartes’ line of thought for a
moment. “I have learned by experience,” he says, “that those senses sometimes
mislead me, and it is prudent never to trust wholly those things which have
once deceived us.” In expressing his doubt in the senses as he does, Descartes
seems to project on the use of the senses the kind of problem one finds with
humans in their sinfulness. That is, once a person deceives us, we regard this
not merely as a single, discrete transgression but as a broader problem of
character. One who lies to us is a liar. Hence, it takes much time and an
established record of honesty on the part of such a one for us to slowly regain
our trust in them. We certainly cannot “trust wholly” what they say before then.
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Does human behavior, however, serve as a fit
analogy to the senses when, seemingly, they “deceive” us? For instance, when we
see the sun moving across the sky, we now know what was not known prior to
Copernicus and Galileo and that is that the sun does not revolve around the
earth but the earth rotates and is itself revolving around the sun. But were
our eyes “deceiving” us all along? Do the eyes (or human senses in general)
actually have a volitional or moral agency, similar to humans, such that they
could “deceive” or lie to us? Is it not more accurate to say that the eyes are doing
what the eyes do but that, being as small as we are as humans (and situated as
we are on the planet), it only appears that the sun is moving across the sky?
Don’t </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the same eyes</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> convey to
astronauts in outer space that it is in fact the earth rotating which causes
the appearance that the sun is moving across the sky? Did the eyes suddenly
decide to come clean and tell us the truth about whether it was the sun or
earth which does the moving or are they doing the same thing they have always
been doing but under different external conditions? My point is that Descartes enlists
a false analogy</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to persuade us that our senses (my first
level: physical seeing) cannot be trusted for knowing truth. With these and
other—what I consider—dubious doubts,</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></span></a><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Descartes intends to move
us away from the biblical and common sense notion that physical seeing is and
may be foundationally important in a veridical quest. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Once Descartes destroys this reality check of
direct, physical seeing for truth, he turns inward for his indubitable
foundation of knowing. It is important to notice, however, that in arriving at
the latter, he still places his confidence in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">direct seeing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, although, it is a confidence of a subjective kind, one
that is directed toward his own internal ideas and thinking. What I mean is
that while Descartes rejects that kind of knowing by direct seeing which is
physical, he still relies on the idea (derived from such seeing) that knowing
comes by direct seeing. There would, indeed, be no such frame of reference for
Descartes as a possibility for knowing if in our human experience we had not
learned to associate physical seeing with knowing. More to the point, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">if there had been no significant success
rate in our experience for knowing by direct, physical seeing, such seeing
could not have served as an analogy for the indubitable, foundational certainty
Descartes believes he has discovered for knowledge based on a direct, mental
seeing of his own ideas or thinking. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Seeing would not be associated with
clarity or “knowing for certain.” </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> And, again, when Descartes arrives at this
foundation—his “I think, therefore, I am”—we must keep in mind that he has no
God, no world, no other persons but himself, and no physical body. He believes
he has found something self-evidently true, namely, that as long as he is
thinking, he exists. Later, philosophers like Hume and Nietzsche will marshal
formidable, destructive doubts against every word in that statement: the “I,”
the “think,” the “therefore,” and the “am.” Postmodernism (relying on such
philosophers and pushing epistemological idealism to its logical conclusion—with
the world wars of the twentieth century in the background) will deconstruct
Descartes’ foundation for knowledge right out of existence.</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As stated earlier, the Christian/Reformed mixture
with philosophy I’ve been addressing follows Descartes in this inversion of the
relationship between the body and mind for knowing. That is, it keeps
Descartes’ proposal that subjectivity of an internal sort is more foundational
as truth—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">more real</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—than knowledge
gained by the senses. It defends this position by pointing to supernatural
knowledge from God which comes to the heart internally through regeneration by
the Spirit in Christ and by the understanding imparted thereby as one reads the
Bible. Put differently, Descartes’ modern theory as appropriated by (or mixed
with) Christian/Reformed theology (as
I’ve been considering it) means that what is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">foundational </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">for knowledge or truth is entirely supernatural in
nature and does not have, therefore, a natural and rational component essential
to (or inseparable from) it, since because of finitude and/or sin that
component is put out of commission. Consequently, this mixture will appeal to
its knowledge of God’s self-disclosure in Scripture as its foundational truth
but it does so in what I consider an unscriptural manner—that is (and again),
by following not the direct realism of Scripture but the epistemological
idealism of Descartes in its reliance on internal (even if a spiritual
knowledge based on Scripture) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">over</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
external, physically and rationally, knowable reality. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> The Bible’s
concept of truth is different. On the one hand, it is true that the apostle
John says to the saints: “you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you have
all knowledge” (1 Jn. 2:20). Again, he says, “But the anointing that you have
received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach
you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no
lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him” (1 Jn. 2:27). And Paul says, “The
Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom.
8:16). In his gospel, again, the apostle John says, “When the Spirit of truth
comes, he will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13).</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="line-height: 200%; position: relative; top: -3pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Scriptures like this truly teach (as
Christian/Reformed theology emphasizes) that knowledge of the truth comes to
the heart of believers by the Spirit in a special way. It is, indeed,
appropriate when a Christian speaks with a certainty that comes from God
internally as spiritual confirmation of one’s status as a child of God and all
that Scripture says as God’s Word. This is, indeed, foundational as truth even </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">subjectively so.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But it is not the whole story for how, according
to Scripture, we are to understand truth. Notice that in the apostle John’s
dealing with the error of Gnosticism and in order to establish the public
nature of the truth of the gospel, he does not point to what Christians believe
or a Christian way of knowing confirmed to the heart of a believer by the
Spirit and the teaching of Scripture but to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">physical
seeing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (that is, sensory perception) and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">mental seeing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (basic apprehension) as a critical aspect of knowing:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning
the word of life...that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you,
so that you too may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with
the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3). What do I mean? If
there is a question of true knowledge, of reality, with respect to the public
truth of the gospel, the apostles appeal to every day knowing or what I’ve been
calling court room epistemology. That is, when people in general ask: “How do
you know that what you claim about Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, is
true?” The apostles in response ground this claim </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in an ordinarily and universally knowable reality</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. In other words,
they were saying to the whole world concerning Jesus’ life on earth—things like
his miracles, teachings, and resurrection from the dead: “We </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">saw</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. We </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">heard</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. We </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">touched</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. We
connected with reality the way people normally do. If you had been here, you
would have seen and heard the same things. This is how we know our message is
true and why we commend it to you for your belief.” In doing this, they
implicitly recognized that neither finitude nor sin prevents the basic human
ability to know things requisite for their testimony to be meaningful and carry
weight as confirmation of the truth for all people, places, and times that
Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> That is, physical and mental seeing which I have
classified as the first two levels of knowing are critically important for
establishing the truth of the gospel which the apostles preached. On the other
hand, the apostles never said to people in general: “We have had this
experience of regeneration. We have embraced certain Christian beliefs or
presuppositions based on Scripture. We commend our Christian worldview to you
for your consideration. Please consider how coherent our beliefs are and how
incoherent your beliefs are by comparison. Consider what the Bible says. Here,
take these scrolls. Read them. See for yourselves. Consider how Jesus is
presented within our Christian perspective as the Messiah, as I go my way and
pray that the Lord will open your eyes.” Such an appeal is, as I’ve been
claiming, indirect and subjective in nature. The apostles never spoke that way.
They were objective in their appeal. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">They
pointed away from themselves to things that were objective and knowable by
every one.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> That is, they didn’t point indirectly to their presuppositions
but directly to the person and reality of Jesus Christ. They knew that when
people are persuaded (see Acts 17:1-4) that Jesus is Lord, the power and
implications of that foundational truth alters their unbelieving
presuppositions and begins the process of establishing in them the full range
of biblical and Christian presuppositions about God.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> One may find many places in Scripture where we see
this appeal to what is ordinarily knowable by our natural and rational
faculties as confirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. For example,
when John the Baptist is in prison (Matt. 11:2-5) and has doubts whether or not
Jesus is the Son of God, he sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he truly is
“the one who is to come.” Notice what Jesus doesn’t say. He doesn’t say, “Ask
John what the Spirit is saying in his heart about me.” He could have said this,
and it would have been true. It would even have been a significant,
non-negotiable part of settling John’s internal doubts. But what does Jesus say
to these disciples? “Go and tell John </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what
you hear and see</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor
have good news preached to them.” Notice, Jesus doesn’t say, “What </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">hear and see,” but “what </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">you</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> hear and see.” The implication is
that everyone could see these things and that human knowing in general is not
defective for perceiving and apprehending the miracles Jesus worked. In other
words, these disciples were no different from other humans. It wasn’t their
special perspective or presuppositions based on being John the Baptist’s
disciplies that made their testimony to what they saw and heard of Jesus’
ministry compelling as a confirmation that Jesus truly is “the one who is to
come.” This is, again, what I’m calling “court room epistemology.” It is
ordinary knowing, and it is foundational in an important sense as a
confirmation—in the face of doubts—that in reality Jesus truly is the Messiah,
the Son of God. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I will have more to say about this later, but
TGC’s and Phillips’ belief that because of human finitude truth is subjective
and because of sin truth is unknowable—and that the remedy to this problem is a
supernatural knowledge which comes by the Spirit without a basis in physical
and mental seeing (due to the problems just mentioned)—implies that, had John
been thinking appropriately, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what Jesus told
John’s disciples would not at all have alleviated John’s doubts.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> The reason
is that though Jesus appealed to something other than his perspective or
presuppositions — that is, to the works themselves he was doing — John could have
thought to himself: “My disciples could have come under the bias, slant, or
coloring of Jesus’ presuppositions.” My point is that there is a reality that
is reliably knowable by physical and mental seeing, and it is critically
important precisely because it transcends presuppositions. It is what forms
presuppositions in the first place as well as has the power to alter them. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In Scripture, when it comes to confirming the
truth of the gospel, we see this appeal to the first two levels of knowing repeatedly.
For instance, when Peter says that the apostles were not following cleverly
devised myths when they preached the gospel of Christ, Peter appeals to his
eyewitness testimony pertaining to the transfiguration of Jesus on the
mountain, when Elijah and Moses suddenly showed up. That is, when the questions
arise, “Are these things real? Is this message of the gospel true to reality?
Or just fiction?,” the apostles reply, “We saw. We heard.” As in a court room,
the implication is: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">we saw and heard what
anyone would have seen and heard had they been there.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Because of this eyewitness testimony, Peter
continues: “We have the prophetic word more fully confirmed” (2 Pe. 1:19). Notably,
this wording comes from the ESV text edition of 2011. In the 2007 edition, the
ESV translated the same passage: “And we have something more sure, the
prophetic word.” In this earlier translation, then, Peter is understood as
appealing to his eyewitness testimony but then contrasting that with “something
more sure”—God’s Word. The idea is that biblical truth is more real or reliable
than truth based on what has been seen and heard. Without being privy to the
thinking of the translators behind this way of translating 2 Peter 1:19, this
translation seems to fit the way presuppositionalism understands the
relationship between God’s Word and attesting miracles with eyewitness
testimony, etc. I mean that presuppositionalism regards Scripture as conveying
reality to us in a way that is superior to anything knowable in ordinary
reality (even if it is the miracles of Jesus) as known by physical and mental
seeing. However, the ESV’s 2011 change in translation of this verse is not only,
in my opinion, the correct rendering of the text but also consistent with the
relationship Scripture presents between God’s Word and miracles as conveyed by
the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. The latter view miracles as
confirmation that God’s Word is true (not the other way around; see John
20:30-31 and Hebrews 2:3-4) and do so, implying (1) that there is an integrity
in human knowing at the first two levels of seeing (physical and seeing) such
that eyewitness testimony can serve in such a confirming role; (2) that there
is knowable, universal, and objective truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">with
which biblical truth itself is consistent</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. In sum, God is not giving us
fairytales and imparting the Spirit to our hearts to confirm such. He gave us
his Son in fulfillment of prophecies and provided miracles attested to by the
eyewitness testimony of the apostles as a confirmation in a universally
knowable reality that what God had revealed in his Word concerning his Son had
truly come to pass. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I intend this expression, “seeing is
knowing,” in a simple, qualified, yet important sense. I will elaborate on this
more when I explore in future posts the biblical assumptions for knowing but here I am not
making any grand or unreasonable demands for seeing as knowing. I only mean
that under normal conditions we generally and regularly do have successful
knowing based on physical seeing. For instance, I am presently seeing the
screen of my laptop as I type and not a tree or dog or the clouds; moreover,
this knowledge that my laptop is here in front of me is reliable or true
knowledge.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I understand the fallacy of false analogy as
an appeal to the similarity of two different things</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> for the sake of
reaching a certain conclusion, without noting a significant dissimilarity which
causes the argument to fail.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Descartes also doubts whether he is awake
or dreaming because there have been times when he thought, for example, he was
sitting in front of his fireplace, when in fact he was only dreaming. But,
unless we are inclined, for some reason, to cultivate or give place to such
doubt, is it not a fairly simple and routine matter to determine whether we are
dreaming or awake? Can we not clear that up in a matter of seconds?
Additionally, Descartes entertains the thought that we may be part of a demon’s
imagined world, like characters in a video game. Again, unless we are motivated
by some inclination to chase unwarranted conclusions, what evidence is there
for such a supposition? </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Regrettably, postmodernism will also think
that the villain is foundationalism itself—that belief in absolute reality as
knowable accounts for why there are wars in the world and if we could all see
that there are no metanarratives, we would not take our beliefs so seriously
and just peacefully celebrate the differences in our various religions and
worldviews. But there is no avoiding of foundations behind what we believe or claim to know. The
Bible certainly presents (and common sense requires, in certain respects) truth
as foundational in nature.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This has, of course, primary application
to the apostolic role for establishing the canonical truth of Scripture (what
we call the “New Testament” Scriptures). There is, I believe, a secondary and
important sense in which the Spir</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">it leads all believers through
Scripture into all truth.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span>J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-17972591243810054632016-02-17T12:00:00.002-08:002016-02-17T12:38:13.978-08:00The Gospel Coalition's Claim that Due to Human Sinfulness Truth Is Not Truly Knowable at All (Part 1)<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt;">
</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In this post, I examine Phillips' claim that “humans
may not be able to know the truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">”
because of the effects of sin on the mind (pp. 14-15). About this, Phillips says: “When we add the
problem of sin [to that of finitude—jnp], humans are no longer able to know
truth truly at all.” Again, the answer at least in part to this problem,
according to Phillips, is that Jesus Christ “sends the Holy Spirit to animate
the spirits of sinful men and women to know and believe the truth.” He then
adds, “Thus, in the same passage where Paul directly states that sinful humans
cannot know truth, he reveals that God’s Holy Spirit solves this problem by
giving new life to undeserving sinners: ‘Now we have received not the spirit of
the world,’ Paul explains, ‘but the Spirit who is from God, that we might
understand the things freely given us by God’ (1 Cor. 2:12).”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
As indicated already, Phillips’ point seems to be that even before sin humans (as finite)
had a problem with knowing truth and after sin things are much, much worse. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Again,
we are faced with the self-contradictory nature of such claims. What are we to
make of a statement that sinful humans do not know truth truly at all? Aren’t
we all sinful humans? Then, can we know the truth truly that we cannot know
truth truly at all? And, if we can know it to be true—we, though finite and sinful—then,
it isn’t true, because we—though finite and sinful—know at least one truth,
namely, that sinful humans cannot know truth truly at all. Besides this, do we
not commonly observe that unregenerate people can know truth generally
(scientists, farmers, physicians, teachers, business executives, engineers,
architects, builders and construction workers, etc.)? </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Consequently,
again, the question which serves as title to Phillips' booklet, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the
Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, is answered, but this time there is more than skepticism expressed
about the innate quality of human knowing or capacity for truth; it is a
categorical statement that humans </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">cannot</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
know truth (implication: cannot know </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">anything
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">reliably or verifiably). Or, as Phillips says elsewhere, “With the postmoderns we are
skeptical that finite, fallible humans are the agents of truth, though we
insist that truth is real and that we can know it.”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
What it means to be skeptical that humans are “the agents of truth” would seem
to entail, at a minimum, serious doubts that humans can either have truth or
convey it to others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Admittedly, in this quotation
Phillips also adds, “though we insist that truth is real and that we can know
it.” Frankly, I am not sure what Phillips means by his qualification here.
Whatever he means, to avoid contradiction, he must mean something different
from the proposition which precedes it. If he is contradicting himself, he
would seem to be saying something like this: “With the postmoderns we don’t
believe humans can know and be carriers for truth, though we insist that truth
is real and knowable such that humans indeed can know and be carriers for
truth.” So, to avoid such a blatant contradiction, I offer an alternative.
Phillips may mean by his qualification something like this: “though we insist
that truth is real [that is, truth exists or is actually there—jnp] and that we
can know it” [that is, we can know it in some imperfect, non-verifiable, and
yet coherent or meaningful sense—jnp]. (This is how many of the modern
philosophers think about truth.) I offer this possible reading because
skepticism about humans as agents of truth (what Phillips says before the
“though”) is, of course, inseparable from skepticism about the ability of
humans to have or know truth. </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What
is the origin of Phillips’ skepticism about truth, particularly, for finite,
fallen humans? Though Scripture is enlisted for its support, again, I don’t
believe that it derives from or has any firm grounding in a faithful exegesis
of Scripture. I will make a case for this last statement in a moment but for
now I wish to point out that as far as I can tell (and as I’ve been saying)
Phillips’ account of knowing originates with modern philosophy (Descartes and
his successors), in spite of the fact that on certain points (such as, its
reliance on autonomous reason) he is so critical of the same. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Moreover,
what Phillips’ adoption of certain skeptical tenets of modern philosophy
accomplishes is not without a certain appeal, especially for Reformed theology.
For instance, it seems to provide the doctrine of original sin greater depth,
even as making us as humans bereft of knowledge or truth in general.
Consequently, when God’s regenerating Spirit in Christ meets that need, it
seems that greater glory is given to God. That is, the grace of God makes
possible, in this case, not just an internal and subjective principle of
righteousness (Rom. 8:2, 11) but also, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">of
knowledge itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> <span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> However,
with this philosophical “enhancement” of biblical doctrine, what Scripture
portrays as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">a hamartological problem</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
(that is, a problem of sin—which requires a certain level of knowledge as
Romans 1-3 explicitly makes clear) tends to become </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">an epistemological problem</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Whereas the Law of God </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (what is not presented in
Scripture as a problem for knowledge—indeed works only successfully as reliable
knowledge) closes every mouth, imprisons or shuts everyone up under </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sin </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">(Rom. 3:19; Gal. 3:22), this new or
different law put into place with the aid of philosophy, on the other hand,
closes every mouth, etc., under </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">a state
of unknowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Consequently, there is, understandably and commensurate with
this change, an alteration in approach to evangelizing the lost: what comes to
the foreground to meet mankind’s greatest need becomes not so much (or
primarily) the Savior as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">a way of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
(a Christian view of truth) which includes the Savior. This means as Christians
we are, in effect, saying to the world: “Yes, we agree with you that truth is
relative; however, it is relative only to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">our
more coherent view of things as Christians</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, since our view of things comes
from the Holy Spirit who regenerates us to know truth, generally, and the truth
of the gospel, particularly.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> There
are also other significant problems. If what we presuppose radically conditions
knowledge such that those with unbelieving presuppositions basically don’t know
anything and if it is only through accepting Christian presuppositions through
regeneration by the Holy Spirit that one can in this life know things
(including Jesus as Lord), then why is it that Christians are not markedly
smarter and more successful in the various fields of learning and vocation than
the unregenerate? Furthermore, how is it (as Scripture tells us) that
unbelievers in their unregenerate state will at the coming of Christ know
things sufficiently well to mourn, bow the knee to Jesus, and confess him as
Lord? And, again, how do the demons—certainly not regenerate—know and confess
Jesus as the Son of God? In sum, neither the unregenerate nor demons are
regenerate such that they can, on Phillips’ account, have “a Christian view of
truth,” and yet both categories of beings in the end seem to know, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">non-savingly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">eternally</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, a lot of things including the truth of all truths,
namely, that Jesus is Lord. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Then
there is also this problem: if everyone because of finitude is “subjective,”
“partial,” and selective in what they know of truth (with all the problems
already noted with that proposal) and, because of sin’s effect on the mind,
unable to know truth truly at all, then how would someone so errant in their
ability to know be able to reliably read and understand the Bible to learn of
Jesus?</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
If the answer to that is, what was just stated, namely, that the Holy Spirit
supernaturally animates and imparts to them such understanding, are there no
natural aspects or requirements to that process—such as, people who are
physically alive (able to see and hear), dealing with physical words on the
page, mentally understanding the words themselves?</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What
is, admittedly, confusing about this syncretism of Christian or Reformed
theology with modern epistemology is that it sounds critical (as it does in
Phillips) of the very philosophy it has adopted. And, indeed, the Christian or
Reformed view of sin and regeneration by the Spirit in Christ serves as a
strong rebuke to that philosophy, particularly, as rational, God-denying,
independent, and autonomous. However, in this case, it does not reject modern
philosophy’s basic theory of knowledge itself, specifically, that truth is
subjective or relative in nature. This has, apparently, been adopted or
imported (with little to no fanfare) as an important insight from philosophy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Returning
now to the Scriptural support Phillips employs for his view that sinful humans
cannot know truth, what does Paul mean when he says “The natural man does not
accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is
not able to understand them” (1 Cor. 2:14)? Or, again, “Now we have received
not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might
understand the things freely given us by God” (1 Cor. 2:12)? It is clear that
in the context of 1 Corinthians chapters one and two, Paul is contrasting the
wisdom of this age with the wisdom of God in Christ which he and the other
apostles by the Spirit were making known to others. He is also saying something
about the spiritual nature of the apostolic instruction and how the sinful
nature of man (</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">whether regenerate or
unregenerate</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) does not “accept” or “understand” these things. He says in 1
Cor. 2:13, “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught
by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.” A bit
later, Paul will say to the saints at Corinth (those he is addressing), “But I,
brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the
flesh, as infants in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1). Putting all this together, if what
Paul meant by 1 Cor. 2:14’s “natural” (non-spiritual) man—his non-acceptance or
understanding of the things of the Spirit, his counting such as “folly”—is that
such a one, generally, does not or cannot know truth in general, as Phillips
maintains, then when Paul says to the Corinthian saints, “I could not address
you as spiritual people” but as “infants,” does that mean he is saying to them,
“Generally, you have not known—or do not, cannot know truth”? Is that Paul’s
point? Is he not rather teaching these Corinthian saints that the wisdom of God
in Christ is not something relished or spiritually understood by the flesh
(again, whether in unbelievers or believers) but only by the Spirit? I suggest
that Paul is not saying that sinful humans are unable to have knowledge (things
like: at what temperature water boils, the law of gravity, 2+2=4, etc.);
rather, he intends a spiritual knowledge, acceptance, and understanding of
things revealed to us by God in Christ through the apostles. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> On this point, Phillips also enlists
Rom. 1:18, which speaks globally of how sinful people “suppress the truth” that
God exists, a truth evident in the design and wonder of creation itself. What
Phillips needs from this verse is support for his claim that sinful humans “are
no longer able to know truth truly at all” (p. 14), in contrast to the always
partial and selective knowledge of truth which, he says, characterizes human
finitude in its innocence. However, what Paul is talking about is the
suppression of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what people know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—what
has been “clearly perceived,” “because God has shown it to them” such that
“they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:18-21). When someone does not know something
at all (Phillips’ claim), he cannot suppress or hold it down; there is nothing,
in that case, to be suppressed. Also, if the sinful people of Rom. 1:18-21 (as
Phillips interprets this passage) know nothing at all, then they are not
“without excuse” but have a legitimate excuse to plead, namely, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">ignorance</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—that is, they did not know
anything, including the knowledge that might be derived from creation that God
exists.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">To
elaborate, suppose we identify three levels of seeing necessary for the level
of understanding in Christ God wants us to have. The
first level is physical seeing; the second, mental seeing; and the third,
spiritual seeing. Without physical seeing, which, let’s say, stands for sensory
perception in general, there would not be mental seeing (understanding or
knowledge gained through the physical senses). Without mental seeing
(understanding or knowledge which takes place internally), there would not be
spiritual seeing (a spiritual understanding of the things of the Spirit). So
there is a tri-level structure in place for us who are in Christ in order “that
we might understand the things freely given us by God” (1 Cor. 2:12).
Importantly, all three levels are essential and even have a kind of founding
order among them; that is, without a certain level of integrity or reliability
both in physical and mental seeing, there would not be integrity or reliability
in seeing by the Spirit as offered in Christ. My point is that God does not
bypass those two common sense or natural levels of seeing in the process of
giving us spiritual sight or understanding by the regenerating power of the
Spirit. For instance, when Scripture says, “So faith comes from hearing, and
hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17), this involves both physical
hearing (what is included in physical seeing as sensory perception) and mental
hearing (what is included in mental seeing as understanding or knowledge). If
someone hears the gospel in a foreign language, that person experiences
physical hearing without mental hearing or understanding (1 Cor. 12:14, 16). Also,
someone may hear the gospel in their own language, such that both a first
(physical) and second (mental) level of seeing occur and yet </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">experience the third level
(spiritual) seeing necessary for salvation. This is because regeneration by the
Spirit in Christ (receiving new eyes and ears spiritually) is necessary before
that can happen. But I wish to emphasize, again, that in the latter case, a
person may be seeing just fine at the first two levels of this tri-structure
for knowing (may, physically hear and intellectually understand the gospel) and
yet not experience what someone born again means when they sing these words
from </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Amazing Grace</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, “I once was lost
but now I’m found, was blind but now I see.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In his sermon, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by
the Spirit of God</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, Jonathan Edwards recognizes the important role for what
I am calling physical and mental seeing in relation to spiritual illumination: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>It is not intended that the natural faculties are
not made use of in it. The natural faculties are the subject of this light: and
they are the subject in such a manner, that they are not merely passive, but
active in it; the acts and exercises of man’s understanding are concerned and
made use of in it. God, in letting in this light into the soul, deals with man
according to his nature, or as a rational creature; and makes use of his human
faculties. </i></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">And,
of course, my argument is that a certain integrity for these “natural” or
“human” faculties (with respect to everyday reality) is critical—even
foundational in an important sense—to the successful reception of the Christ of
Scripture as the truth. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Hence, we cannot, in the manner of the philosophers and
contrary to Scripture, (1) charge these faculties with innate or inherent
errancy, (2) appeal to the Spirit of truth to somehow save us from these
artificially created, philosophical problems, and then (3) go our way trusting
that somehow the truth of the gospel will nonetheless be as strong, liberating,
and sound as God intended for it to be.
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now
in this tri-level structure of knowing (as just implied), where philosophy and
the Bible identify problems of knowing is quite different. Based on its
mind-body dualism, modern philosophy locates the problems for knowing with the
first (physical) and second (mental) level of seeing. The Bible locates the
problems for knowing at the third level of spiritual seeing. Having said that,
we could also add that philosophy does not address (or, for the most part, even
recognize) the spiritual seeing or understanding with which the Bible is
concerned. And, we might also add, that the Bible (with its assumption of more
of an interrelationship between the mind and body) does not recognize any
special problems (of the sort with which philosophy is concerned) associated
with the first two levels of physical and mental seeing. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> How
does all this apply to the discussion at hand? As just indicated, most modern
philosophers in lock-step with Descartes’ mind-body dualism and subjectivism,
believe that there are problems for knowledge at the first and second level of
mental seeing. And, as I’ve been saying, those who are Reformed (like TGC represented by Phillips)
tend to uncritically accept as well as integrate these problems into Reformed
theology, whether as explicating human finitude or the effects of sin on the
mind. Put differently, both these philosophers and Christians, in general,
posit a certain blindness pertaining to truth. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">But what certain Christian Reformed theologians and leaders have done is conflate the
blindness Scripture speaks about with the blindness the modern philosophers
have invented. </span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> John
Calvin dealt with a similar view that had crept into the church in his time.
How he responded to it is instructive:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>To charge the
intellect with perpetual blindness so as to leave it no intelligence of any
description whatever, is repugnant not only to the Word of God, but to common
experience.</i></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">To translate this into the present discussion, a
claim that there is a second level blindness (with respect to mental or
intellectual seeing) common to mankind is repugnant to the Word of God means,
obviously, that it is contrary to what Scripture teaches. That is, the Bible
simply does not recognize such but assumes, for its purposes, that people are
generally able to know truth in an ordinary sense. The same is true for our common experience: even
skeptical philosophers most of the time and the rest of us all of the time know
that in real life there are things that are objectively true and things that
are objectively false, that knowing the difference between the two is
fundamental to our well being, and that, by God’s common grace, we as humans
may indeed know reliably quite a lot about many things in general. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> On
this score, surely no one would charge Calvin with being insufficiently
Reformed or not adequately believing in original sin or, especially, not taking
into account the effects of sin on the mind. However, the question is whether
these effects are understood as problems for knowing and truth in general, as
proposed, for example, by the philosophers, or as spiritual problems (distinct
from philosophical ones) for knowing God. That is, spiritual blindness—being
blind to who God is and what he is saying to us in Christ—is not the same as a
mental blindness defined as skeptical problems for knowing introduced by
philosophers. This holds true, importantly, even though such blindness seems to
be a convenient point at which to integrate or merge philosophy with
Christianity or Reformed theology. Obviously, it also does not mean or imply
literal blindess (pertaining to physical seeing), nor mental blindness
(pertaining to mental seeing or general comprehension). For instance (and to
state the obvious), Paul was not telling the Corinthian saints (1 Cor. 2:14) that they could
not physically see the epistle he had written them, nor was he saying that
because they were not “spiritual” that they could not mentally (intellectually)
see or understand what he had written. He was saying, as already indicated,
that they were not mature enough to receive, appreciate, or relate to the
spiritual things Paul wished to say to them (1 Cor. 3:1-4). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now
the version of Christian theology integrated with philosophy that I have been
addressing employs philosophy’s problems for knowing, even conflates them with
the third level or biblical problem of knowing (spiritual seeing). </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Because
this mix of Christian/Reformed theology and philosophy has adopted, as I’ve
been suggesting, the problems for knowing introduced by modern philosophy’s
mind-body dualism, it construes the remedy provided in the gospel and by
regeneration through the Spirit as primarily an epistemological remedy (with
everything else about the grace of God—such as, forgiveness of sins, the
imputed righteousness of Christ, eternal life, etc.—following from that).
Whereas Descartes takes refuge in a bodiless and worldless, thinking ego as his
foundational certainty and from which he builds his edifice for knowledge, this
mix of Christianity and philosophy finds its foundation for knowledge,
spiritually, in a subjective regeneration of the heart which connects us with </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the only one</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (or so they claim) who has
objective, true knowledge, which is, God himself as revealed in Scripture.
However, in thus bypassing the natural, human faculties (what Scripture never
does) this approach for knowing truth (both initially and continually) gets
entangled in problems such as: without these faculties how does one know, in
the first place, what Scripture says such that one can become regenerate or
trust in Christ? </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Do the body and
mind—with a certain level of functional integrity—have no place in that
process?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> And are the body and mind without a participating role somehow for
us as Christians who desire to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord
Jesus Christ (2 Pe. 3:18)? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now this inversion is not far from what Descartes
himself proposed, except, of course, that Descartes made no attempt to
introduce regeneration (spiritual seeing) and God’s Word as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">foundational</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> for knowledge. Descartes
has the ego (mental seeing) as a disembodied, thinking being serving as that
foundation. On the other hand, the syncretism of Christianity and philosophy
I’ve been considering attempts to make God—through a subjective
regeneration—the foundation of knowledge, somehow bypassing the body and mind
or natural and rational faculties (due to finitude and sin) in their possible
role for knowledge. The problem is that Descartes is at least doing something
theoretically plausible as an account of knowledge. On the other hand, the
Christian-philosophical mixture I’ve been considering has not only no basis in
Scripture but also no viable explanation for the role of the body and mind in
relation to God as the foundation for knowledge. That is, God is obviously
transcendent or external to the subjective ego; hence, one has to get outside
oneself somehow (or, rather, be reached by God from the outside). How does this
happen altogether without the senses (physical seeing) and intelligence (mental
seeing), even if we acknowledge its supernatural source? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Addressing
a concern similar to this helps explain why Edwards in the sermon mentioned
earlier makes it clear that the natural and rational faculties are not bypassed
when one is spiritually illuminated in Christ with the revelation of God. His
account of regeneration is that it is a change, renewal, or dynamic “sense of
the heart” or “due apprehension” as to the reality, excellence, and sublimity
of the spiritual things of God in Christ. And, with our earlier consideration
of 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, I have no doubt but that Edwards would explain that
text in the same manner, denying that this divinely imparted principle of the
Spirit for knowledge somehow sidesteps or replaces our natural faculties or
reason. He would say that this principle removes hindrances and prejudices from
those faculties, while unflinchingly stating, “Reason indeed is necessary in
order to it.” </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now
if one requires proof that I am not misrepresenting the view under consideration, that is, that this Reformed approach to epistemology inverts my proposed tri-level structure for knowing, one
may consider, for instance, what our dear brother and popularizer of
presupposition - alism John Frame says, after presenting his argument that “these
faculties” (of the unregenerate — and notice that he is locating the fault </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in the faculties themselves </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">and not just
a sinful misuse of such) “are not suited to serve as ultimate judges of
anything.” Having stated that, however, Frame seems to recognize that this
presents a problem. Notice the objection he includes as a reasonable response
to this problem and what he says in response:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>After all, do we
not rely on our human senses and reasons to understand and distinguish the
Words of God?...By way of reply...Scripture says there is a difference between
God’s Words and ours, and it implies that we are able to discern that
difference and to judge our words by God’s. Even if we cannot answer the
objection, therefore, we must believe (on blind faith if nothing else) that it
can be answered, if we are to believe in biblical authority at all.</i></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Frame continues from there, somewhat incoherently,
in my opinion, to affirm that God reveals himself through the means of the
human senses and reason without explaining how this is consistent with his
prior statement that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the faculties
themselves</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> have innate problems due to sin. That is, he does not tell us by
what self-critical, objective criteria fallen minds can </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">differentiate </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">human from divine thoughts—even while seeking to
honor biblical authority. He also seems to conflate the human ability to know
things (the capacity for wisdom) with what has been done with that ability
(what the world counts as wisdom), as if, human words, wisdom, or comprehension
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> among the unregenerate are
always and only radically, sinfully different from God, even to the point of
being useless for knowing God in any sense (what I know, if put in those terms,
Frame does not believe). However that may be, what I wish to emphasize here is
the obvious problem Frame has with clearly accounting for the role our natural
and rational faculties (the first two levels of my tri-structure for knowing)
in receiving God’s Word. Why is that? And why do we find no such difficulty, as
Frame defines it, in Scripture somewhere? Furthermore, if on such an important
question, a thoughtful, wise, and seasoned presuppositionalist of the stature
of John Frame has to play— even if only for the uncomfortable moment—the “blind
faith” card, should that not in itself make us pause and perhaps reconsider
whether our account of knowing is truly biblical or consistent with our “common
experience” (as Calvin says)? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If
this problem for knowing at the first (physical seeing) and second (mental
seeing) levels are philosophical in origin and foreign to Scripture (as I’ve
been suggesting), then what is the effect of sin on the mind? Though this isn’t
the context for an extended discussion on this point, I will say that I believe
sin’s effect on the mind concerns not </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">whether
we can know things in general</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (again, reflective of what happens at the
first two levels) but, rather, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what we do
with what we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (that is, a third level issue). Dutch
Reformed Anthony Hoekema, formerly a Systematic Theology professor at Calvin
Theological Seminary, in a work entitled </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Created
in God's Image</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> argues that the structural aspects of God's image in
humanity were retained after the Fall—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">viz</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.,
our reason, moral sensitivity, and capacity for relationships. Hoekema states
that these structural aspects are employed in a corrupt manner but remain
intact in their integrity. In other words, the effect of the Fall on the mind
in terms of human rationality is such that there is not a breakdown (or
defectiveness) in the mental structure of rationality itself but rather a
misuse or perversion of such for sin. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> For
example, one could use a ball point pen to write or to stab a person; the structural
and mechanical integrity of the pen as an object remains the same either way
but </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">how it is used</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is quite different
in that case. So also, with respect to knowing (I reiterate), it is not a
question of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">whether</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> we can know
things in general (such as the problems for knowing one finds in Plato,
Descartes, Kant, etc.) but </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what we do
with what we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that reflects the effects of sin on the mind. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia"; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> To
my mind, this seems to account well for all that Scripture teaches about sin in
relation to the mind. It also explains problems I mentioned earlier, such as,
why people who have heard the gospel are accountable to God for not obeying it,
since they could not disobey something they could not understand in any sense
(see 2 Thess. 1:8; Rom. 1:19-20; Jn. 15:22-25). Or, it accounts for why, in our
common experience, people who are not regenerate can be just as knowledgeable
in various professions and fields of learning (if not more) than the
regenerate. Or, put differently, it accounts for why regenerate Christians, who
supposedly have by regeneration the only conditions to know anything, are not
by that fact necessarily assured to exceed the unregenerate in knowledge with
respect to all these professions and fields of learning. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, pp.14-15.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 12.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I recall a
Christian philosophy major, highly intelligent, who told me one day that she
was arriving at the conclusion that she didn’t know </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">anything</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> but that Jesus is her Lord and Savior. Perhaps, I failed
her, but it seemed too sacred a sentiment for her. I couldn’t bring myself to
reply: “Then how do you </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Jesus is
your Lord and Savior?”</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In TGC’s
“Confessional Statement” (at their website), section 2 on “Revelation,” after
declaring the full authority and sufficiency of Scripture as God’s Word, TGC
writes: “</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">We confess that both our finitude and our
sinfulness preclude the possibility of knowing God’s truth exhaustively, but we
affirm that, enlightened by the Spirit of God, we can know God’s revealed truth
truly.” What seems to be missing here is any indication that <i>the content of
Scripture</i> is itself a reliably knowable, objective standard as
truth—particularly, a standard by which Christians may </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sufficiently</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> know God’s will and mind or better: what Paul calls,
“the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Why is it that, when talking about
Scripture, there is, on the one hand, a disclaimor about “knowing God’s truth
exhaustively” (who claims that?) due to finitude and sin and, on the other,
there is the vague promise of the Holy Spirit who somehow fixes things by
revealing God’s “truth truly”? Nowhere, however, is there a clear statement
about <i>how</i> we know </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">objectively</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> what
Scripture says </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sufficiently</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to be
assured that our faith and practice as Christians is according to God’s
Word. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Institutes of the Christian Religion</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
book 2, chapter 2, section 12.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2801031406843748397#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> From John
Frame’s online article, “Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction” (Part 1
of 2: “Introduction and Creation”).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br /></div>
J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-69178916441554405692016-02-17T10:14:00.000-08:002016-03-02T13:15:40.883-08:00The Gospel Coalition's Claim that Due to Human Finitude Truth Is Subjective <br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> In his booklet, </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;">, Phillips writes that “humans are finite” and therefore “can only know truth
partially, so their knowledge is subjective, selective, and incomplete.”</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Here Phillips speaks of the human condition for knowing
by virtue of creation and apart from any effects of original sin on the mind. (We will consider what he says about the latter in my next post.)
Notice that as Phillips makes this claim that truth is subjective because of human finitude he offers no support from either
Scripture or philosophy (modern or postmodern). </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As for the word, "finite" (or "finitude"), though many of us
employ this term, it is not found in
Scripture. Moreover, one would also not find there man’s capacity for knowledge characterized
as “subjective,” "partial”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, and "selective." On the other hand, one can easily find what Phillips is claiming
here about human knowledge in the modern philosophers beginning with Descartes.
The modern philosophers, in contrast to Phillips, rightly knew that since most people have a common sense view of truth, it was their responsibility to present
some good reasons for believing, to the contrary, that truth is
subjective. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> So what does it mean to say humans
are “finite”? Simply put, what is “finite” is “limited” or “restricted.” In a
Christian context, human finitude involves a comparison to God who is infinite
and, therefore, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> limited or
restricted. Does the Scripture support such a view? Certainly. But the question
is this: </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">What does this mean for us as humans when it comes to our ability to know things?</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"> That our knowledge is limited
compared to God is trivially obvious. However, both in the Bible and in life,
we do commonly experience and are even, as the ninth commandment implies,
responsible for an objective apprehension of reality. Indeed, there simply is no reason to
equate human finitude or limitedness to </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">defectiveness</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
or </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">errancy</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> for knowing. We do not
make such an inference, for instance, when it comes to the limits of our
humanity with respect to physical strength. As infinite, God is all-powerful.
But we do not infer from such that the power a finite human has to walk or run
or throw or lift things is defective or errant. That is, to be finite, in this
respect, does not mean that one always limps or falls when one walks or runs;
that one cannot throw strikes in baseball; or that one necessarily and always
drops things in the act of lifting. To be sure, human power is nothing compared
to God, but this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t require us to use the power he
has given us (however limited) or that in using such we are always experiencing
problems. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What about Phillips’
claim that human knowledge is "subjective," "partial," and "selective"? When I hear a statement like that, I am always tempted to ask: How would someone </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> something like that? Is that to be
taken as objectively true and reliably knowable? If so, it is self-defeating.
If not, then, it is, as a statement about knowledge, just as subjective,
partial, and selective as it claims all knowledge is. That is, the statement
itself is, for all we know, unreliable or not worthy of acceptance. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Similarly, how do we </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>know</i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that our knowledge is "partial"? Is
that the whole truth? If not, why should we rely on such a partial truth about
the nature of knowing? It could be—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
"partial"—either misleading or false. Or, if all knowledge is "selective," is that
true in a non-selective sense? If not, why should we put stock in a statement
about knowing that is openly selective—that may have (again, for all we know)
left something quite important out of consideration, leaving us with a
distorted view of knowledge? </span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> More generally, what does this belief that our
knowledge of truth is "subjective" even </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">mean</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
practically speaking? Obviously, to claim that knowledge is subjective implies
that it is not objective. However, can we not know or tell others </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">anything</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> objectively true? For instance,
if it is not raining outside my house right now (and it isn’t), is it
subjective for me to claim as much? If so, why is it that if one were to poll
my wife and my next door neighbors, they would have the same answer? It seems
reasonable to suppose that if my knowledge that it is not raining outside my
house right now were truly subjective it would run askew of what others in the
vicinity of the house believe. But it doesn’t. So what sense is there in
claiming, as Phillips does, that our knowledge is subjective, when there are so
many instances we could point to, even with considerable regularity, that prove
otherwise? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If knowing is "subjective," this means
(or so I understand it) that in subject-object relations for knowing knowledge
itself is more about the subject (or centered therein) than the object. This is
what some have called the “egocentric predicament,” and others, “the
categorio-centric predicament.” (The latter is the view that when it comes to
knowledge we as humans are centered in the categories of the mind such that we
have no way to get outside ourselves to check if our perceptions match
reality.) So, again, this implies that knowledge isn’t centered in the object,
and, consequently, cannot be tested or verified by the object itself. Hence,
what we claim to know, if subjective, is significantly influenced by our
subjective needs, conditions, biases, and inclinations. At best, this means,
our knowledge does not correspond to or accord with the reality of the object
or thing itself which we claim to know. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> But, again, is this truly what we
experience as knowing? Someone has said that no one is a postmodernist at
10,000 feet. It is also true that at that altitude no one believes that truth
is subjective, partial, or relative. Indeed, at times like that, we are
grateful for how truly objective human knowledge is and can be. We even count
on it being so. When I walked into my office just now, I began to list in my
mind the kind of things we all commonly know with a high degree of success. For
instance, I know the difference between my chair and my desk. (I didn’t attempt
to sit on my desk.) I know what switches to use to get the lights on. If I
don’t want to hear my radio, I don’t turn the knob that turns it on. As I open
my laptop, I know that it does not come on by pushing the knob on my desk
drawer. I also know how to read the letters on the keys of my laptop. As I use
my word processing software, I know how to form words on the screen by pressing
certain keys down. I understand what words I want to use and which words I
don’t want to use. The knowledge I am presently conveying will hopefully be
read by someone. At that time, our shared knowledge of the English language and
perhaps something of the theological and philosophical background for what I am
writing here will be helpful. So much of what we do occurs successfully because
we indeed have knowledge and are not pervasively errant in our knowing. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Truth and the New Kind of Christian</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, R. Scott Smith</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">offers a number of every day examples
(much better than mine) to demonstrate how we do in reality know much about our
world in an objective manner.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
But this sort of exercise could be done by anyone. And the obvious and perhaps
more important question is: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">why aren’t we
doing so?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Why are we counting our failures rather than our successes? Why
do we focus on the problems there may be with knowing and truth rather than the
amazing integrity and consistency we regularly experience in that regard? Why
don’t we say of our ability to reliably know things: “I am fearfully and
wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14)—and give all praise to God?</span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Instead, we seem bent on making
rules out of exceptions. For instance, we look at an ambiguous drawing—is it an
ugly old hag or beautiful lady—and then think to ourselves: “All reality is
ambiguous.” Really? That a particular drawing is ambiguous and even exceptional
as such may be true. But how does a rare experience of knowing convince us that
this is how it is with </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">all knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">?
Are all drawings that ambiguous as to their subject matter? And are all objects
in life that ambiguous for any attempt to know them as they actually are? </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Be
that as it may, what does Phillips’ first reason that “humans may not be able to
know the truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">” or that truth
is subjective imply? It seems to mean at least that human knowledge is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">relative</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. This is because a view that
truth is subjective implies that truth is relative to the subject or knower—the
one who claims to know something. Put a bit differently, under subjectivism a
claim for knowledge, to the extent that it is decisive at all, actually says
more about the subject who is doing the knowing than about the external object
which is known. The implication of a statement like this is that truth is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> decisively or ultimately related to
the object one claims to know. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Those of us who believe that truth
is or may be objective are actually relativists as well. What made it
unnecessary to highlight this particular kind of relativism is that it was
always equated with what is simply there or what we as humans have always
assumed to be the case for knowing. For instance, when I claim that I am
presently looking at the screen of my laptop, I don’t have to qualify this item
of knowledge by prefacing it with, “relative to what is there in front of me.”
When we say that a subjective view of truth is “relative,” we mean that a
special or an uncommon sort of relativism is being espoused—one that is
centered in the knower rather than the known. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> To claim, therefore, that truth is
subjective means (if it is a modernist claim) that even though we may believe
truth exists or is real, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">knowing that
truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> is a problem. That (as Phillips says) we may not know “truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">” (in this context) means that we
may as easily know “truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">falsely</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">” as
know it </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Importantly, Phillips
is not speaking here of the normal challenges for knowing truth associated with
a common sense or realistic approach to truth. Rather (based on other things he
says as well), he seems to imply that there is no epistemicly accessible and
objective criteria whereby truth itself (understood generally) can be tested or
verified. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If that is so, however, we come face
to face with a significant irony in Phillips’ book: although he seems to be
concerned about the subjectivism and relativism of our modern and postmodern
times, the truth is that Phillips himself believes (even, clearly states) that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truth is subjective. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">As a logical
consequence (and again), this also means (though Phillips doesn’t say this),
that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truth is relative. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Consequently,
what we seem to have in Phillips is a relativist who is not so much telling
other relativists that they are wrong </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as
relativists</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> but that they are invited to experience the Christian form or
variety of relativism, since it is sanctioned by God and confirmed to the heart
by the Holy Spirit through reading Scripture.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What does it mean, practically speaking, to claim, as
Phillips does, that human knowledge is “partial”? One way to approach this is
to recall what happens in a court of law. A witness is charged to “tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? Why? Because partial truths
may be misleading, significantly errant, if not lies. For a witness to tell
“the whole truth” means that, in response to questions, they should tell
everything they know as completely as possible. Having “the whole truth” from
witnesses—the truth sufficient to know whether or not someone is guilty of an
alleged crime—is critical to a court’s veridical quest. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> It is also fundamental
for every day issues pertaining to truth. For instance, to a parent’s question,
“Where did you get that gum?,” a child may respond, “The store.” But let’s
suppose that the child has stolen the gum from the store.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
The partial truth, “the store,” obscures something parents would want to know
from their child in this case. But let us suppose that both parents and their
children were educated to believe that, because as humans they are finite, all
they can expect from knowledge in this world is partial truths? Would this
expectation for truth, namely, that under certain circumstances we need “the
whole truth” fare well in that case? </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> More to the point: if humans by virtue of
creation are shut up to a state of partial knowing (for all we know: a false
perception of reality), what does it mean for us when the Bible presents a case
for the truth that Jesus is Lord? If in our capacity to know things we are
errant by nature (even before original sin—much more after sin, as Phillips maintains), what do we
as humans have to do with “truth”? Would we not be, from that consideration alone, in the
same position as Pilate with his, “What is truth?” </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Phillips’ claim here also means that
to the question which serves as a title for his booklet, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, we must answer, “We may not know the truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.” That is, if we were to make a
distinction between knowing the truth in particular cases or knowing truth
generally, Phillips states that it is doubtful that we can know the truth
either way. This would also seem to imply that if what we mean by “the truth”
is the “truth of the gospel,” this item of knowledge, also, cannot be known as
“truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,” as it is a subset of
knowledge in general. As already indicated, what he argues elsewhere is that
the “truth of the gospel” is a kind of knowledge that the Holy Spirit assures
to our hearts through regeneration but (by implication) is not known in an
ordinary sense the way we might want (or need) to know the truth of other
matters. </span></div>
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 14.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Though Phillips himself doesn’t do this,
Christians today often quote Paul’s “for we know in part” (1 Cor. 13:9) as a
scriptural justification for equating human finitude with a subjectivity as our
necessarily knowing truth only partially. The context for this statement (1
Cor. 13:8-12) shows, however, that the “whole” (or the “perfect”) to which this
partiality is related is not knowledge on </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">this</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
side of glory but rather, on </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">that </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">side
of glory, when there will be a “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12) encounter with
Christ in heaven. Paul says, “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully even
as I have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Truth
and the New Kind of Christian</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, pp. 174-180.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Just so I am not misunderstood, God does confirm his Word subjectively by the Spirit in this manner.
My objection here is to any proposal that (apart from such subjectivity) denies
a common, universal, objective, and knowable ground for truth between believers
and unbelievers.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Letter%203.docx" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This is actually a personal account. As a
child of four, I helped myself to a pack of gum from the store. After a
“conversation” with my parents (what in the South they more precisely call a
“reckoning”), I received my first spanking—memorable for its intensity.
Needless to say, my parents got “the whole truth” out of me.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="font-size: large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span>J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2801031406843748397.post-2445338622175329602015-11-27T14:37:00.000-08:002016-06-09T04:53:59.185-07:00Introduction: Four Concerns about The Gospel Coalition's View of Truth<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> First,
along with so many others in the church today, I thank my God through Jesus
Christ our Lord for the association of leaders and churches of The Gospel
Coalition (hereafter TGC). This association is a strong standard-bearer for the
gospel at a time when the gospel is in so many ways under attack, forgotten, or
abandoned. On TGC council are members who are widely loved and respected as
important leaders in the church: we read and benefit from their books, eagerly listen
to their sermons, and rely on their insights. The leaders of TGC are truly
gifts of Christ to the church. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> However, while I appreciate the strong stance TGC takes
on the gospel and truth generally, I am concerned about certain things written
about truth itself at their website under the “Vision” statement as well as in
TGC booklet, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
authored by Richard Phillips.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Particularly, I am troubled by the following: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">first</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, there is Phillips’ concluding recommendation that in
relating the gospel to postmodern unbelievers, we should not preach or reason
but simply give them a Bible and invite them to get back with us if they have
any questions</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—what
seems to my mind a sort of “try it, you’ll like it,” relativistic approach to evangelism;
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">second</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, I am concerned about the
epistemology behind this approach to evangelism, particularly, as there seems
to be a “bait and switch” strategy at work—that is, TGC seems to bait with a
correspondence theory of truth but actually fishes with a coherence theory,
which, I believe, is quite different from the biblical understanding of truth; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">third</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, I am concerned that the TGC in
thus adopting a coherence theory has by logical implication framed its belief
about biblical inerrancy within the same theory and, thus, has: (1) conferred
on that belief an immunity from outside attack at the cost of no longer having
a basis in a verifiable, external reality (the standard historical and
scientific claims must abide by); and (2) departed from the framework of the
correspondence view of truth which is so critical to the <a href="http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago-statement-on-biblical-inerrancy">1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy</a>, particularly as part of the rationale behind the
church’s need to take a strong stand in that regard; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">fourth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, I am concerned, more generally, about the manner in which
TGC subtly (if not confusingly) both criticizes and befriends certain tenets of
modern and postmodern philosophy; more specifically, about TGC’s cluster of
skeptical claims, namely, that (1) due to human finitude truth is subjective,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
(2) because of sin “humans are no longer able to know truth truly at all,”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
and (3) that there is no “objective epistemological ground” between believers
and unbelievers that “does not require Christians to ignore the lordship of
Jesus.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
These claims and the epistemology behind them, as I hope to demonstrate, are,
again, inconsistent with biblical assumptions. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
</span><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">In sum, these four concerns are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">interrelated </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">and all pertain to the urgent and timely issue of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">epistemology</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (how we understand
knowing): the absence of reasoning or preaching in relating the gospel to
postmoderns (the first concern), the internalization of a correspondence theory
of truth within a coherence theory (the second concern), the departure from the
epistemology of the <a href="http://www.alliancenet.org/international-council-on-biblical-inerrancy">International Council on Biblical Inerrancy</a> (the third
concern), and the denial of a reliably knowable universal truth between
believers and unbelievers (the fourth concern). </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;">
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">A Silent, “Try It, You’ll Like It,” Subjective
Approach to Evangelism</span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> <span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As for the first concern, before making his
recommendation of evangelizing postmodernists by simply giving them a Bible,
Phillips tells how Judy Telchin and then later her parents came to believe in
Christ (p. 21). All these conversions involve someone giving an unbeliever a Bible,
inviting them to read it, and then see for themselves whether or not the Bible
is true. The paradigm for evangelism here is (to state the obvious), first of
all, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">silent</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in the sense that on the
front end and with respect to the gospel no one is preaching to or reasoning
with an unbeliever from the Scriptures; secondly, it is subjective or relative
in its appeal as the unbeliever is invited to see for themself whether the
biblical gospel is true. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> To be clear, that our sovereign Lord at times uses this approach
of private Bible reading in making himself known to unbelievers (he did so in
my own case) is not what I find objectionable. The problem is when offering
someone a Bible is presented as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
method for evangelizing people in our postmodern times. That is, even in such a
context, I would suggest that the Bible still enjoins, generally speaking, both
gospel proclamation (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; 2 Tim. 4:2) and reasoning with
people about the Christian hope that is in us (1 Pe. 3:15; Acts 17:2-4, 22-31)
as the abiding norm for evangelism.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Quite frankly, I don’t see how TGC council reconciles
this paradigm for evangelism with
actions of some of its own members (that is, their use of reason, evidence, and
proclamation in relating to the lost).</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Needless to say (and to the glory of God!), there seems to be a whole lot more
going on in the TGC’s ministry and among churches in their association than
just handing out Bibles. Accordingly, if TGC’s own actions show their
recognition of the importance of these things, why would they support a booklet
on truth that has as its concluding recommendation a silent, Bible-distribution
approach to evangelism? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Gospel Coalition’s Claim of Correspondence for
Truth Is Actually Internalized within a Coherence Theory of Truth</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> With all that said, however, my
second concern goes deeper. It has to do with the epistemology behind such a
recommendation. Ordinarily, when one says (as the council does) “we affirm that
truth is correspondence to reality,” this means that propositions can be
objectively and verifiably tested against reality and thus proven to be true or
false. It also implies that truth is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in
some sense </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">universal and accessible to everyone.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
No matter what group, culture, or background one may belong to, the same
reality is there and reliably knowable. We might call this “court room
epistemology” or everyday, common sense knowing, because of its assumption that
whenever the truth of a matter is under question, we can often gain the public
clarity we need through facts or evidence. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> On the other hand, if only a
specially qualified group of people can know truth (because they know things
others don’t, especially because </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">how</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
they know things is different), then truth is not what corresponds to reality
but what coheres with what those particular people believe—that is, their
presuppositions as a group. Such an approach to truth reflects a coherence
theory of truth, which may be defined as, “truth is what coheres or is
consistent with everything else </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">we</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—not
as the public or people in general but as a private or particular
group—believe.” </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> However, this presents a problem.
Whatever its value in other contexts (such as religion), where public truth is
concerned, such as in a court of law or everyday life, the coherence theory
does not work. The reason is obvious: by definition such a theory does not
claim the kind of neutrality, universality, or objectivity necessary for those
contexts. Coherence truth is private or “for members only.” Hence, it cannot—in
its claim to knowledge and by definition—include everyone. What would happen,
for instance, if a defense attorney employed an argument based on a way of
knowing unique to himself or the defendant? How far would he get in a court of
law? His conclusion might be true for him and his client (his private club, in
that sense), but it would not be true for the rest of those involved in the
trial: the attorney for the prosecution, the judge, the jury, and the public at
large.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> <span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> It may be helpful to recall that the
coherence theory was formulated specifically due to a prior rejection of the
correspondence theory.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[8]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Indeed, the coherence theory serves for many (especially in philosophy) not
only as a counter to the correspondence theory but also a worthy substitute for
it. This does not mean, of course, that there is no coherence of beliefs within
the framework of a correspondence theory. Nor does it mean, on the other hand
(quite importantly in this context), that there is no claim of correspondence
to reality within the framework of a coherence theory. (As I will explain
shortly, this is where I believe TGC’s own claim to correspondence belongs.) It
does mean, however, that with a coherence theory, at no point along the range
of what it claims to know (even when it is most confident) does it propose for
its knowledge the kind of correspondence to reality which, consistent with the
theory so named (and, again, to which coherence is opposed), is objective,
verifiable, and accessible to all. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This is why, of course, knowledge
based on coherence is called “a web of belief.” Knowledge of this sort—in
contrast to the groundedness of correspondence—is, as it were, suspended in
mid-air. Such knowledge, though held together, has no connection to the earth
in the sense that it has no foundation in what is generally, reliably, and
verifiably knowable for everyone. A coherence theory, therefore, is an approach
to truth which accommodates what diverse groups, collectives, or cultures
believe </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">sans</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> any direct, objective,
and universal epistemic justification in external reality. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Hence, this theory of truth is
consistent with knowledge regarded as subjective and relative. It is, indeed,
pluralistic or perspectival in nature. This is because its basic assumption is
that, for any particular group, its </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way
of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (distinct from </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what it
knows</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> that way) uniquely and necessarily conditions what it counts as
knowledge. Consequently, its knowledge is not shared by other</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">groups. Put differently, a coherence
theory holds that there is no </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">one </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way
of knowing available to everyone. In order, then, for Group A to convince Group
B to adopt its beliefs, its appeal to truth can only be indirect. That is,
Group A appeals </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">directly</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> neither to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what it knows</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (based on its </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) nor to something
objective and knowable by all (since, of course, it doesn’t believe that things
are known that way) but to its </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way of
knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (its presuppositions). With a coherence theory, then, if Group A
wishes to persuade Group B to accept its truths, it does so by, in effect,
making the following proposal: “Please try our </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, and then, perhaps, you will accept </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—that is, become convinced
of and embrace </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">our</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> truths.” </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> With that said, I wonder if notwithstanding
its explicit identification with a correspondence theory of truth and rejection
of “truth as nothing more than the internally coherent language of a particular
faith-community,”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[9]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
TGC actually supports a coherence theory that includes an internal claim to
correspondence. To make this case, I begin with Phillips:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The purpose of this booklet, then, is not to
present an objective epistemology that anyone—Christian or not—would
adopt....Wouldn’t it be better, some will ask, to meet our unbelieving
neighbors on an objective epistemological common ground? That answer is that no
such objective ground exists...</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[10]</span></span></a></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">For
the moment, I have intentionally omitted important qualifiers in this
quotation, which I intend to include and address shortly. However, I wish to
underscore in the quotation that in context the denial of an “objective
epistemological common ground” is not what unbelievers are espousing under the
sway of what Phillips elsewhere calls “today’s relativist hegemony.” Rather,
this is Phillips himself speaking. That is, at this point, Phillips is not
accommodating himself for the sake of the gospel to a subjective or
relativistic age. This means (or so I argue) that what is both fundamental and
critical to the correspondence theory of truth itself, namely, the implied
assumption of a reality which can be known and verified by all, is not part of
Phillips’ approach to truth. However, once this assumption is rejected, some
other theory of truth than that of correspondence has to take its place. As I
hope to show, next, that theory is one of coherence. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now for the qualifiers I left out
from the quotation: after rejecting “an objective epistemological ground” which
is the same, whether one is a Christian or not, Phillips offers an alternative
to that ground, which is an approach to truth based on the Christian faith
itself. The latter, he says, “reflects the core beliefs of our gospel faith,”
“validates our experience as Christian believers,” “presents how we as Christians
answer questions regarding the knowledge of truth,” and honors “the lordship of
Jesus.” Here the implication seems clear that if in presenting the gospel to
unbelievers Christians assume that there is “an objective epistemological
ground” between believer and unbeliever (that is, make a direct appeal to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">), then they are, in that
particular engagement, failing to honor (at least to some extent) their
Christian faith and their Lord. And, as for the unbeliever with whom we are
speaking about the gospel, there is apparently no basis for communication or
persuasion apart from getting them to first presuppose Christian beliefs in
general. (That is—and in a sense—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">they
need to believe in order to believe</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.) Thus we have something quite similar
to my earlier illustration of the coherence theory in action. Group A says to
Group B, “Please try our </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">way of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
and then, perhaps, you will accept </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what
we know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—that is, become convinced of and embrace </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">our</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> truths.”</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As for how, specifically, TGC and
Phillips internalize their own claim to correspondence within a coherence
theory of truth, it seems to go something like this. Because of finitude and
sin, humans cannot know truth.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[11]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
However, when someone is regenerated, they are able to understand the Word of
God whose perfect knowledge </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">alone</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
corresponds to reality. The regenerate, therefore, have in this way unique
access to objective truth; however, this comes not directly but indirectly. It
is mediated through God and the Bible as the Spirit imparts understanding to
the heart. Consequently, truth gets defined as what coheres to what God says in
Scripture (again, which is known subjectively by the Spirit) and any claim of
correspondence to external reality is located within that coherence.
Conversely, those who are not regenerate (thus lacking the internal principle
necessary for knowledge) have no reliable, epistemic access to objective truth.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This means that there is a
significant ambiguity in Phillips’ statement: “Prior to giving our witness to
Christian truth, we will often have to present clear Christian views about
truth itself.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[12]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
If by a Christian view of truth, Phillips means a correspondence view of truth
(a knowledge, in a sense, accessible to everyone the way other things
ordinarily are) as supported by the Bible, that is one thing. (That doesn’t
seem to be what he is saying.) If, on the other hand, by a Christian view of
truth (or “our witness”), he means (or implies) that truth is itself </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">entirely</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> relative to one’s subjective
presuppositions or perspective, that is another. If he means the latter, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">he is saying something philosophical not
biblical</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. He is also, quite significantly, conceding considerable ground to
relativism itself—albeit, in the name of a Christian form of relativism. In
that case, for instance, those postmodern unbelievers who say, “No thank you,”
to our invitation as Christians to, “Please try our way of knowing,” will tend
to walk away feeling—precisely because of this approach—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">justified and even confirmed in their own relativism.</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now my claim that Phillips is
enlisting a coherence approach to truth is further confirmed by his account of
a conversation between James Boice and a woman on an airplane. As an
unbeliever, the woman had objections to the Christian faith.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[13]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
However, Boice kept asking her, “But is it [the Christian faith] true?”
Phillips asks us to suppose that she was a relativist and did not believe in
truth as a common ground. In context, he is imagining for us a problem we may
face in talking to postmodernists about the gospel. And since we have already
noted that Phillips </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">himself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> does not
believe in truth as a common ground, this is a bit puzzling, but let us
continue. He then asks: “How, then, are Christians to proclaim truth in a world
that no longer believes in it?” Phillips continues: “The answer to the
challenge of our times is surely not to turn aside from our biblical witness to
argue complicated theories of epistemology and hermeneutics.” Apart from what
might be a questionable assumption that arguing “complicated theories of
epistemology and hermeneutics” constitutes turning “aside from our biblical
witness”—not to mention that he is from the outset already significantly vested
in such “complicated theories”—Phillips’ encouragement (as I highlighted at the
beginning) is for us to simply give this person a Bible, tell how God has met
our own subjective need for truth by sending his Spirit to provide what is
written there, including what it tells us of God’s own Son, Jesus Christ, who
gives understanding to sincere seekers of truth from God’s Word. However,
again, is this not basically saying to that person, “Please try our way of
knowing”? And, as I already indicated, is that not what relativists or those
who support a coherence view of truth say in commending “their” truth to
others? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Of course, it is a wonderful thing,
when someone is willing to receive a Bible from us, especially when they are
intent on weighing whether or not the gospel is true. However, as a general
strategy for bringing the gospel to postmodern unbelievers, I wonder: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Is that sufficient?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Furthermore, if we
do persuade such people to essentially “believe in order to believe,” what kind
of converts will they be? Did they believe because the Bible and the Christian
faith are true (Boice’s concern)? Or did they believe because they </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">experienced</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> it as true? Did they
separate reason from faith in their conversion? Did they put their minds on
hold, suspend their judgment, in order to believe? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In addition, Phillips says early in
his book that “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">it will not suffice</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
[emphasis mine—jnp] to hold forth our Bible and walk friends down the famous
‘Romans Road’ series of evangelistic verses.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[14]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
He explains that due to the relativism of our times, we will also need to
answer questions as to why we should accept the Bible as true or why we should
think what is true for us is true for others, etc.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[15]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Now I must confess that when I first read this reference to “the famous ‘Romans
Road’ series of evangelistic verses” I wasn’t sure what this meant. I found on
the internet that it involves a series of verses from Paul’s </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Epistle to the Romans </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">to support the
following truths:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">1. Everyone needs salvation
because we have all sinned (Rom. 3:10-12, 23).</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">2. The price (or consequence) of sin is death (Rom.
6:23).</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">3. </span><a href="http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/jesuschrist.htm"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Jesus Christ</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> died for our sins. He paid the
price for our death (Rom. 5:8).</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">4. We receive salvation and </span><a href="http://christianity.about.com/od/christianfuneral/a/Christian-Death.htm"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">eternal life</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> through faith in Jesus Christ
(Rom. 10:9-10, 23).</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">5. </span><a href="http://christianity.about.com/od/prayersforspecificneeds/a/salvationprayer.htm"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Salvation through Jesus Christ</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
brings us into a relationship of peace with God (Rom. 5:1; 8:1, 38-39).</span>
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">As
I read these bulleted points, it occurred to me that if one were to study all
the gospel messages recorded in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Acts
of the Apostles</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, these “Romans Road” points are all either explicitly or
implicitly expressed there. The only difference is that in the apostolic
presentation of the gospel, we find a consistent pattern of appeal (summarized
in 1 Cor. 15:1-8) to the fulfillment of Scriptural prophecies as well as to
their own eyewitness testimony as apostles to argumentatively support the
conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is Messiah and Lord. Hence, the “Romans Road”
approach to evangelism is an elaboration of appropriate conclusions related to
and even inseparable from this central conclusion of the apostolic proclamation
of the gospel. As such (I trust this is fair), Phillips may as well have said,
“When it comes to evangelizing those who are postmodern, it will not suffice to
preach what the apostles preached in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
Book of Acts</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> or what Paul commends as the gospel with its evidence and
proofs in 1 Corinthians 15. We should, instead, hand them a Bible and invite
them to experience the truth for themselves.” This also means when Phillips
says (as noted above) that “in many cases” the “Romans Road” approach “will not
suffice,” what in the end he really seems to mean is that it “will not do.” </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Admittedly, at the risk of a
simplistic reduction of Phillips’ argument, I wonder if, even in our postmodern
times, there is no relevance or direction given us in Paul’s sacred charge to
Timothy: “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2)? That is, does Paul say, “Hand out the
Scriptures” (though, if possible, that would certainly be an important
supplement to preaching the Word)? Such a charge would seem to recommend,
again, a silent approach to evangelism (to use D.A. Carson’s phrase, a “gagging
of God”). It seems to mean something like, “Don’t talk to people about Jesus,
especially if they are relativists. Let them get the gospel on their own,
subjectively, by reading the Scriptures and the help of the Holy Spirit.”
However, what Paul says to Timothy with this charge to “preach the Word” (or
what Peter says with his, “be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you
for a reason for the hope that is in you”—1 Pe. 3:15) seems to be a direct
counter to any prescription for a silent or “try it you’ll like it” approach to
evangelism. It is, notably (in Paul’s case), even more than directing Timothy
to use words or speak to others directly about Jesus—even more than making a
claim supported by reasons (though it surely includes as much)—it is, indeed, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">proclamation</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Hence, it seems to me that the
explanation for why there is in Phillips an abandonment of the “Romans Road”
(or, as I propose, apostolic) approach to evangelism or of preaching and
reasoning itself is that activities of this nature are logically consistent
with the correspondence theory of public truth (which Phillips rejects).
However, a coherence theory (which Phillips accepts), as a non-public, private,
or exclusive approach to truth, calls for a different approach altogether. It
is obviously more subjective in nature and logically implies a manner of
relating to people which is more indirect, less confrontive, and gently
encourages people to get things on their own. Hence, instead of the urgent and
passionate, apostolic call (such as one observes consistently in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Acts</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) to consider what the Scriptures
say about Jesus as the Messiah as well as the apostles’ own testimony to the
same (all accompanied with persuasive reasoning, etc.), under a coherence
approach (as we see with TGC’s recommendation), it is the Christian perspective
itself which is presented by handing someone a Bible and praying they will have
a believer’s subjective experience of the gospel as truth. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Gospel Coalition’s Adoption of a Coherence
Theory of Truth Undermines What It Means to Believe in an Inerrant Bible</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Before
I address my third concern, it might be helpful to lay out some groundwork on
which, I believe (at least, in the fundamentals), TGC would agree.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the
Truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">?, Phillips’ quotation from Herman Bavinck that “the finite does not
grasp the infinite” (p. 15) and his point (often associated with Cornelius Van
Til) that human reasoning and biblical content are “analogous” to (that is, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">similar to but not</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the same as</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">; see p. 14) God’s reasoning and who he really is as God
are things often heard among Christians, like myself, who are Reformed. The
motive of magnifying God as the infinite God in clear distinction from finite
humans with respect to knowledge is, of course, not only commendable but
appropriate for us as Christians. However, I am sure TGC would agree with me
that it is critical in this regard that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">we
speak as Scripture speaks</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. And though the Bible declares things like, “How
unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable are his ways!” (Rom. 11:33),
it also assumes everywhere within its pages that </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">God is knowable</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> as he has made himself known through Scripture and
his Son. It also assumes that we are, therefore, accountable to know him. In
addition, the Bible never says that God’s reasoning is different from (or not
the same as) our reasoning. Hence, when he says, “Come, let us reason together”
(Isa. 1:18), God is neither patronizing nor playing with us. For all bibically
revelational and practical purposes as believers, then, it is appropriate to
think of God as one who reasons the way we do. That assumption is critical to
epistemic confidence in one’s relationship to God (that is, that one is walking
in the truth or reality of who God truly is — 2 John 4).</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What this underscores is that in
God’s communication to people through the Bible certain basic beliefs are
critical and must be held together. If we fail to uphold all these beliefs in
their integrity, then there is a risk that this communication will break down.
These beliefs are: first (as just stated), that God is knowable and has
revealed himself through the Bible; second, that the Bible is God’s inerrant
Word and true in all that it says (what Scripture says, God says); and, third,
that humans can know God through his Word. If because of philosophy or
theology, for instance, we conclude that God is by definition unknowable, then
this will reduce our regard for the Bible as his Word as well as our confidence
that we can know him. Or, if because of a God-denying misuse of science or history,
we conclude that there are errors in the Bible, then, again, we will tend to
progressively lose confidence that the Bible is the Word of God and that we can
truly know God. Finally, if we believe that we as humans cannot know truth or
have knowledge in general, then this, also, would cause a loss of confidence
that we may know God. This is because, if we are ill-equipped (whether by
nature or because of sin) to receive or know God’s Word, what does it matter if
God is knowable or has made himself known through an inerrant Bible? In sum,
communication between God and people may break down, depending upon
artificially created problems (usually derived from philosophy), at any of
these three levels of belief which pertain to the nature of God, Scripture, or
human knowing. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As I understand it, when the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued their three Chicago
statements (1978, 1982, 1986), they were concerned (especially in their first
two statements) to address and defend the three beliefs just highlighted as
requisite for full integrity in the communication between God and people. The
main focus of the council, however, was on biblical inerrancy (the second
belief). However (as just indicated), they were not unaware of critical issues
pertaining to human knowing or epistemology (the third belief). For instance,
in their 1978 statement on biblical inerrancy they write: </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">This authority of Scripture is inescapably
impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded,
or made relative to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">a view of truth
contrary to the Bible's own</span></i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[emphasis
mine — jnp]; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the
church. ("A Short Statement," section 5)</span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Then
with their second statement in 1982 on biblical hermeneutics, we read the
following:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">First, in contrast to contemporary relativism
it is declared that truth is absolute. Second, as opposed to subjectivism it is
acknowledged that truth is objective. Finally, in opposition to existential and
pragmatic views of truth, this article affirms that truth is what corresponds
to reality. (Article VI)</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> <span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Additionally,
in that same statement in one of their denials they address the problem of
relativism:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">WE DENY that Scripture should be required to
fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism,
evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism. (Article XIX)</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I remind TGC council of these things
with which they are undoubtedly familiar in order to stress that if I am right
in my claim above that TGC has embedded its own correspondence theory of truth
within a coherence theory and thereby adopted a Christian form of relativism,
then implicitly TGC has departed from the International Council on Biblical
Inerrancy with respect to the epistemology which in their three statements
frames belief in biblical inerrancy. As far as I know, TGC has not explicitly
addressed this difference but, to my mind, it seems quite significant. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If under a coherence theory we
respond to this world’s charge that the Bible has errors by simply affirming
that everything in the Bible is true and without error </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">because it is God’s Word</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> and if we, thus, exempt ourselves from
applying the same tests for truth we ordinarily apply when truth is under
question in our everyday world, then we are effectively saying to people (at
least, this is what they will hear) that we have accepted a certain religious
view of reality which has no more basis in fact or universal reality than an
empty, fictional world someone has imagined in their own head. Consequently, we
confirm the cultural cliche that Christianity is not about facts but “faith.”
And this, in turn, tends to mean: </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">what
people do in accepting something as true even though they have no basis in
reality for it.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Ordinarily, if someone in our world
claims to have a reality uniquely their own, such as the Jimmy Stewart movie
character named Elwood with his invisible, large, rabbit friend Harvey, do we
not say that they are lost in illusion or their own reality? And is this not because
we believe there is a neutral, universal reality we as humans share in common
which serves as the ground for this determination? Now if a special knowing
available </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">merely</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> by the Spirit in
Christ—that is, not neutral nor available to all and not grounded </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">in any sense</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (what I will consider
later) in ordinary knowing—is required for faith in Jesus Christ, are we not
saying that believing in and walking with Jesus is a kind of illusion (like
Elwood and his friend) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">assured to us by
the Holy Spirit? </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">If so, how is this different from a “reality” or “truth” a
person has or attempts to convey to others, let’s say, based on a subjective
experience of “God” from a non-Christian religion or perhaps a drug-induced
“trip” (what Francis Schaeffer was always concerned about)? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> When the apostle Peter says, “we did
not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2
Pe. 1:16) and when the apostle John speaks of the Word made flesh as
“that...which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched
with our hands” (1 Jn. 1:1) does this not indicate that the apostles of our
Lord clearly did not exempt the truth of the gospel they preached from the
ordinary, common sense, universal, and objective verification generally applied
to </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">any</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> truth claim in our world? And
is this not, therefore, an implicit, divinely authorized stand against </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">any account of knowing</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—any
epistemology—which renders the Bible immune to the same kind of test? If
regeneration and the work of the Spirit and the view that “God says it, so it
is true” had been the only recourse the apostles had against the charge that
their message had errors or was not true, would we not see this somewhere in Scripture?
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As you know, this is why Francis
Schaeffer denied that the Bible is a “religious book,” if by that we mean that
the Bible is providing an experiential, subjective, and “upper-story” truth
(that is, truth that is factually, publicly, and universally non-verifiable).
For instance, in his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">No Final Conflict:
The Bible without Error in All that It Affirms</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, Schaeffer writes: </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">If we try to separate the religious passages
in the book of Genesis from those which touch on history and the cosmos, the
religious passages are relegated to an upper-story situation. They have been
removed from any connection to space-time verification, and that means no
historical or scientific study can refute them. But it also follows that no
studies can verify them. In short, there is no reason to accept the upper-story
religious things either. The upper-story religious things only become a quarry
out of which to have our own personal subjective, existential, religious
experience. There is no reason, then, to think of the religious things as being
other than in one’s own head.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[16]</span></span></a></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Admittedly,
what Schaeffer is dealing with here concerns conclusions drawn in liberal
theology based on modern scientific method, as well as existential directions
first in philosophy and then in theology which developed from what was
perceived as the absence of God and the failure of reason. However, as I have
been arguing, in its rejection of an objective truth accessible to everyone, a
coherence theory applied to the Christian faith also reduces the truth which is
the object of that faith to a subjective, “upper-story” experience. Having said
that, I recognize that on the terms TGC employs for that experience, the
objectivity of truth is assured to the believer subjectively by the Holy Spirit
based on Scripture. But in the big picture (and as I will demonstrate further
in a moment), this objectivity is significantly different from that for which
Schaeffer throughout his life argued. And, more importantly, it is different
from the nature of truth as revealed in Scripture.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> For instance, when Moses teaches the
people how they may “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">know</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> [emphasis
mine—jnp] the word the LORD has not spoken” (Deut. 18:21-22), does he say they
should consult merely the inner confirmation of the Spirit in their heart? Does
he say, “It is true, because God says so and God cannot lie—follow your inner
witness”? Does he not, rather, apply an ordinary, common sense, and objective
test, as he says, “If the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a
word that the LORD has not spoken” (Deut. 18:22)? And does this not imply that
however finite and sinful the people were, they could understand what had been
presented as prophecy and they could know historical reality sufficiently and
reliably enough to know the difference between whether a prophecy comes to pass
or not? Is this not a test from God himself, involving an exercise in neutral
knowledge and ordinary reality, which stands outside Scripture itself and which
serves as an objective test, for the same? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> With that said (and not to get ahead
of myself), when TGC describes modernism as a view that “unaided human
reason...is able to know truth objectively,” does “unaided human reason” mean
“reason without Scripture”? If so, is this not precisely what Moses is
requiring the people of Israel to do (in the situation just mentioned)? That
is, in this context where the question was whether or not a specific word
claimed as from God truly is so, Moses does not point the people of Israel to
Scripture or another prophetic word </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as an
aid for reason</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to determine such. He commands them to use their
“unaided”—in the sense that no Scripture was helping or could help them—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">reason</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in the following ways: (1) for
understanding what the prophecy meant; (2) for observing and figuring out
whether the prophecy came true or not; and (3) for concluding that if the
prophecy came true it was from God and if it didn’t, it wasn’t from God. The
logic for the positive case goes like this:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Major Premise</span></u></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: If
a prophetic claim comes true, then it is from God.</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Minor Premise</span></u></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">:
Prophetic claim A came true.</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Conclusion</span></u></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: Therefore, prophetic claim A
is from God. (The claim is legitimate.) </span></i></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">And
the logic for the negative case is the following:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Major Premise</span></u></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">: If
a prophetic claim does not come true, then it is not from God.</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Minor Premise</span></u></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">:
Prophetic claim B did not come true.</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Conclusion</span></u></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">:
Therefore, prophetic claim B is not from God. (The claim is not legitimate.)</span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Their
assignment, then, from God through Moses was to determine—based on observation
and reason—the universally accessible, objective truth as to whether or not a
certain prophetic claim truly was so. There was nothing inappropriate, in this
particular case, about using “unaided reason” (reason apart from Scripture) to
test whether prophetic claims were truly from God. They didn’t have (again, in
this particular case) Scripture as either a test or an epistemological
condition by which to make this determination. Furthermore, it would have been
a matter of disobedience if the people had not used their own observation and
reason as the Lord told them to in this case. Hence, what this amounts to is
that by God’s own instructions, a prophetic claim, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">which if true is God’s truth or potentially written Scripture itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
must, nonetheless, pass a truth-test in external reality based on human reason
and observation. Notably, this requirement is not “modernism” or “rationalism”
but an ancient, divinely prescribed method for discerning whether or not a
prophetic claim is truly from God. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Apparently, this sort of thing is
what Francis Schaeffer means by “the truth which is behind the truth of
Scripture.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[17]</span></span></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">He even makes the controversial claim:
"Truth is not ultimately related even to the Scriptures."</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[18]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
He then defines truth: "truth is
that which is in relationship to what exists and ultimately to the God who
exists."</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[19]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> So what is Schaeffer claiming here? Aren't
the Scriptures God's self-disclosure as the God of truth? Do they not give us
objective reality? No doubt, Schaeffer would affirm as much. And, therefore, as
surely as God Himself is truth, even the Creator who makes the conditions
necessary for truth, aren't the Scriptures as God's Word so ultimate as truth
that nothing is behind or foundational to them? That they are themselves as
God's Word the ultimate reference point in, for, and as reality — and
therefore, there is no other reality behind them? At this point, Schaeffer
would say </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">no</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">. Why? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now this is, it seems to me, a
critically important question. There are respected and well meaning leaders in
the church today who are, thankfully, speaking up for truth but who are
claiming that there is no truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">but the
Bible</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> and, hence (by implication), no truth apart from or behind the Bible.
They equate the Bible with truth in such an exaggerated sense that the Bible is
viewed as having the only content which qualifies as truth in general or as all
that can be known with certainty as truth. In other words, the only objectivity
there is for truth is in and by the Bible </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">alone</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.
Hence, we are back to a correspondence theory internalized within coherence.
That is, when they support a correspondence view of truth, they don’t mean
“truth is what corresponds to reality” but “truth is what corresponds to God’s
Word.” Now the latter is certainly true, but it does not account for the
broader view of truth which Scripture itself everywhere and clearly supports.
Consequently, however seemingly spiritual and God-glorifying it sounds to
claim, in effect, that “truth is what </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">merely</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">only</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> corresponds to God’s Word,”
such a claim amounts to an unbiblical, human contrivance. It is important,
therefore, for us to understand that this position has three serious problems:
(1) it overstates the Bible's own claim to be truth; (2) it misrepresents or
contradicts the Bible’s own standard of verification for its truth (such as,
Moses’ test in Deut. 18:21-22); and (3) it indirectly and ultimately undermines
the Bible's own real-world or public status </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
truth. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> <span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> For this reason, when that part of
modernism which has a realistic epistemology claims there are errors in the
Bible based, for instance, on what actually happened in history or what it
believes is true in science, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">their
approach to truth itself is not wrong. </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">That part of what they are doing is
similar to Moses’ test for what is not true prophecy or Peter’s test to show
that with his gospel he was not cleverly inventing fictions. What is
objectionable about modernists are things like their self-worship, unbelief,
rejection of Scripture, and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">lack </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">of
objectivity—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">not their belief in truth and
the attempt (through reasons and evidence) at achieving objectivity itself.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
If modernists of this stripe truly considered </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">everything </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">and were not actively resisting belief in God and idolatrously
worshipping their own minds, they would see that there is solid evidence, for
example, that Jesus was raised from the dead. And they would also see that the
“errors” in Scripture they so glibly point out are, for any reasonable person,
often explainable. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In sum, what an immunity to attack
on biblical inerrancy gained through a coherence theory does is diminish the
persuasive, establishing power of both the Bible and its gospel as truth. This
applies not only to outsiders whose salvation we seek but also, the church
itself. One recalls here Schaeffer’s quotation from J. S. Bezzant:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">When I am told that it is precisely its
immunity from proof which secures the Christian proclamation from the charge of
being mythological I reply that immunity from proof can ‘secure’ nothing
whatever except immunity from proof, and call nonsense by its name.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[20]</span></span></a></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">That
this immunity is gained through an epistemology which is, as I have called it,
a Christian version of relativism does not alter the point: removing the truth
of the gospel from the realm of universally knowable truth (court room
epistemology, every day knowing, etc.) does that truth no favor but actually
undermines it as truth. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> That is, biblical inerrancy has
always been about whether in having Scripture we indeed have God’s infallible
truth, where fallibility is measured by what we are ordinarily able to verify
as true or false. Christians who are taught that there is no universally
knowable reality, particularly, as a test of biblical truthfulness, will also
know intuitively that such a Bible thus disconnected from reality could be the
product of human imagination. In addition, they will know, similarly, that all
their beliefs based on the Bible (their Christian worldview) are no more
verifiable than other secular or religious beliefs about the world. Hence,
instead of, “How </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">firm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> the foundation
[laid for their faith]” they will know the words should be (as certain
postmodern Christians believe), “How </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">infirm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
the foundation.” My point is that biblical inerrancy as framed by a
correspondence view of truth (what we see in the statements issued by the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) has as part of its central aim the
destruction of any approach to faith or God’s Word which removes the Bible from
an ordinary, reliably knowable connection with external reality. Douglas
Groothuis puts this eloquently:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">When objective truth is removed, the
community becomes merely self-referential and ultimately autistic. It has its
web of beliefs; it engages in various practices. But it cannot be said that the
community reflects objective realities. This leaves members of the community
with no compelling reason to adhere to these beliefs. What are these beliefs
about, if not something outside of the community that gives it its compelling
relationship to reality?</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[21]</span></span></a></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Admittedly, this is only anecdotal
but in my experience as a philosophy professor at a conservative, Reformed
Christian college which supports biblical inerrancy—where it was also generally
believed (though not stated in their founding documents) among faculty and
students that truth is subjective and knowledge is entirely relative to one’s
perspective—some of our best and brightest Christian young people, like a small
but steady stream, were giving up the faith right under our noses. No doubt
things like that happen at Christian colleges but the point is that if we have
adopted an epistemology that justifies, in terms of knowing external reality, a
groundlessness whether with belief or unbelief—when, in essence, we are
convinced that the Bible on which the Christian faith depends is divorced from
a verifiable, objective, and ordinary reality—only confirmed to our hearts as
truth by the Holy Spirit—then, it should not surprise us that our students are
losing their faith. “They have,” as Douglas says, “no compelling reason to
adhere to these beliefs.” If we keep telling them what they can’t and don’t
know—all the problems with knowing itself—problems foreign to anything
Scripture says—why are we surprised that one day they throw up their hands and
say, “I don’t know if my faith has to do with anything real. So excuse me while
I go my way and spend my time entertaining a different and more interesting
fantasy.” This is why we need—and must have—for biblical inerrancy and the
Christian faith based on God’s Word the correspondence approach to truth. As
the church, I am sure TGC would agree with me that we cannot afford to play the
philosophers’ games about something so infinitely precious as truth. Groothuis
issues an important and solemn warning here:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Therefore, the correspondence view of truth
is not simply one of many options for Christians. It is the only biblically and
logically grounded view of truth available and allowable. We neglect or deny it
to our peril and disgrace. Truth decay will not be dispelled without it.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[22]</span></span></a></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> We have now come to my fourth and
last concern, as stated in the heading below.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Gospel Coalition Has Both Criticized
and Befriended Certain Tenets of Modern and Postmodern Philosophy and in Doing
So Has Compromised a Biblical Understanding of Truth </span></i></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Boice, Sproul, and Schaeffer</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> First, a more general comment. In
his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, Phillips
enlists for various contexts the help of James Boice, R. C. Sproul, and Francis
Schaeffer. While I am thankful that Phillips includes them, I am not quite
certain why. For readers unfamiliar with these names, it might seem that this
is a gesture of respect, even deference, on Phillips’ part. But it also may
seem that Phillips, perhaps unintentionally, is implying that Boice, Sproul,
and Schaeffer would to some extent countenance Phillips’ beliefs, such as,
truth is subjective, or Christians should employ a “try it you’ll like it”
approach to evangelizing postmoderns, or that there is no objective
epistemological ground between a believer and unbeliever. As no doubt TGC
council members know, this certainly is not the case. For example, James Boice
opens his booklet, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Does Inerrancy Matter?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
with a quote from someone who had attended one of his conferences on biblical
inerrancy. In that quote, negative attention is called to the relativistic,
“try it, you’ll like it,” attitude reflected in the comments made by various people
in the audience. These people didn’t see much point in defending biblical
inerrancy. And they did so precisely because they understood truth as relative.
Understandably, for them, defending inerrancy was a moot point. On the other
hand, when Boice speaks to them about how the Bible is without error, he does
so with a belief in objective truth and no doubt similar to what we find in his
booklet on that topic: “This [biblical inerrancy—jnp] is established by
treating it as any other historical record, as, for instance, the works of
Josephus or the accounts of war by Julius Caesar.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[23]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
That is, from Boice’s standpoint, there is a reliably knowable, potentially
testable-by-all, objective reality behind the claim that the Bible is without
error. It isn’t merely an internally coherent belief assured by the Holy Spirit
to believers in Jesus. It isn’t true merely because God says so. Obviously,
then, for Phillips (who begins and ends his book with Boice) to seemingly
associate Boice—whether as a gesture of unity and respect or to lend credence
to Phillips’ own denial of such an objective ground—is at best misleading. As
for R. C. Sproul (along with John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley), he and these
others authored </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Classical Apologetics: A
Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional
Apologetics</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, which is itself a classic, textbook refutation of the very
presuppositionalism Phillips assumes in his own view of truth. And, finally,
Francis Schaeffer’s entire corpus of writings amounts to (or assumes) a strong
polemic on behalf of the very “objective epistemological common ground” which
Phillips says does not exist. Curiously, on the other hand, it seems that the
one person to whom Phillips is most indebted in his view of truth is never mentioned
at all: Cornelius Van Til. </span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><br />
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Modern-Postmodern Framework</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> With that said, I wish to begin this
fourth concern by a consideration of the manner in which TGC frames its
understanding of truth, particularly, with the historical, modern-postmodern controversy
over truth. In the TGC “Vision” statement, we read:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">For several hundred years, since the dawning of the Enlightenment, it was
widely agreed that truth—expressed in words that substantially correspond to
reality—does indeed exist and can be known. Unaided human reason, it was
thought, is able to know truth objectively. More recently, postmodernism has
critiqued this set of assumptions, contending that we are not in fact objective
in our pursuit of knowledge, but rather interpret information through our
personal experiences, self–interests, </span></span><span lang="EN" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">emotions, cultural prejudices, language limitations, and relational
communities.</span></span><span lang="EN" style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Similarly,
Phillips also frames his discussion of truth in the same modern-postmodern
terms:</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">We happen to be living in a historical moment
of tension between two models or theories regarding the knowledge of truth: the
modern and the postmodern.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[24]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">I
acknowledge, first, that based on Scripture TGC is clearly critical of both
historical trends. My concern, however, is that this way of framing an
investigation of truth tends to imply to a certain extent that these are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">the</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> two options we must somehow
negotiate with in our understanding of truth. That is, any discussion of truth
(even with Scripture as the final arbiter) seems compelled to do its buying and
selling based significantly on a closed market of ideas represented by the
modern-postmodern controversy.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Now I am well aware that many academics today are quite
taken with this narrowly focused, modern-postmodern narrative, as if it tells
the whole story of reason and truth. Is it not, however, rather </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">simplistic</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">? For instance, why is it that
TGC recognizes nothing historically in our understanding of the concept of
truth prior to the modern period? The manner in which TGC narrates the “crisis”
of truth makes it seem as if the correspondence theory of truth has had only
one face: modern philosophy. Surely TGC does not hold that the modern period
has some special claim on that theory. Does the premodern period—or, better,
mankind’s common sense in general—not count? </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> I hasten to add that I am aware that TGC intends to
support a biblical version of correspondence truth. It would not be fair,
therefore, to claim that TGC believes the correspondence theory somehow equates
only with modern philosophy. But what puzzles me about TGC’s depiction of this
“crisis” for truth is that it almost seems TGC is claiming the church itself is
somehow </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">involved in it</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">—that because
of our epistemological times, something about the church’s own epistemology
(not just its method of relating to postmoderns) must change. That is, could it
be that whereas Francis Schaeffer would say, “There is no problem of
epistemology for the Christian,” TGC members are, perhaps, clearing their
throat and replying, “With all due respect, Sir, we believe Christians do have
a problem of epistemology”? For instance, the trilogy of TGC’s propositions I
am examining under this fourth concern, namely, truth is (1) subjective because
of finitude; (2) not truly knowable because of sin; and (3) not something
epistemologically shared as common ground between believers and unbelievers. Do
Bible-believing Christians in America or even worldwide generally have such
notions? And where would they get them, if they didn’t have them? Does TGC
believe they would learn them from the Bible? Do these three propositions have
some other source than philosophy? </span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Another thing: is there not a
certain partiality in TGC’s telling of the modern-postmodern narrative? Is
there not more favor shown to postmodernism than modernism? Isn’t modernism,
for the most part, the bad guy in their account? And postmodernism, at least by
comparison, the not-so-bad, somewhat-useful guy (as long as he doesn’t get too
out of hand)? Has modernism no positive features (for instance: results like
refrigerators, cars, and vaccines)? Again, have we not painted ourselves in a
corner with a false dilemma? Is there, for instance, no other paradigm for the
use of reason than what is on offer in modernism? Does modernism really get to
set the terms in that regard? And—that they do get to set the terms—is that not
why if a Christian stresses reason or objectivity in persuading unbelievers of
the truth of the gospel they get labelled as a “rationalist” or “modernist”?
And if they are overly confident about knowing something, they are perceived as
having failed to learn the lessons of postmodernity? Have these two historical
trends in Western philosophy not become for us as Christians a kind of
limiting, interpretive overlay in handling issues pertaining to truth (the
place of reason and evidence, subjectivity and objectivity, the nature of
facts, etc.)—held in check only by Scripture when we are absolutely pinned to
the wall by certain unacceptable conclusions, such as, modernity’s God-denying
and autonomous use of reason or postmodernity’s denial that truth exists? </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> What am I getting at? </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Why not begin and stay with Scripture—even
exhaust it as the authoritative resource for understanding the concept or
nature of truth—particularly before we turn to what is happening in philosophy?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Why does it seem that we as Christians are being encouraged by leaders we trust
and respect </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">to pay philosophy’s dues</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">?
Must we tip our hats to the philosophers as the experts on truth, as if what
they have to say about truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">as a concept</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
is our ultimate authority? Did Jesus or the apostles ever have such concern for
what the philosophers say about truth? Or when has the church throughout its
history shown such deference to philosophy, as it seems TGC is doing? And
since, “the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be
determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines
of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are
to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture,”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[25]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
how does TGC biblically justify their deference to philosophy for an
understanding of the nature or concept of truth?</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In one of Phillips’ concluding statements, we find the
following: “The answer to the challenge of our times is surely not to turn
aside from our biblical witness to argue complicated theories of epistemology
and hermeneutics.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[26]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Is it not true, however (and as I’ve already noted), that much of what Phillips
has written about truth (such as, that truth is subjective and that sinful
humans cannot know truth at all) is indeed steeped, even made possible,
precisely by such “complicated theories”? Moreover, that Phillips states his
view of truth in this manner without argument or proof does not mean that such
is obviously true, indefeasible, or non-controversial. For instance, when he
says that apart from sin human knowing (pertaining to truth) is “subjective,”
“partial,” and “selective,” what are Christians to make of such a statement?
Again, where would they go in Scripture to verify this? What would the early church
make of such a statement—particularly, since (as Paul recognizes) not many of
them were “wise” by the standards of their philosophical age (1 Cor. 1:26)? And
what about those “little children” who were not “wise and understanding” and
yet were people to whom our Father, because of his own good pleasure, revealed
the things of the kingdom (Matt. 11:25-26)? What would those people—so simple
and uneducated—have done if Jesus had spoken to them this way about truth? My
point is that if Phillips and the council members of TGC are relying on the
philosophers to argue for the subjective nature of truth (prior to sin), the
inability to know truth at all (due to sin), or the complete absence of common
epistemological ground between believers and unbelievers, then truly (again) it
would seem that through their leadership the Lord’s flock is being led into the
very “complicated theories” Phillips mentions. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Phillips’ Misunderstanding of the Framework Itself</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In addition to these problems
related to TGC’s discussion of truth in this limiting modern-postmodern
framework, there are also, as I understand it, some significant problems with
the way Phillips represents this framework itself. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> First of all, Phillips in several
places confuses postmodern with modern ideas. This is evident, for instance,
when he says, “Here postmodernity prudently points out that even if there is
real truth, humans may not be able to know truth </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">truly.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[27]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
With this statement, Phillips seems not to have considered that postmodernity
entertains no hypotheticals of this nature about the knowledge of reality. The
reason for this is that postmodernity has fundamentally rejected the existence
of reality. It is the modernists who, for the most part, hold that external
reality exists but that our knowledge of such is, first, subjective, and
second, problematic in the sense that it cannot be directly checked against
external reality itself. This is true because many of the modern philosophers
held that all knowledge is mediated through the mind (its ideas or internal
conditions), and the mind (internal reality) itself is so substantively
different from the body or matter (external reality) that we have no assurance
that there is a correspondence between them which could yield reliable
knowledge. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In another place, Phillips says,
“postmodernity correctly points out that actual people are finite and therefore
have a limited, subjective understanding of truth.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref28" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn28;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[28]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Actually, postmodernity is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">non-essentialist</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
in its thinking. Consequently, it does not hold that humans are “finite” or
“limited” or “flawed.” Such would amount to a metanarrative concerning human
nature. When Lyotard speaks of postmodernity’s “incredulity toward
metanarratives,” he means that postmodernity does not believe that there is
anything essentially, abidingly, or ultimately true about anything. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">All beliefs</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, accordingly, are humanly
constructed and without transcendent, metaphysical status. Nothing has
substance in itself. This is what is meant by the postmodern saying, “All
truths are fictions.” Hence, one will not find postmodernists making a claim
about human nature, such as, “humans are finite” or “flawed.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref29" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn29;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[29]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Phillips also says, </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The postmodern junta now governing Western
culture holds this relativism as its sole absolute: no one has the right to say
that he possesses the truth absolutely so that others are absolutely wrong.
There may be ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth,’ but the postmodern mind dogmatizes
against anyone claiming dogmatically to possess the truth (except the
postmodern dogma against said dogma).</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref30" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn30;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[30]</span></span></a></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Actually,
what Phillips is describing here is a belief that characterized modern
philosophy before postmodern philosophy ever came along. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Subjectivity with its relativism is the hallmark of modern philosophy.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
More precisely, the reason “the postmodern mind” on its part “dogmatizes
against anyone claiming dogmatically to possess the truth” is not because truth
is subjective and relative, as if this comes about through or is only
distinctive to postmodernity. That is, we must distinguish between the modern
claim, “truth is subjective and relative because it is centered in the mind of
the subject and cannot be verified against external reality,” from the
postmodern claim, “truth is subjective and relative because it is centered in
the collective mind of a culture or language and cannot be verified against
external reality because </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">such does not
exist</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.” Though closely related in undermining truth and similarly relative
in outlook, they are still different claims. The first still recognizes a
foundation in reality, though it denies any reliable way of knowing it. The
second denies such a foundation altogether. This is why the latter claims
“there is no center” or “no foundation” or that “language </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">speaks us</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">.” The latter is held to be true because language has no
metaphysical reference, any more than there is some ultimate meaning behind
humanity or existence. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> A second problem with Phillips’
representation of the modern-postmodern framework is that he does not distinguish
precisely what failed when the modernist hope was shattered by the world wars
of the twentieth century. The hope, metaphysically speaking, was that beginning
with ourselves as humans (without reliance on God) we could redeem the world,
find the ultimate answers in life, discover and establish our own ethical
standards, etc. Truly, that hope failed as it was destined to do from the start
because of its rejection of God. However, in more mundane matters, the hope
that through reason, observation, and evidence we could as humans make progress
in other areas (such as science, medicine, and technology) </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">did not and certainly has not failed.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> The problem with modernity’s
approach to truth is not the use of reason, observation, and evidence </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">per se.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> (Scripture itself employs these
things to support faith.) However, it is when such things become an idol or
displace the biblical God that there is a problem. In sum, what failed about
modernity was its proud, metaphysical quest to find ultimate meaning, value,
and redemption for the human race apart from God. That the historical period
known as “the Enlightenment” thus so grievously misused reason, observation,
etc., in the process of “advancement” does not mean that these things (reason,
observation, etc.) are themselves essentially bad or suspicious, particularly
(in this context) with respect to the biblical case God himself has made for
the truth of the gospel.</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> A third problem occurs with
Phillips’ statement, “Christians may be cobelligerent with postmodernity’s assaults
against modernism.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref31" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn31;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[31]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
What about Christians being cobelligerent with modernism against certain
postmodern tenets—such as, that contra postmodernism there is truth and that
reason and evidence are important in arriving at it? Phillips also quotes Carson who rejoices over
postmodernism’s “launching very heavy artillery against the modernity which,
across four centuries, developed in such a way that increasingly it taunted
confessional Christianity” (p. 10). But how did postmodernism assault modernism?
By a denial of the reality of truth itself—by claiming, as already stated, “All
our truths are fictions.” Is this helpful to the Christian faith? When
postmodernism (as Carson says) challenges modernism’s arrogance for insisting
“that human reason is the final arbiter of truth” (p. 10), unsurprisingly it
renders reason as empty or fictional in its exercise as the truth it seeks.
What is there to rejoice in here? That modernism misused reason in its
God-denying self-worship is undoubtedly true. But, again, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">does the sinister misuse of something entail that it is itself
sinister?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> And in an age increasingly irrational, shouldn’t Christians, for
example, follow the lead of the apostles of Christ (as demonstrated in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The Acts of the Apostles</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) and take care
to honor the use of reason, observation, and evidence in persuading unbelievers
of the truth of the gospel?</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This is, to my mind, what is wrong
with Carson’s comparing an alliance with postmodernism to the Western Allies’
pact with Communist Russia against Nazi Germany in World War II. The analogy
breaks down because in that context as long as Nazi Germany was defeated, it
did not matter who the Allies worked with to get this done. But if Communist
Russia had somehow made its conflict with Nazi Germany an occasion to also and
at the same time defeat the Allies, an alliance with them obviously would not
have been a good thing. This is what I see occurring with postmodernism’s
attack on modernity.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref32" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn32;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[32]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
In denying that there is transcendent truth, postmodernism is equally concerned
to defeat religions like Christianity which believe in such. If we truly
understand what postmodernism is about, we will realize that there is nothing
in its </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">basic tenets</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to celebrate,
side with, or enlist to defeat modernity.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref33" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn33;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[33]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
Both modernism’s autonomy and rejection of God and Scripture and
postmodernism’s denial of ultimate reality are enemies to the Christian faith. </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> A fourth problem in Phillips’
representation of the modern-postmodern framework occurs when he says, </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Almost incidentally, postmodernism has also
criticized Christian thought. D.A. Carson has catalogued a number of strengths
in the postmodern critique, even when it is applied to recent evangelical
approaches to theology and apologetics.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref34" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn34;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[34]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Here, it seems to me,
Phillips fundamentally misunderstands the postmodern stance to Christianity.
Postmodernism’s agenda is nothing less than to think out the implications of
“the death of God.” And one of the most important influences behind that agenda
is Friedrich Nietzsche who clearly identifies which God supposedly
“died”—namely, the Christian God. It is true that the deconstruction of
logocentrism one finds in philosophers like Derrida is certainly much broader,
even more philosophical, than the Christian God. But it certainly includes any
logocentrism, including the eternal Logos of God who upholds both the world of
matter and meaning. Again, Nietzsche adamantly insists that all philosophical
efforts to establish morality or ultimate meaning in life are merely the
“shadows” of the Judeo-Christian God (whose existence he rejects).
Postmodernism’s criticism of Christian thought, therefore, is not even </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">almost</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> “incidental” but </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">central</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> to its task. (If one is inclined
to doubt this, I suggest inquiring of Christians who have been in secular
graduate programs with a specialization in Continental philosophy.)</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> A fifth and final problem occurs
when Phillips says, </span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Even when modern-thinking Christians have
sought to use rationalism to support the Bible’s teaching, thoughtful
Christians have found that the rationalist approach to absolute truth lines up
poorly with Christian humility, charity, and our teaching about the human
problem of sin. As the Christian witness has moved into the twenty-first
century, therefore, we have rightly sought to distance ourselves from the
rationalism of modernity.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftnref35" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn35;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[35]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">
</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">First,
I wonder: who are these “modern-thinking Christians” to which Phillips refers?
What books have they written? What have they said that supports modernism? Is
Phillips clear about what modernism is and what its true problems are in
relation to the Christian faith? Is he talking about people like C. S. Lewis,
Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, and Ravi Zacharias? What
practical or concrete behavior demonstrates what it means for us as Christians
to “distance ourselves from the rationalism of modernity”? Certainly, we should
distance ourselves from modernity’s God-denying reliance on reason but is that
the same thing as distancing ourselves from </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">reason
itself</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in presenting the biblical case for Jesus of Nazareth as the
Messiah?</span></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Second, as I intend in what follows
to defend the apostolic use of reason and evidence in preaching and
establishing the truth of the gospel, I will sort out later the difference
between an apostolic, holy boldness in making the case for Jesus as the Messiah
and the unholy and arrogant “rationalism of modernity.” It will be sufficient
to say here that when Jesus says, “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words
will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35), he is implying, for one thing, that no
matter what philosophical trends are in the air either in the first or twenty-first
century, both the biblical case for his Messiahship and its method of
presentation (inclusive of preaching and reasoning with unbelievers as both he
and the apostles exemplified, respectively, in the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Gospels</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> and </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Acts</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">) remains
the same for all places and times. Christian humility is measured not by human
standards based on issues for knowing invented by philosophy (particularly, as
mixed with the teachings of Christianity) but by the fear of the Lord and a
self-distrusting submission in every respect (including epistemology) to his holy
Word. </span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[1]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> As it is reasonable to assume that among the
members of TGC council there were disagreements on the topic of truth and since
Phillips’ booklet intends to represent not merely Phillips himself but the
entire council, I trust my readers will bear in mind that when I refer to
Phillips, I am not talking about him personally (his personal views or way of
handling this topic) but about TGC he represents. Also, this booklet currently may be purchased at Amazon.com or obtained free online as a downloadable pdf.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[2]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, pp. 22-23. Please note that my claim about what is found
in Phillips’ booklet is implied by the absence within its pages, for the most
part, of any positive prescription for bold preaching to or reasoning with
postmodernists about the truth of the gospel.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 14.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 14.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 8.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[6]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> One obvious example of this is Tim Keller’s
outstanding and important work, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Reason
for God.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> My understanding is that much of the material for this book
originated from Keller’s responding to questions from (and reasoning with)
unbelievers in meetings specifically designed for that very purpose.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[7]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Think:
The Life of the Mind and the Love of God</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, TGC council member John Piper
seems to recognize this universal aspect of truth in several places, for
instance, when in contrast to this aspect he characterizes relativism as the
belief that “there is no objective, external standard for measuring the truth
or falsehood of a statement” (p. 97). Also, in a message entitled, “The
Challenge of Relativism,” Piper says: “</span><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The claim that there is no one standard for truth
and falsehood that is valid for everyone is rooted most deeply in the desire of
the fallen human mind to be free from all authority and to enjoy the exaltation
of self.” Additionally,</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">What Ever Happened to Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, TGC council
member Al Mohler writes, “It [the truth of the gospel] is objectively,
historically, and universally true” (p. 59). Now this may be a misunderstanding
on my part, but I think this means that Mohler believes that in some sense even
unbelievers can understand the gospel even if they reject or disobey what they
know.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[8]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">As those familiar with Western philosophy are
probably aware, the coherence theory of truth is generally regarded,
particularly in its influence on contemporary thought, as originating with
epistemological idealists in the modern tradition like Immanuel Kant. In his
phenomenal-noumenal distinction, for instance, Kant believes we can only know
things as they appear to us (the phenomenal) and not how they are in themselves
(the noumenal). That is, we have no direct access to external (non-mental)
reality. This means that there is no objective truth which is accessible to us
as knowledge. Reality is conditioned by the mind such that all we have are
relative and subjective perspectives or interpretations and never direct
knowledge of reality itself. Put another way, knowledge is mediated through the
mind and there is no way to verify that knowledge, thus mediated, actually
corresponds to (or accords with) external reality. Hence, the emphasis with
respect to truth becomes a matter of how beliefs hold together or cohere (as an
internal, mental reality) rather than how they are or are not true to external
or objective reality. </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[9]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> This quotation is from the statement on
truth at TGC website.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[10]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 8.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[11]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 15.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[12]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 7.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[13]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, pp. 22-23.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[14]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 7.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[15]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> In the end, Phillips’ recommendation that we
simply hand someone a Bible implies that in relating the gospel to a postmodern
unbeliever we actually do not answer these questions about the Bible’s
authority or the objectivity of truth.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[16]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Francis Schaeffer, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">No Final Conflict: The Bible Without Error in All That It Affirms</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
p. 14. </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[17]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
God Who Is There</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, pp. 144-145.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn18" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[18]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
God Who Is There</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 144.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn19" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[19]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
God Who Is There</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 145.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn20" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[20]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Francis Schaeffer, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">No Final Conflict: The Bible Without Error in All That It Affirms</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">,
p. 15.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn21" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[21]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> Douglas Groothuis, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of
Postmodernism</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 152.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn22" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[22]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Truth
Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p.
110.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn23" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[23]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> James Boice, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Does Inerrancy Matter?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 27.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn24" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[24]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 8.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn25" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[25]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">The
Westminster Confession of Faith</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, chapter one, section ten.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn26" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[26]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?, </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">p. 22.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn27" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[27]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 14.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn28" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn28" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn28;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[28]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 9.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn29" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn29" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn29;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[29]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> If anything, this appears to be a
theological projection on postmodern thought.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn30" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn30" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn30;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[30]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 11.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn31" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn31" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn31;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[31]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 10.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn32" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn32" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn32;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[32]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> We also should not assume that much of the
scientific world (as reflective of modernism), for instance, has ever paid that
much attention to postmodernism.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn33" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn33" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn33;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[33]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> To be clear, I agree with Carson that
postmodernism (I would suggest: as a latter day development of modernism)
offers an important insight about how our subjective circumstances (history,
culture, language, etc.) influence our perception of truth. But it is important
to stress in our postmodern or relativistic times that objective truth can be
known, that these factors do not absolutely or exhaustively determine the
possibilities for what can be known.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn34" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn34" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn34;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[34]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 9.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn35" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Gerrit%20Gustafson/Documents/Word%20Documents/Bible%20and%20Epistemology/Letters%20to%20Gospel%20Coalition/Chapter%201%20Book%20and%20Online.docx" name="_ftn35" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn35;" title=""><span style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">[35]</span></span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">Can We
Know the Truth?</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;">, p. 9.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="color: black;"></span></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<br />J.N. Partainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07208418111306484941noreply@blogger.com0