Sam did to me (in milder form) the same thing he complained about DeeDee doing to him here. http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/…

You don't want your name and Rod's mentioned together. Fine. I don't blame you. But why attach mine to his?

This is my sole point. Sam compared me to Roderick. It is a false comparison. You guys paired with Roderick against me. He's yours. Don't go pinning him on me.

The rest of your points are all false, but they are minor and I will leave them for another time and place.

Blessings.

This is your first warning. If you insist on posting in the manner you have above, then don't bother…it won't stick.

1) There is no reason to start in with addressing Sam as “DeeDee.” Did Sam do this with you? No.

2) You are wrong in asserting that Rod is a clarkian. The opponent i was referring to above was Rod. He never was a clarkian. I have been pointing that out for a while now. Rod's uses the “terms”, but doesn't understand hardly any of it. I'm not even convinced he fully understands logic. You are wrong, plain and simple.

3) Rod is “connected” in the sense that he starts exactly where you claimed to start in BCS. You guys, admittedly so, are empiricists throwing Bible into the mix. Rod does the same. Clark didn't, nor do we.

4) You say you start with “God's epistemology”, yet appeal to the Bible for “defense” of it? You are doing EXACTLY what Rod does. Rod claims to start with the existence of God and complains about Clark's axiom, yet Rod has to use Scripture to define and defend his axiom.

5) In saying that you and Rod share similarities, we are not saying that you share all. Yet, you are doing that to us now. We encourage debate; that doesn't mean we encouraged everything Rod did. He never was “ours”, so knock it off.

6) We have already explained that you and Tim wrongly understand Moses' (or whoever you think wrote it) deal about two witnesses. The context was judicial. It was not an epistemological statement about all truth; else we would immediately run into issues about things revealed that had no witness, outside of the Trinity. This has been pointed out time and time again.

7) Clark is not our “apostle”. Again, knock the goofy rhetoric off.

JL, i have limited my interaction on certain sites to avoid nonsense like this. I'm not going to tolerate it on my own site.

Clean it up or leave.

I just read this. Why do you have to make a final dig at us? Etc.

Please remember, you endorsed Roderick's Clarkianism and his criticism of BCS. How many shows did you do with him? Don't be trying to connect him with us. He's yours.

For the record, we started with epistemology. The big difference is we don't start with Clark's epistemology. We start with God's epistemology, the epistemology that the Bible describes and defends. It is not our fault that you refuse to recognize Biblical epistemology, that you place Gordon Clark among your apostles.

For Preterism, the best means is God's epistemology and His insistence on the use of multiple witnesses and wisdom.

Sam, excellent follow up. There is a pattern that develops. Man, apart from revelation, induces this and induces that, all of which can never be certain. But, when enough people do it, the “certainty” of such becomes stronger with the numbers. It then gets to a point where logic (necessary inference) is thrown out the window altogether, and it is true because WE SAY IT IS! Mob rule.

The authority God exercises (it is true because he says it is) is rejected and REPLACED. “You turn things upside down!”

Is it any wonder why his wrath boils hot? Makes me appreciate God's patience and mercy all the more.

Exactly. Man's perspective changed. His “eyes were opened”. Open to what? He was now a “natural man” and would reason in “natural” way – using “nature” as his guide (this is empiricism, or naturalism). Philosophy confirms our point. Philosophy is either metaphysical (rational ideas, apriori-ism), naturalistic (empiricism), or a combination of both (Aquinas, Kant, Van Til). The last two views fail. The first view has no basis to posit universal laws of logic (Rand). Clark utilizes the first view, but bases it upon the presupposition that God's word is revealed truth.

What's strange here is that Roderick Edwards (somewhat a Van Tillianist), sees the problem if Talbot is correct (and Clark). It opens the door to any claim of “biblical”. One cannot appeal to anything else but the Bible. Nature, history, etc. are all good appeals, but fall short of the revelation of God. The Westminster Confession calls it the “Supreme Judge” by which all “Religious controversies” are to be settled (Roderick would deny this). You see, Pratt, Gentry, Jordan, Leithart, all the Westminster Seminary guys, are Van Tillianists. That's how they can get around our logical appeal. That's “man's logic” they will say. God's word is “paradox” they will say. “near” to God does not mean “near” to us, and an appeal to the church is made at this point – as a “boundary” of God's word. Roderick is following this path. Talbot isn't.

What's strange is that Beyond Creation Science also follows the Van Tillian path! It states plainly that it starts with the “ontological trinity”. This is much in line with Roderick Edwards' starting with “God exists.” That's where Van Til starts. For Van Til, one starts with metaphysics. For Clark, one starts with epistemology. Huge difference.

For Preterism, the best means is Clark's epistemology and his insistence on the role of Logic. God's word is to be read logically. The whole preterist charge is “inconsistency” on the part of Tradition theology. “Near” means “near” to us as it does to God, and if we apply “near” consistently throughout the Bible, we MUST arrive at Preterism. That's what we are saying. Full Preterism is a logical necessity of “partial preterism.”

I showed “Collision” to our Bible study group last night. It went over pretty well. Would like to get your interpretations of Wilson's performance.

This is great. The ramifications show that the “world” uses two tools: observation, then rationalization/interpretation based on repeated observations (patterns).

This was Eve: she “saw” that the Tree was good for food, and accepted the rationalization of the Serpent. In this, she rejected God's interpretation of the “facts.” The brute fact was that a tree was there. Now, the purpose (teleology) of that tree…well, that's open to interpretation. God said this. The Serpent said that. Eve rationalized between them. Adam, in turn, interpreted Eve's actions and went ahead with the premise.

The brilliance of the Hebrew author here (God), is showing us the problem. The methodology of the senses, and then rationalizing the data of the senses which is re-enforced through constant repetition, becomes “knowledge.” It becomes “Truth.” It is so plain, so clear, so obvious to our minds. Anything that goes against it is nonsense, folly, foolish.

Joe Christian comes along and tries to have “revelation” combined with this “knowledge” of the world. What happens (and we saw this in history), is that when Aquinas combined Aristotle with theology, theology was more and more squeezed out to the irrelevant.

The world views its knowledge as supreme. People don't walk on water. Red Seas don't split. God can't make a sun in a day. It's stupid. Impossible. Our knowledge is far superior to such idiot reasoning. But, who is the real “fool” here? I believe it was a deliberate purpose of God to reveal himself in ways that shock us: like a burning bush. I mean, COME ON! A burning bush? How STUPID is that? Surely Moses was burning a little “bush” when he wrote this! But, see, I think that's the point. To empiricism and scientific methodology, utilizing inductive reasoning, burning bushes and ax heads floating will “appear” stupid, impossible, because we don't “see” these things happening in a normal, predictable, mathematical equation on repeated observational planes. So, we come up with an amalgamation view: well, God “interceded” or “intervened” in the normal “laws of physics” – this becomes the definition of “miracles” – which is a false definition. See, we have to do something with what appears “foolish.” It's foolish to have the sun made in a day. Knowledge declares it!

But, see, we have to define “knowledge” don't we, Jason. What constitutes “knowledge”? As you have pointed out, Paul is not saying that God's actions are “foolish.” They are Supreme Wisdom. Supreme Knowledge. But, according to scientific methodology, it is entirely “foolish”. God's Knowledge is foolish according to the means by which “the world” understands “knowledge.” That's Paul's point. Man is irrational. Not God. God speaks “the Truth”, man relies on an induction, observation, then calls this means “truth”. What's more insane?

Jason wrote: “Wisdom”, in and of itself, is not the issue, else we would run into a contradiction. The issue is…WHAT wisdom. WHO’s wisdom? Here, Paul is stating that the world cannot come to know God through its wisdom. You simply cannot begin where nonbelievers begin and then reason to God. Instead, “it pleased God through the folly of what WE PREACH to save those who believe.”

I agree with your point about apologetics. If the spirit of God is not unveiling the truth there is no way to reason to the point of the cross.

In a Campus Crusade for Christ rally in the early 70s on the USF campus, I remember Josh McDowell appealing to the logical evidence of the truth that demanded a verdict. However, possibly contrarily to what may be his overriding soteriological belief, he told the story of a man who he'd given his best apologetical shot. Nothing. Josh said the guy had not budged an inch. Dissent galore. So with each objection, Josh simply quoted either John 3:16 or Eph 2:8-9. If I recall Josh did this like 7 or 8 times. With every point the man made Josh quoted Scripture. Instead of continuing to beat his head against the wall, Josh used the Word of God to penetrate the heart through the work of the spirit.

In that particular instance the story ended well with the man submitting his life to Christ. That was a huge lesson for me as a college student. The Word of God is sharper than a double-edged sword and it pierces to the innermost being past all the defenses.

Is the Gospel rational? Absolutely! But to men like Christopher Hitchens it's utter foolishness.

BTW, Jason, have you seen the movie “Collision”. I'd be interested to get your take on it. I'd like to know what you would have done differently, if anything, in Wilson's debate with Hitchens.

Thanks again for filling in some gaps for me. I will not look at this passage quite the same again.

Blessings,
Chuck

R. Sire