Old Covenant => Empiricism, things sensed, the natural. Visible kingdom, temple, sacrifices, circumcision, cloud by day, fire by night, and innumerable visible miracles.

New Covenant => Revelation, things not sensed, the spiritual. No one comes to the father unless drawn. Law put in our heart by God not by us memorizing the torah. Invisible kingdom, comes without observation. Invisible circumcision, that of the heart. Walk by faith not by sight.


I don’t think drawing these kinds of distinctions is going to win you many friends among the empiricist crowd, lol. Nevertheless, it is a fascinating "observation" which is difficult to deny, though some will try.

martin

Martin,

I am a bit jealous of Jason. He is what I call a "quick-study." He reads a few books and gets it. It took me awhile to get into the system of Clark. We are raised, bombarded, with sensations and "commonsense" thinking. But, when I entered into the world of philosophy via Clark (and by that I mean, I started reading Liebniz, Hume, Kant, etc), it opened up a whole new way of thinking. This, coupled with the biblical teaching of Paul and the world of "things above" and "things unseen" as being the true Reality, where true Knowledge resides (Jesus is the Truth), it all made sense. But, that took a couple of years. Full Preterism fit into this world like a glove. If Jesus is Truth, and He is undiscoverable by "sensation" or "observation", then Truth cannot be known by such means. It can only be known by "my Father which is in heaven." God reveals Himself. No man shall teach his neighbor, saying, "know the Lord." No longer are we bound by the empirical rules of "do not handle, do not touch, do not taste" (Coloss. 2). We are bound by revelation, which, for us, is the "meaning" in the Bible. Paul would not have been impressed with Aquinas.

The kingdom of God did not come with observation (a scientific Greek word). It is from above. Invisible. But, it is real. It is a new heavens and a new earth entirely distinguished from the world made in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is the world below, things seen, things made. But, these things were fashioned from what is not seen, the world above, so that we can understand the world above through the analogy (typology - pattern) of it. BCS wrecks this. And, what's worse, they settle for for the very thing that has trapped Man: appeal to things seen as reality and truth. This is why people excuse themselves from the faith. The things seen become more real than things unseen until, finally, everything in the Bible must be subjected to "tests" and "proven" by things seen. When then cannot be done (and it never can), we leave the faith because they cannot be "squared" and we, then, create this false illusion that there is a "conflict" between science and faith. There is no conflict. Science (things seen) can never yield true knowledge - it is purely a man made tradition, with a man made description, playing by man made rules in a man made world. It is Man proclaiming that He can discover knowledge quite entirely apart from God and God's Word.

Sam,

You said “.....no rush.....”.

This statement of yours may not seem that profound, but when I read it, it jumped off the screen and smacked me on the forehead, lol. Of course there’s no rush because the world’s not coming to an end. However, a couple of decades ago when I read “The Late Great Planet Earth”, I didn’t feel that I had the luxury of contemplating things for a long time because, apparently, time was running out. I simply had to know when Jesus was coming back so that I could make plans to live off the grid while the antichrist was coming to power (I was more post-trib than anything else).

Oh my, the depths of my dispy delusion!

Anyways, because of the years living under that delusion, my habit was to run new ideas to ground as fast as possible. I was more interested in the bottom line than I was in the details. This was how I devoured the basics of Preterism until I “got” the big picture.

Now that I’ve got a basic understanding of the preterist framework and believe that the world’s not coming to an end, I suppose I could settle down a little and indulge myself in a lengthy contemplation of whatever details catch my interest. The ideas of Clark have interested me for a while, but I keep getting distracted by other interests. But, your series on “Man” and the latest round of debates on BSC has motivated me to see if I can get to the next level with Clark.

Thanks,
Martin

Martin,

Yes, that book is a good one, clark speaks from the grave. You know, I thought of "answering" some of your points, but, I'd rather sit back and watch you work. Your last questions - the line of questioning - you have used here and on the other posts on the image of God is dead, spot on. You have exhibited to me a type of rare thinking and questioning. you are not throwing out differing concepts because you have not ever heard of them, or because they at first "appear" to contradict everything you thought you "knew." And, to boot, you are actually starting the long (believe me, LONG) journey of seeing that maybe there is something here.....just maybe.....maybe my "senses" can be decieved. I don't want to influence anything, or say anything that might be wrong about what Clark, Reymond, Nash, Machen or others who endorsed this giant (or who knew him).....for now.....you seem to be answering your own questions in your own comfortable time.....no rush.....you are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy......

It might vary from person to person, but a lot of my questions about Clark were cleared up by his little book _Clark Speaks From the Grave_.

Sam,

This spot seemed as good as any to post this comment.

I’m still trying to get a handle on Clark’s epistemology. I read two of his books last year, “The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God” and “Religion, Reason, and Revelation”. These two works get very technical at points and seemed to require some amount of background in Philosophy to fully grasp his arguments, so I won’t say I necessarily have a firm grasp on all that Clark was presenting in these works.

However, I get that there are serious problems with empiricism. I also get that by starting with the axioms that the Bible is the word of God written and that man was created as rational beings with the innate ability to think and speak, that we are then able to say that true knowledge is what is explicitly stated in the Bible or what can be deduced from it.

Among other things, what I’m not sure about is how non-biblical sources of language, history, and culture can be used in coming to an understanding of the Bible. First of all, it is my understanding that to correctly interpret the Bible, one must have a grasp of the culture of both the author and the audience. While the Bible itself is a source of information on history and culture, it doesn’t seem complete. So, we bring in other sources.

The problem is that these other sources cannot be relied on to be true because they are not the Bible and are not deduced from the Bible. Do you see the conundrum? We need other sources to understand the ancients, but they can’t be relied on, so how do we interpret the Bible? The only thing that I can think of is that my assumption that we need other sources as interpretive helps is incorrect.

Or, perhaps I am misunderstanding something even more basic. I’m assuming that only the Bible and that which can be logically deduced from it is true knowledge. Is that what Clark is saying, or does he allow for other true knowledge? I know he discounts science when it comes to things like the “law of gravity” which are empirically derived. But what about the fact of whether or not I was at work today? I remember driving to work and I remember being at my desk working, but this recollection is not something explicitly stated in the Bible or derived from it. So, does that mean I can’t know for sure whether I was at work today (philosophically speaking)? It could be argued that I was dreaming I was at work (or at work dreaming, lol), right? If that is the case, can any history at all be relied on?

I know you can set me straight here, but I decided to order a few more works from Clark that I thought might help and so I could follow along here on RCM, “The Scripturalism of Clark”, “Historiography”, and “Biblical Doctrine of Man”.

Thanks,
martin

Just finished listening...man I miss your weekly podcasts! When will you be back on a schedule again?? As far as this podcast goes - I wish everyone would listen to these podcasts as it showcases your sense of humor and your passion for studying scripture and being able to hear your voices and the tone is so refreshing.

It is so easy to see something you have written that comes across as arrogant or sarcastic but then to hear you discuss the topic it is evident that there is sincerity and yes even humility in what you present! Not to say that there still isn't some sarcasm...LOL but it is clearly more of "off the cuff" humor than attacks...at least that is what I felt listening to this.

You got me thinking on a few areas that I will have to research more...especially about BCS but I am committed on Larry's site to working slowly through that book with the author(s) so that I can state at the end of it what I agree with, what I don't, and at least I hope to understand what the authors were conveying.

Thanks guys...you had me laughing out loud at points, pulling out my bible in others, and scrambling for a pen and pad at others...so it was truly a blessing! W