ECT The Gospel Proper

[Nang]

Thanks for weighing in, Nang. It is so good to see you here and about.

Clark believed the traditional threefold definition of faith as notitia (understanding), assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust) is improper (tautological as he claimed) and, in the end, he felt it made no sense. If we are to accept Clark's own definitions of "trust", for example, there is no argument. However, the Reformed majority reject such attempts to redefine the terms Clark prefers.

The point of my post was in response to an uninformed view appealing to Clark. I would hope we are at least co-belligerents concerning the same.

For humans, all knowledge is a product of experience (as in reading, hearing words, etc.) and that is exactly what Rom. 1:20 teaches. As Calvin says "men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him... But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance."

The Christian religion is certainly about propositional truth—ideas that can be expressed in axioms and conclusions—but it is far more than that. When Adam is said to know Eve there is much more communicated than some sort of cold, rational calculation where Adam expresses his knowledge of her in axiomatic language. We know things which surpass knowledge. That is because God is greater than our hearts, and hence greater than our knowledge. The object known surpasses the subject knowing. Humans have always communicated with their young with non-propositional knowledge. That is why the Bible places as much importance on the manner in which we say things as on the matter which is spoken.

Clark's rejection of the ecytypal and archetypal views of Reformed epistemology are not the direction we should be going. Contra Clark, we do not know things exactly as God knows them.

The matter has and continues to be debated ad infinitum. We will just have to agree to disagree.

AMR

Anything revealed to the Sons of God, through the Word of God, is absolute Truth.

Regenerate Christians may not know all that God knows, but what they have been shown and taught by God is true. The spiritual union with Trinity is intellectual, not emotional nor mystical.

We have the same mindset as Christ. I Cor. 2:16; Romans 15:6; Philippians 1:27; I Peter 1:13.

The bible teaches us all we need to know.

That is the believers' assurance. Belief in God's written Word about Jesus Christ is the faith that saves.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul said that some planted and others watered... but it was God who gave the increase.

1 Corinthians 3:5-9 KJV
(5) Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
(6) I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
(7) So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
(8) Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
(9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Well done!

 

[Right Divider]

Does it says that every believer will have every sign follow them?

Yes it does, actually.

I think that Paul took up a serpent and was not harmed, but when was he drinking deadly things? Seriously, your logic has huge gaping holes in it.

:mock: LOGIC?

You are HILARIOUS.

 

[Right Divider]

Man is always trying to insert himself into the Gift of salvation.

You must repent of sins, you must be baptised, you must obey the commandments.....

Indeed, the free gift of salvation in the present dispensation is hated and rejected.

 

[Right Divider]

What is the purpose of baptism? With scriptural support please.

What WAS the purpose of baptism? With scriptural support please.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Both God and Joe know the true proposition, 'Joe's house exists'; that is, both God and Joe know the same true proposition as the other knows.

What God knows is univocal, what Joe knows is equivocal. All our knowledge is analogical, as our knowledge is ectypal.

God’s understanding and man’s understanding do not merely differ by degree of the same knowledge. Rather, this singular theology is understood absolutely and infinitely by the Creator (archetypal) while finitely and relatively by the creature (ectypal).

God knows what we know, but we don't know what God knows nor do we know it the way God knows it. God's revelation to us is a condescension to our finitude, not a revelation of all that God knows about what He has revealed to us.

Ectypal theology is God's conceptualization, not man's; it is true theology, that is, it is what God Himself knows about Himself and His actions in relation to His creatures. It is accommodated for the creature, but it comes from the Creator. What the father knows is conceptualized and communicated into a form that the child can understand. To then say that the child's knowledge is different from the father's is counterproductive. The father knows what he has conceptualized according to the capacity of the child. The knowledge is the same.

Alongside of the archetypal knowledge of God, found in himself, there is also an ectypal knowledge of Him, given to man by revelation. The latter is related to the former as a copy to the original, and therefore does not possess the same measure of clearness and perfection. All our knowledge of God is derived from His self-revelation in nature and in Scripture. Consequently, our knowledge of God is on the one hand ectypal and analogical, but on the other hand also true and accurate, since it is a copy of the archetypal knowledge which God has of himself.

See, for example, Bavinck:
https://theologiainvia.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/bavinck-on-archetypal-ectypal-distinction/

Excerpt taken from:
https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dogmatics-Prolegomena-Herman-Bavinck-ebook/dp/B018RF6XI2/

Errors in thinking otherwise leads to this sort of confusion:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...n-vs-Enyart)&p=1532512&viewfull=1#post1532512

AMR

 

[7djengo7]

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ience-of-God&p=5271614&viewfull=1#post5271614

In your post to which that link is connected, you wrote:

God and I know that my house exists, but I certainly do not know of that existence to the same extent that God knows. Our knowledge is derivative. The distinction here is between the archetype and the ectype. God's knowledge is archetypal, the original, ours is ectypal. Our ectypal knowledge is true, but analogical to what God knows.

Here, you are stating that when a human knows truth--a true proposition, like 'Joe's house exists'--he/she is knowing something other than, different than what God knows. You are saying that, whereas the human knows the true proposition, 'Joe's house exists', God does not know that very same, true proposition, 'Joe's house exists'. Since you are saying that man and God cannot both know the true proposition, 'Joe's house exists', and since you admit that man can know the truth ('Joe's house exists'), what you are saying entails that God cannot know the truth--the true proposition--'Joe's house exists'. So, we see plainly where your "Reformed views of epistemology", your doctrine of "analogical" knowledge, stand in terms of God's omniscience. You make God out to be ignorant of truth which (as you admit) man can, and does know, such as 'Joe's house exists' and 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'.

And, consider, again, what you wrote, here:

Our ectypal knowledge is true, but analogical to what God knows.

What man knows is true, but what God knows is _____? How would you fill in the blank: "true" or "not true"?

Since man knows the true proposition, 'God created the heaven and the earth,' and thus, since God is (according to "Reformed views of epistemology") ignorant of that same, true proposition, exactly what true proposition would you say God knows that is analogical to the proposition 'God created the heaven and the earth'? Or, would you just flat-out deny that God knows any true propositions?

 

[turbosixx]

Hypotheticals are used to test the logic.

I don't have a problem with hypotheticals unless they are used to undermine scripture. I totally agree, God knows the hearts of men and if someone believes and dies on his way to being baptized, I am of the opinion they are saved. In a situation like that, I say God is the judge and He is just. However, that reasoning cannot be used to justify someone not being baptized who has the opportunity.

resolved by simply realizing that Israel's prophesied program, which the death of Christ was a part of, was still intact up until God cut Israel off and turned instead to the Gentiles. Getting this timing off makes a HUMONGOUS difference.

I agree timing is a huge issue. Do you believe God established a new covenant with Israel on Pentecost?
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Under what covenant did these Israelites have their sins forgiven and received the Holy Spirit?

This logic works as well against you as it does for you.

"Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't convincing people that baptism was required be a good tactic?"

Resting in Him,
Clete

True, but I suggest you have the bigger problem. I do not have to modify what is written. Jesus commanded baptism to make disciples, baptize the believers. The apostles, including Paul, baptized the believers. Paul, about 20 years after being sent, is still baptizing believers just as Jesus instructed. If baptism is NOT part of the gospel, why isn’t Paul arguing against it instead of practicing it?

 

[7djengo7]

Consequently, our knowledge ... is ... true ...

Knowledge is not true. Knowledge is neither true nor false. That which is known is true, but that which is known is not knowledge. You are confusing knowledge with its object. Knowledge is knowing; it is not the thing known. One can know that all triangles have three sides, but that doesn't make the proposition, 'All triangles have three sides', to be knowledge. Fred and Joe, for instance, both know that all triangles have three sides, which means that they both know the same thing. Yet, Fred's knowledge (knowing) that all triangles have three sides is not the same knowledge (knowing) as Joe's knowledge (knowing) that all triangles have three sides. Fred and Joe both know that all triangles have three sides, while Ed, Kenny, and Ralph, all three, do not know that all triangles have three sides. We've just as good a reason to call the true proposition, 'All triangles have three sides', "ignorance" as we have to call it "knowledge", since some do not know it.

So, of course God's knowledge is not Joe's knowledge, and God's knowledge is not Fred's knowledge, just as Fred's knowledge is not Joe's knowledge, and Joe's knowledge is not Fred's knowledge. But, guess what, God, Fred, and Joe each know the same true proposition: 'All triangles have three sides'.

 

[7djengo7]

God knows what we know, but we don't know what God knows...

If, by this, you mean that God knows (incalculably far) more truth than we know, or shall ever know, I concur with you. In other words, if you meant "God knows all the truth we know, but we don't know all the truth that God knows, though we know some of it, if only by revelation", why then, no problem. One could easily show this relationship with Euler circles.

Now, if God knows a true proposition that we know, like 'All squares are rectangles', then, of course we, in at least this one case, do, indeed, know what God knows: namely, the true proposition, 'All squares are rectangles'.

 

[7djengo7]

What God knows is univocal, what Joe knows is equivocal.

Since both God and Joe know the same, true proposition, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth', what your statement, here, entails, is that the true proposition, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' is simultaneously univocal and equivocal, which, of course, must be false, since to affirm that something is univocal is to deny that it is equivocal, and vice versa. Why is irrationality so appealing to those who praise "Reformed views of epistemology"?

 

[7djengo7]

To then say that the child's knowledge is different from the father's is counterproductive.

Since it is true, how is saying it counterproductive? It is true that every child's knowledge is different from his father's knowledge. Bob, Sr. knows the true proposition, 'No dog is a cat', and Bob, Jr. also knows it. They both know the same, true proposition. But Bob, Sr.'s knowledge of it is not Bob, Jr.'s knowledge of it, and Bob, Jr.'s knowledge of it is not Bob, Sr.'s knowledge of it.

The father knows what he has conceptualized according to the capacity of the child. The knowledge is the same.

False. The father's knowledge and the child's knowledge are not the same knowledge. What is true is that the object of the father's knowledge--the true proposition known by the father--is one and the same with the object of the child's knowledge--the true proposition known by the child.

 

[Rosenritter]

You stick with the defaults. I'll stick with the Book.

He came to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading from the Hebrew scriptures...Isaiah.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Acts 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.​

Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman. There were proselytes from every country.

If the man was Jewish, then it the burden would have been to mention that he was Jewish. Instead it said he was Ethiopian. Reading Isaiah isn't limited to Jews nor the definition of Jewish, and eunuchs were prevented form becoming proper Jews regardless.

 

[Rosenritter]

Surely you can't be as stupid as it appears you are. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Now I remember why I keep putting you on block: for reasons like avoiding simple straight-forward questions like this:

"Was Jesus prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not?"

 

[Rosenritter]

This amounts to an outright lie and will now permanently land you on my ignore list.

I've tried and tried and tried from multiple different directions to explain my doctrine to you but you'd not allow me one step in any direction I tried to go - not one single solitary step! Then, in an effort to prevent making an enemy of you, I decided that you and I simply cannot communicate with one another and chose to offer to help purchase a rather expensive book that would accomplish the same task, which you also flatly refused.

You have done exactly nothing but waste my time and intentionally so.

No longer!

Clete

Since you are accusing me of lying I would POST proof of above from email, but apparently it's an actionable offense on these forums.

 

[Rosenritter]

This amounts to an outright lie and will now permanently land you on my ignore list.

I've tried and tried and tried from multiple different directions to explain my doctrine to you but you'd not allow me one step in any direction I tried to go - not one single solitary step! Then, in an effort to prevent making an enemy of you, I decided that you and I simply cannot communicate with one another and chose to offer to help purchase a rather expensive book that would accomplish the same task, which you also flatly refused.

You have done exactly nothing but waste my time and intentionally so.

No longer!

Clete

What a crock.

 

[steko]

What a crock.

We use to have a crock.
I think it got busted in the tornado. :noid:

 

[glorydaz]

If the man was Jewish, then it the burden would have been to mention that he was Jewish. Instead it said he was Ethiopian. Reading Isaiah isn't limited to Jews nor the definition of Jewish, and eunuchs were prevented form becoming proper Jews regardless.

Have it your own way....as usual. :chew:

 

[steko]

If the man was Jewish, then it the burden would have been to mention that he was Jewish. Instead it said he was Ethiopian. Reading Isaiah isn't limited to Jews nor the definition of Jewish, and eunuchs were prevented form becoming proper Jews regardless.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.



Now... who was the first to preach to Gentiles... Peter or Phillip?

 

[glorydaz]

Now I remember why I keep putting you on block: for reasons like avoiding simple straight-forward questions like this:

"Was Jesus prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not?"

The problem is with your question. You shouldn't blame me and be so ornery, because you can't seem to understand what I was saying. The time of their visitation had come, but the Jews rejected Him. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying. Jesus says the same here.

Luke 19:37-44 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; 38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,

42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.​

And I really don't care if you put me on block, so stop nagging me about it.