The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

Roderick:

How do you know that God is sovereign? How do you know that it is one God and not many? How do you know that He is an infinite or finite being? How do you know that your ‘god’ is not some omnipotent demon who has said he is sovereign, but has in reality only deceived you? What other source of revelation has God given to you that the Bible is His Word? How do you derive the predicate (the Bible) from the subject (God’s sovereignty)? Was this a divine personal and private revelation? How do escape the allegation that you have developed a man made doctrine ‘God’s Sovereign’ when it was not derived from the Scripture because it was determined prior to biblical studies? What is that other epistemological source that you have received that seems, in the very nature of the case, to have an authority above that of Scripture? By what authority do you claim that your presupposition is better than any other presupposition? Spinoza had 12 presuppositions. The authority behind your presupposition seems to be you. That is clearly in violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter One and supporting Scripture. The Divines held that the Bible is the self-authenticating Word of God, that “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself); and, therefore, it is to be received, because it is the Word of God” (Chapter 1, Section 4). Further, the Divines wrote that, “…our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and Divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (Chapter 1, Section 5a). Finally the Divines maintained that the Bible is the final authority on all issues of life, faith, and practice. They wrote: “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 the Scripture” (Chapter 1, Section 10). In reality, you did not get the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty from a source outside of your self or even within your self (humanism). Nor is anyone to believe that God is sovereign because you said that that is the case. You knowledge of this attribute was derived from your study of the Bible. The Bible is your source for the truth of God. As John Calvin wrote: “…if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God; - we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from His works, is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgment, but by the standard of eternal truth” (Institutes, pg. 67). Our axiom or point of beginning must be the Scripture. It is where God reveals himself with such specificity as to the ontological nature of His being and attributes. From the axiom we derive many presuppositions. Any other apologetical method is based on the fallacious assumption of the pretended autonomy of man. Besides, to state that your axiom is “God’s sovereignty’ from that thesis I would challenge you to derive any other theory from the proposition. Rather, I would suggest that the axiomatic proposition is, ‘The Bible is the Word of God.’ From the Bible I can deduce and explicate all kinds of presuppositions and doctrines. Just my thoughts on the topic.

Dr. Talbot,

That was some heavy stuff. I don’t intend to interact with all of it - particularly since I don’t hold to the Westminster Confession - nor do I speak for Roderick. Just a few questions/comments:

To say “The Bible is the word of God” still assumes various other presuppositions. First, the statement presupposes the existence of a God who does communicate and does so truthfully. If the Bible says that God is truthful, we can only agree with that biblical statement if we presuppose that he has revealed himself truthfully in his Word. In other words, we must presuppose an attribute of God, which is essentially what Roderick is doing here, just substitute sovereignty for truthfulness.

Also, we must consider the historical details of the Bible’s writing. The Bible, of course, did not simply drop from heaven. It was written by apostles, circulated among the churches, and finally compiled into an offical canon by councils. The people who lived during the time when the official canon had not been established and not all believers had access to all the books of either testament had to rely on the witness of the elders who had received oral transmissions from the apostles. In other words, something was presupposed other than “The Bible is the Word of God” - though what precisely this presupposition was and how such persons arrived at it (deducing from other presuppositions, perhaps) is too much to go into now.

Furthermore, we who now have the privelege of reading the full canonical NT are relying on “tradition” in a sense. As Doug Wilson once aptly said, the table of contents in the front of your Bible is of the most important works of “tradition.” To say that “The Bible is the Word of God” presupposes not only that God is truthful in his revelation of Himself, it also presupposes that he was able to exercise considerable control over what transpired at the early councils and in the early church (sovereignty.)

I got cut off on that last post because I ran out of time to type.

I would like to add just a bit about the concepts of revelation and inspiration and how it applies to the present debate. There is a lot to unpack from the statement “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable.” Often, this is understood in the sense of the Spirit using men as organic typewriters to crank out a perfect, final document that is the only specific revelation. But clearly the prophets and the apostles gave oral teachings that were equally as true, and as Spirit-breathed, as their oracles, epistles, and Gospel narratives. God has guided his community through other means than written Word.

Furthermore, it’s evident that the writers of the Gospels and of Acts took a “bottom-up” approach: in other words, they didn’t receive an instantaneous, tangible message relating a God’s-eye-view of history. Instead, they investigated what had happened. They spoke to witnesses. They assumed that the events in God’s creation, which happened under God’s providential watch, attested to the truth. (This fits in with the ancient view of “inspiration” as well. To the ancients, whatever was true could be considered “inspired.” Therefore, the true information Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John gleaned through investigation was “inspired” thanks to God’s providential work, even if there was no *poof* verbal revelation.)

How exactly should this apply to the HP debate and the question of “historic Christianity”? We see foremost that the decontextualized, “solo Scriptura” proof-texting of the HPs is faithless and invalid. We see also that we must take God’s hand in history seriously when we study theology.

What I said about the apostles’ “bottom-up” approach to inspiration leads to another important point for this discussion. The “bottom-up” principle applies to the covenant as well. There is an article somewhere online (I’ll try to find it) by Chori Seraiah about “Bottom-Up Covenant, Top-Down Election.” He argues that though we cannot be absolutely sure from a human perspective who is among the “top-down” redeemed, God provides an objective, “bottom-up” covenant so that his Church is visible and tangible at all times. In a nutshell, this means that despite the fact that many individuals were unfaithful in past ages of the Church, the Church has still been God’s Church by virtue of Triune Baptism and the Lord’s supper. God has been guiding this Church, putting up with her failures, and even disciplining her when she is unfaithful. This strikes a fatal blow to the heart of HPs and all others of a Restorationist persuasion.

Lem:

Thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps I can clarify myself better by responding to your posting. First, I would like to point out that I am a Scripturalist or a Revelationalist. The Bible is foundational to both my theology and philosophy. In historic Reformational theology, we call it ‘Sola Scriptura.’ I am a Calvinist in my theology and to be consistent, I must derive my philosophy from my theology. The source of my theology is the Bible. The Bible is my axiomatic presuppositional starting point that God has given as the sole authority on all issues of life, faith, and practice; this includes apologetics as well. I maintain this because the Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth. It is the only source of truth.

Now to respond:

Lem: That was some heavy stuff. I don’t intend to interact with all of it - particularly since I don’t hold to the Westminster Confession - nor do I speak for Roderick. Just a few questions/comments:

Lem: To say “The Bible is the word of God” still assumes various other presuppositions.

Ken: Actually, this statement is not correct. I am not assuming I think the Bible is truth prior to the Scripture declarations; rather I am deriving that principle because God Himself declares that His Word is truth. We believe the Bible based upon God’s own testimony because: (1) He (God) is truth, Psalms 31:5 “Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have redeemed me, O Lord God of truth.” Isaiah 65:16: “So that he who blesses himself in the earth Shall bless himself in the God of truth; And he who swears in the earth Shall swear by the God of truth; Because the former troubles are forgotten, And because they are hidden from My eyes.”(2) His (God’s) Word is truth, John 17:17; “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” and (3) He is the author of that truth - 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” Deuteronomy 32:4: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.” Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” This is what the Divines and Reformers meant by ‘self-authentication.’ The Bible teaches that something is true because God thinks it so, therefore the quality of truth, its meaning and purpose must be derived from the One (God) who knows all truth and reveals the nature and quality of that term. What is truth? What is the quality of truth? Do you realize how many philosophical systems have tried to define the nature and character of truth? But how can truth be known a part from the creator and definer of truth? And where do we get our knowledge of that Being? Where He reveals Himself to us in that system of revelation contained in the written Word of God. As a Calvinist, I know that man cannot presuppose the ‘truth of Scripture’ a part from a special working of the Holy Spirit, whereby faith is essential in order that I accept the claims of God in the Scripture. Where would you begin?

Lem: First, the statement presupposes the existence of a God who does communicate and does so truthfully.

Ken: Sorry, you again miss the principle. Your statement above would require that my thesis statement would be “The God of the Bible.” This, I believe is totally unacceptable. Why? The first principle cannot be demonstrated because there is nothing prior from which to deduce it. Such presuppositions often claim that the Bible supports the proposition. However, in reality, this is circular reasoning. If the Bible is the source for this proposition to be true, then you have exchanged your first principle “The God” for “the Bible.” However, again the philosophical question is quite simple: With the propositional subject being “The God”, how do your deduce from that thesis “the Bible” or exchange it for Roderick’s thesis: “God’s sovereignty,” it really does not matter, the predicate cannot be deduced from the subject. Now to be sure, the Bible (not me) presupposes that the true God exists, but I did not begin with that presupposition. My thesis was that “The Bible is the Word of God.” Can I deduce all theorems about (1) the nature and source of Scripture, including truth, from the Scripture? Yes. (2) Can I deduce that the Scripture does not demonstrate the existence of God, but rather presupposes His existence? Yes it declares that to be the case. (3) Can I deduce from the Bible that God is the creator of all things? Yes. (4) Can I deduce from the Bible the very nature and attributes of God correctly? Yes. (5) Can I deduce from the Bible the fall of Adam and the nature and effects of original sin? Yes. (6) Can I deduce from the Bible the Lord Jesus Christ and what work He has done for salvation of lost men? Yes. (7) Can I deduce from the Bible God’s covenants? Yes. (I think you get the idea). From the point of my axiom (a point of beginning which asserts all truthful propositions), the first principle is “The Bible” and from that first principle I can deduce the predicate (“is” is a copula) “the Word of God.” There is no other point of beginning for the knowledge and truth of God apart from God’s revelation of Himself. This will sound funny I know, but show me from Scripture any other point of beginning, other than God speaking in His Word which reveals the truth to us. Any other point of beginning would simply be the autonomous judgment of man making an arbitrary point of beginning upon human authority and not God’s authority. This would violate ‘sola scriptura.’ It would put man on equal footing so to speak with God. Again I refer to the creedal statement of the Westminster Divines in the 1647 Confession of faith, wherein they state: “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” (Chapter 1, Section 6a).

Lem: If the Bible says that God is truthful, we can only agree with that biblical statement if we presuppose that he has revealed himself truthfully in his Word.

Ken: Not if we presuppose, but if God in fact actually declares that He is truthful. The key my brother is “faith.” God gives me that faith to believe that His Word, the Bible, is truth. Such as: 1 John 2:20: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.” 1 John 2:27: “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” John 16:13-14: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.” 1 Corinthians 2:10-12: “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.”

Len: In other words, we must presuppose an attribute of God, which is essentially what Roderick is doing here, just substitute sovereignty for truthfulness.

Ken: I think by now you must see that that is not the case at all. I am deducing them from the my point of beginning, the source of all knowledge and truth, the Bible.

Lem: Also, we must consider the historical details of the Bible’s writing. The Bible, of course, did not simply drop from heaven. It was written by apostles, circulated among the churches, and finally compiled into an offical canon by councils. The people who lived during the time when the official canon had not been established and not all believers had access to all the books of either testament had to rely on the witness of the elders who had received oral transmissions from the apostles.

Ken: Funny, God always seems to identify Himself in His revelation of Himself, whether by means of verbal, dreams, written, etc. In the Garden, in the beginning God revealed Himself to Adam. Adam knew it was God. God then continues in the progression of His revelation to reveal Himself to man wherein there was no doubt who was declaring Himself to them, though I am sure those who were outside of the ‘faith’ reject His declarations. What do the Scriptures say about this? Hebrews 1:1-2: “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…”. Numbers 12:6-8: “Then He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?” Joel 2:28: “And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.” While I agree that Bible itself was not completed back then, do you think that man was to think other than the way God commanded man to think apart from His declaration unto him? That is exactly what happened in the Garden. Adam was seeking “to be like God,” to think independently from what God had revealed. God had revealed Himself to man from the beginning. What ever revelation God had given and as it was passed down from generation to generation, God revealing Himself even more, that accumulation of His Word was the authority. Again, as a creedalist, I point out that the Divines also addressed this issue in their Confession of 1647 in which they state: “…Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry time, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice and Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased” (Chapter 1, Section 1b). Man was from the beginning was to be dependent upon and obedient to the Word of God in what ever form it was given. BTW, While the Bible did not drop from heaven, God’s Word in its entirety did come from heaven.

Lem: In other words, something was presupposed other than “The Bible is the Word of God” - though what precisely this presupposition was and how such persons arrived at it (deducing from other presuppositions, perhaps) is too much to go into now.

Ken: Let me give you a thesis that would have fit for all time, before the Bible was in canonical form: “The Revelation from God is the Word of God.” Now that the canon is complete: “The Bible is the Word of God.” It makes no difference.

Lem: Furthermore, we who now have the privelege of reading the full canonical NT are relying on “tradition” in a sense. As Doug Wilson once aptly said, the table of contents in the front of your Bible is of the most important works of “tradition.” To say that “The Bible is the Word of God” presupposes not only that God is truthful in his revelation of Himself, it also presupposes that he was able to exercise considerable control over what transpired at the early councils and in the early church (sovereignty.)

Ken: I am not sure of the context of this statement by Wilson. I would like to see it in its entirety. Thanks for taking the time in reading my post and my response.

Soli Deo Gloria

Lem:

First, the doctrine of Sola Scripture as held to by the Reformers maintains an “organic” view of inspiration. The doctrine of inspiration teaches that the Bible is the ‘plenary,’ ‘verbal,’ ‘infallible,’ ‘authoritative,’ and ‘inerrant’ Word of God.

‘Inspiration’ is a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon divinely chosen men so that their writings are trustworthy and authoritative. It is also God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded, without error, His revelation to man in the Words of the original autographs. While God superintended His revelation, He did not dictate the material to man. God used human authors and their own individual styles. The product was, in its original manuscripts, without error. 2 Peter 1:19-21: “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

By ‘plenary’ we mean that every word of the Bible is inspired and spoken by God to man. 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” Not some revelation from God and some investigation by man providentially.

The term ‘verbal’ means that the words of the very Words of God. Deuteronomy 18:18: I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

By ‘infallible and inerrant’ we mean that the original autographs are without mistakes or errors, of any kind, in their writings. Matthew 5:18: “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” If the Bible teaches its own infallibility, then to deny that doctrine is to disbelieve the Bible and ultimately it is to disbelieve God. If we cannot trust the Bible in one fact or circumstance, then how can we trust the Bible in another area? Thus, we affirm that the Scriptures are without error or fault in all its teachings as being the Work of the Holy Spirit, conveying the Word (Revelation) of God to man.

The Reformers rejected the concept of “mechanical” inspiration, often known as the dictation theory.

What you are advocating is something akin to the “dynamic” theory of inspiration. It holds that while God spoke ‘some’ words, others were the result of ‘investigations’, ‘cultural’, spoke to ‘witnesses’, but we are left with a major problem. By what standard do we know whether these propositions are ‘truth or not’? Which propositions of the Bible are God breathed and which ones are propositions man breathed, based on the accounts or investigation of men? In the nature of the case, we are left with a major dilemma? Which words are God’s and which words are man’s? Second, the Scripture makes no such claim. Further, there is no text of Scripture that would support this view? Lastly, this view strikes at the heart of ‘sola scriptura.’ It removes the Scripture as the final authority on all issues of life faith and practice because the ‘rule’ is a mixture of truth and error. This view in my humble opinion, if I am understanding correctly what you have stated, is a very dangerous errant doctrinal view. No Reformed confession ever asserted such a view of ‘inspiration’ as you seem to espouse.

Again, if I have misunderstood your position, I would be most happy to speak with you by phone to get a better sense of what you are postulating about inspiration.

Have a wonderful weekend and Lord’s Day.

Dr. Talbot & Lem, let me say I am apprehensive about what I can say since Lem has done a fabulous job thus far in articulating the position. And I am apprehensive because I consider Dr. Talbot, a mentor. I must consider my conclusions with what Dr. Talbot has written. However, I have an added perspective that I do not think Dr. Talbot has — I WAS a heretic for 15 years.

Now, please allow me to try to enter into the discussion. Of course Scripture is the ONLY way we know “The God of the Bible”, however the Bible does PRESUPPOSE a person’s initial starting point — belief in “god(s)”. Much of the Old Testament is spent defining the ONE & ONLY GOD from the “gods”. (see Shema). The issue WASN’T that all the world was godless & needed Scripture to show them there was a God.

All through the Old Testament The God, keeps reminding the Jews WHO He is — not just any God, but THE GOD. (think of all the texts where God says things like, “I am the Lord God”…that did this or that & places where The God reminds the Jews that He is the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob — not just any god. Why the need for the distinction if no one else believed in ANY “god”??

Further, we see the Bible confirming this idea that only “fools” think there is no “god” (Psalm 14:1,53:1)

The Bible FURTHER illustrates the presupposition of innate human awareness of divinity —

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” (Ps 19:1)

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20)

Of course the Bible REVEALS & EXPLAINS those initially “invisible attributes” otherwise we are no better than the polytheists & the kathenotheists. Again, this speaks to the Old Testament theme of THE GOD constantly declaring His Uniqueness over all the “false gods”.

Without the Bible we would not know who THE GOD is. We would be like those of times past who attributed the “invisible attributes” to wood & stone & metal fabrications (idols).

I TOO am a Calvinst & a Scripturalist, BUT I acknowledge the first assent is to the “I AM”…& then He goes on to reveal & define Himself. If I am to know anything about Him beyond His existence, it is only through Him. I cannot rely on “feelings” or supposed self-revelations. This is the reason my presupposition is that:

1. God Exists
2. God is Sovereign

A person CAN’T really say they begin with the Bible…as noble as that sounds. That is REAL circular reasoning because if we ask, “How do you know God exists?” & the person answers, “Because the Bible says so”. Then we follow up with, “How do you know the Bible is true?”, the person is most likely to answer, “Because God said so”. So you see, even in that exchange, the SUBJECT is God. The person assents to the existence AND the truthfulness of God.

The Bible, in reality is for the initiate — one who ALREADY believes at least in “god(s)”. Without that presupposition, the Bible can make all sorts of claims but a person will not hear it. It reminds me of John 6:64-68 wherein Jesus says that people CANNOT believe unless first granted by the Father. Hence, all the Bible reading & study will do no one any good if they are not granted to believe.

So, Dr. Talbot. I don’t disagree with everything you have said about the Bible — BUT only as it is applied to BELIEVERS. Further, a person who is obviously OUTSIDE the community of saints, in that their doctrine & practice are greatly out of sync with the community — are to be considered suspect if not altogether MARK/NOTED for teaching contrary doctrine (Rom 16:17-18, Eph 5:11).

When we engage heretics & let them pretend to utilize God’s revelation to the community of saints on equal footing we do the Word of God an injustice. Rather, since the presupposition is “God Exists-God is Truth-God is Sovereign”, then we can & should ask the heretic if such a God is unable or unwilling to reveal Himself AND maintain His truth among His community.

Dr. Talbot, I don’t think either I or Lem are disagreeing with you, but when you use phrases like “the Holy Spirit”…did this or that in reference to the maintenance of the Scriptures, you must see the that SUBJECT or object is FIRST an assent to God & then an assent that God was able & HAS provided an infallible revelation of His previously “invisible attributes” & has done so as Scripture reveals, “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets” but “has in these last days [prophetic culmination of the revealing of the plan] spoken to us [Jesus' hand-picked apostles] by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” (Heb 1:1-2). This requires assent, belief which is granted only by the Father so that when the age-old question of “God who?” is asked (Matt 16:13) only believers can affirm Jesus is God!

If you take out the presupposition that first there is God, then hyperpreterists & every heretic to come will be able to take a hold of the Bible & claim they are using “Sola Scriptura” when they all the while claim that the very God who GAVE US His Word, was somehow unwilling or unable to maintain that His granted believers have rightly understood & expressed the basic interpretation of that Word.

I hope this has not offended you Dr. Talbot & if you have not already, you will probably receive messages from hyperpreterists trying to use this as wedge to divide you & I. They need a “god” who cannot or will not maintain truth but merely puts it out there for any private interpreter to come along & twist. Without that premise, hyperpreterism & ALL heresies fall.

In Christ Jesus AND His Church,
Roderick

Rod/Lem/Dr. Talbot,

Well, this is a very interesting discussion. Hope no one minds if I chip in my “two cents.” Without taking sides, I would have to say that the balance of truth lies in the revealed Word of God, rather than in eccelsiastical history. This isn’t to say that all history should be discounted. I enjoy reading early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius. But when it comes to establishing the truth of any position, I must acknowledge the final touchstone to be the written Word.

Let me explain myself. I believe that “sovereign” is an attribute of God. But can any of God’s attributes be separated? Let us consider as many as our human limitations allow. God is not only SOVEREIGN, but He is FAITHFUL and TRUE. Because He is faithful, His providential care of His own is beyond question. That goes hand in hand with His sovereignty.

My presupposition (if I have any) is that God has left us His word, not to confound us, but to instruct us. He has also made promises that cannot be BROKEN without impugning His faithfulness. I am talking about the promises God made to Israel. Those promises will stand, no matter what man says.

But most importantly, God’s providence is manifested in the written Word, where He has given us all we need for our spiritual growth and nourishment. If in any respect the Word is insufficient to serve as supreme arbiter in all doctrinal controversies, then God’s faithfulness is placed in question. It would mean that He hasn’t given us enough. This presupposition leads to a “holy mother church” attitude which jacks the ‘visible church’ into apotheosis, while downplaying the true church, which is the body of Christ, the pleroma of Him that filleth all in all (Eph. 1: 23).

Frankly, I don’t believe in a “church militant.” The church is an organism — not an organization. Until we realize this monumental fact, we will fail to gain a proper apprehension of what Matthew 16: 18 means. The reason the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church is because the church is seated with Christ in heavenly places, far above all principality and power. Satan’s authority is in the air. Hence believers in Christ are seated above Satan! This denotes their PERFECT STANDING in Christ. It has nothing to do with membership in a visible organization or “club” — be it Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, or what have you. It means being spiritually baptized into the body of Christ.

Paul’s prayer is that the knowledge of the saints will increase more and more (se Eph. 1: 17-18). He nowhere implies that anyone is vouchsafed “perfect gnosis.” Man may often err in respect to what they believe the Bible teaches. But the center of authority is not what man may think, but what God has revealed. Throughout the centuries, the issue has always been:

“God hath spoken. Will man listen?”

This is the one great question. I don’t believe that God has controlled the thoughts of His saints for 2,000 years. (He no more controls our thoughts than He controls our acts). He has left us His word. As the Jews had Moses and the prophets, so we have the 66 books. Since the close of the Jewish economy, the church (as a visible institution) has been largely self-regulating. In the absence of inspired apostles, we are left with the inspired Word. Once again, this bespeaks God’s providence. True, the visible church has often erred in matters of doctrine. But we fix these errors by going back to the fountain of all truth, which is the Word of God. There is the single supreme and authoritative touchstone by which all doctrines must be tested.

I believe God has given us the “talent” of saving faith (through the work of regeneration) but that growth in knowledge of His word must be by patient application and study, not to mention the spiritual illumination that the Holy Spirit gives. To me, illumination does not mean “ability to unlock riddles,” so much as the power to believe what God has revealed. When we receive His testimony, we set to our seal that God is true (John 3: 33). When we refuse to believe, we make Him a liar.

The reason Hyper-Preterism is wrong, is not because the fathers never taught it, but because it is frankly UNSCRIPTURAL. It sets aside the revealed theology of the New Testament, and substitutes for it the vain imaginations and philosophies of men. Although the creedo-historical argument may seem a powerful weapon at first, the Word will always be sufficient. In no case should evangelical Christians discount its authority. The Word of God is the only offensive weaponry God gives us! All the other equipment we need for spiritual warfare is defensive. See Ephesians 6: 13-17. This should tell us something.

So, in assessing these posts, my conclusion is that while church history is a wonderful help, the Word of God is still supreme. Man’s duty is not so much to “interpret” what God has written for our learning, but to BELIEVE all that He has revealed. Failure to believe God is the root cause of all the doctrinal division among Christians — past, present, or future.

Pax,

Brian

And lets not forget the inward illuminating power of the Holy Spirit that gives me confidence that the Bible is the Word of God, I know this is probably elementary and a quick and easy response considering the length of the posts and work that has been put into them but I think sometimes we assume that we can prove our pressupositions without the illumination of the Holy Spirit being given to that person we are talking to as goes for any doctrine for that matter.

Roderick:

Since you did not answer the questions I asked, let me ask again.

You say that “God Exists” is your first principle. Here is your task, it is not hard, just tell me what you can deduce from your first principle, which is “God Exists”. Don’t use the Bible because that is not your first principle. Just put “God Exits” and then explicate to me what you can derive from the first principle, the axiom you have created.

First Principle : “God Exists”

I can deduce the following from this first principle:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

You see this is the problem that secular philosophy has been dealing with for centuries. You want to begin with an ontological statement about something you do even know if you can know. You want to talk about God existing, when you don’t know from your first principle (1) What is existence and does God exits or not, (2) What type of God are you proposing, (3) Whether such a God is finite or infinite etc. I could give you a longer list. You cannot synthesize secular philosophy with Scripture and think you end up with the God of Scripture. It just does not happen.

Futher, as you know I am opposed to Hyper-preterism. However, that does not mean that everything a particular individual or select group of HPs are wrong on everything. Actually on this issue if they argue that the Bible is the Word of God is their point of beginning they are correct. It is not the point of beginning that makes them heretical, it is their hermeneutics. Actually, if you use your particular argument you support many other heretical and cultic groups. Most religionists begin with the concept of “God Exists.” Further, you violate the Westminster Confession’s first chapter.

Now lets return to the lesson:
First Principle is “God Exists”

From that proposition “God Exists” how do you derive that “God is Sovereign”? Your first principle is only “God Exists”. Please demonstrate how that you deduce that “God is Sovereign” from “God Exists.”

My Principle is proven by nothing, but permits me to deduce all theorems from it. That is not circular reasoning. However, your approach is circular reasoning. Why? Because you know that you cannot deduce any thing from the first principle “God Exists” but that “God Exits.” For anything else, you must turn to the Bible. Thus, in reality, you have replaced your first principle with the Scripture and in actuality you have methodological demonstrated my axiom actually works. However, by turning to the Bible to substantiate your position, you have used circular reasoning.

Also, no one is going to drive a wedge between you and I. I deal with students every day on such issues. Even if you disagree with me, as the man once said, “if you want to be wrong, it is your right to be wrong.”

Now before you spend too much time writing an answer to this, please first resolve the philosophical dilemma you have with your first principle. Here is why it is necessary. No one in the history of Philosophy has been able to resolve it and if you do, you will be the first.

Next time we will take this to the second philosophical level.

Dr. Talbot, with all due respect & care for our friendship, I did answer your question. But I thank you for the indulgence & opportunity to elaborate. Might we start first by defining our terms? To PRE-suppose something is to:

1. suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.

2. require or imply as an antecedent condition

(dictionary.com)

What you are requiring of me is to go outside my presupposition & deal instead with the condition. If we start doing that, then this is no longer a discussion about presupposition.

The presupposition is “God exists” — it DOESN’T deduce anything. A presupposition/antecedent need not deduce anything, since a presupposition is an assumed starting point. However, when you pressed me to show how I know God is sovereign/unique/truthful, that is a bit different. If what we call “god” is NOT truthful & is NOT sovereign (in control above all things) then it would be pointless to give heed to the idea of God, thus the end of discussion. So, yes I add to the presupposition of God exists, that God is also sovereign/unique/truthful.

Now, lay aside my presupposition for a moment & let’s pick up yours…that we can only know God through the Bible. Okay. So when we look at the Bible & no other things — presupposing the Bible is truth, what is it that the Bible says?

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20)

Thus, your presupposition is telling you that my presupposition about God’s existence is actually true. Either way, it comes back to the FACT that the starting point is God. I don’t disagree with you that the statement “God exists” deduces nothing further. It doesn’t tell us what He is like or if He is truthful, or if He is sovereign, or anything. Hence, my reference to His “invisible attributes”, which are made manifest through His inspired Word. Since the presupposition is that “God exists” & that He is sovereign/unique/truthful, we then ask if such a God reveals Himself even more. That is where Scripture comes in. I assure you I uphold Scripture as much as yourself. As much as any of the Reformers. As much as any of the WCF divines. It is just that I acknowledge the first presupposition is “God exists” & from there all things precede. (I am trying not to use Scripture as you asked, through much of it comes to mind as I make these statements)

Let us now turn to theologians so that we can see if I am alone in this presupposition.

John Gill on Romans 1:20
“…they had some knowledge of the truth, but they would not profess it: and that they had such knowledge of it, he proves from the author of it, God, who showed it to them, and from the means of it, by which they must, and did arrive to some degree of it, namely, the works of creation; (ref)

John Calvin on Romans 1:20
“…he seems here to have intended to indicate a manifestation, by which they might be so closely pressed, that they could not evade; for every one of us undoubtedly finds it to be engraven on his own heart, By saying, that God has made it manifest, he means, that man was created to be a spectator of this formed world, and that eyes were given him, that he might, by looking on so beautiful a picture, be led up to the Author himself…God is in himself invisible; but as his majesty shines forth in his works and in his creatures everywhere, men ought in these to acknowledge him, for they clearly set forth their Maker: and for this reason the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, that this world is a mirror, or the representation of invisible things. He does not mention all the particulars which may be thought to belong to God; but he states, that we can arrive at the knowledge of his eternal power and divinity” (ref)

Calvin (& you & I agree) “We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is.” See, the presupposition is we conceive there is a Deity (”God exists”).

Calvin continues: “But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation”. I agree 100% as I said in my first response — the “invisible attributes” of God only point man to God’s existence. Only Scripture reveals His personal character, nature, & will.

Calvin follows: “He plainly testifies here, that God has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they seek not to know — that there is some God; for the world does not by chance exist, nor could it have proceeded from itself.”

B.B. Warfield commenting on Calvin’s concept of humanity’s “natively endowed” knowledge of God
“The knowledge of God with which we are natively endowed is therefore more than a bare conviction that God is: it involves, more or less explicated, some understanding of what God is. Such a knowledge of God can never be otiose and inert; but must produce an effect in human souls, in the way of thinking, feeling, willing. In other words, our native endowment is not merely a sensus deitatis, but also a semen religionis (I. iii. 1, 2; iv. 1, 4; v. 1). For what we call religion is just the reaction of the human soul to what it perceives God to be. Calvin is, therefore, just as insistent that religion is universal as that the knowledge of God is universal. “The seeds of religion,” he insists, “are sown in every heart ” (I. iv. 1; cf. v. 1); men are propense to religion (I. iii. 2, med.); and always and everywhere frame to themselves a religion, consonant with their conceptions of God.” (ref)

Dr. Talbot, what am I saying that is any different than these Reformed Theologians? They too speak of the presupposition that “God exists” & even more than that as Warfield understands of Calvin. Warfield says it also includes “some understanding of what God is”. AMEN! And what is it that separates Deities from mortals, even in the most pagan cultures? An amount of “sovereignty”, whereas as my presupposition says not just an amount of it, but complete sovereignty.

I am not certain what more you require of me Dr. Talbot. I have shown, I think that we ALL must start somewhere with some PRE-supposing idea & that my presupposition is indeed in line with Reformed Theology. I still submit that if you allow a heretic of any kind, be it a hyperpreterist, or a “restorationist” coC person to claim that God doesn’t maintain the most basic truth among His community but that we all (believers, unbelievers, & heretics alike) should grope around in our UNinspired/private interpreting minds, hoping to tease out “truth” from texts then we have lost the battle already because we have given undue legitimacy to those who are NOT part of the community of saints. If we do not assent FIRST that God is truthful, then NO ONE should appeal to the Bible, since it too may be untruthful — or as I stated in the first reply, maybe someone can say what we call the Bible is incomplete or has been corrupted in places since God may not have been able to maintain truthfulness against fallible man.

Thank you again Dr. Talbot for pressing me to state the case more clearly.

Roderick:

Additional thoughts for your consideration (actually I finished my final touch-ups on my sermon early). In another post, I want to deal further with the HPs and our methodological approach in countering their arguments. I think it is important to this discussion.

In the history of philosophy and theology, various individuals sought to prove the existence of God apart from Scripture. These arguments were called “the theistic proofs for the existence of God.” The secularist philosophically pressed the issue of the Bible not being what it claims to be, “the Word of God.” After all, if the Bible is the work of men, why is their concept of ‘god’ any better than other such concepts? Thus, there needed to proofs developed (philosophical arguments) for the existence of God. The response was to develop arguments apart from the Scripture to prove that “God Exists.” These are referred to as ‘rationalistic arguments for God’s Existence.’ There are five such arguments, but I will deal only with the ‘Ontological Argument’ that was developed by the Roman Bishop Anselm. You are, whether you know it or not, employing his argument, but most likely without knowing its fuller concepts. This argument is based on the concept that ‘that if a man has an idea of the absolute perfect being; that existence is an attribute of perfection. Therefore, an absolute perfect being must exist. Your concept is not new, but an old worn out theory that should be thrown out with the rest of Roman doctrine. Anselm was for all practical purposes a rationalist (Classical Rationalism). The predication of his argument that “God Exists” is as follows. An individual who has an idea of God in his mind, that idea must correspond to the fact that such a being must also consist in reality. It is a correspondence theory. Anselm writes:

“Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And what ever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exits in the understanding alone. Then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. … Therefore, if that which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exits a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and reality.”

Analysis:

Anselm argued that if you can conceive of ‘god’ as the greatest possible being, that existence of the idea or conception of God that is conceived implies that that same ‘god’ must exist in reality (in the real world). Because it is not possible to think rationally of a being who does not exit, which is greater than the being you think of, that does exist.

Anselm further states:

“If it can be conceived at all, it must exist. For no one who denies or doubts the existence of a being than which is greater is inconceivable, denies or doubt that if it did exist, it’s non-existence, either in reality or in the understanding would be possible. For otherwise it would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But as to whatever can be conceived, but does not exist - if there were such a being, it’s non-existence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be possible. Therefore, if a being than which a greater is inconceivable can be conceived, it cannot be non-existent. But that than which a greater cannot be conceived, if it exits, cannot be conceived not to exist. Otherwise, it is not a being than which a greater cannot be conceived: which is inconsistent. By no means, then, does it at any place or at any time fail to exist as a whole; but it exists as a whole everywhere and always.”

Critique:

Because some one says that “God Exists,” does this stating that the concept of idea of God in the mind demonstrate that which is in the mind corresponds to an existential reality. Conception does not necessitate existence. Simply asserting that “God Exists” only asserts that such and such is the case. The question still remains, “how do you know that that God, of the First Principle “God Exists” does actually exist? Let me give you an example. Lets say I have an idea or concept of one million dollars contains no more than one million real dollars; nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between the concept and the real dollars. The concept or idea of God or “God Exists” does not imply that god exists necessarily. The idea or postulation does not imply of necessity a corresponding object although the idea of God might be a necessary concept. Worse, we are left with other unanswerable questions: What God? How many, one or a thousand? Infinite or finite? Monotheistic or Trinitarian? The God of Creation or the god who comes to this creation? This first principle cannot allow for any such deduction to be conceived? The term God and Exist are unknown factors, how can we talk about that which exists when we have yet to determine what kind of a God exists which is an epistemological question. The ‘what’ must precede the ‘that.’ When the first principle is “God Exists” what other propositions may be derived from the two words “God Exists?” You cannot deduce anything from this first principle other than “God Exists.” This principle is simply empty terms, undefined and without the ability to produce any other proposition. You cannot in using the terms “God Exists” derive the concept of “God is Sovereign.” What in the first principle lends itself to that proposition? Nor can you derive from the first principle that the Bible is the Word, because we do not know that the ‘god’ of the first principle is the God of Scripture. He may well be an omnipotent demon. Or one of the Greek gods, which are limited creatures. However, if I say “The Bible is the Word of God” the term Bible represents a complete set of propositions that can be deduced from the Bible. The Bible says God exists. The Bible says that God is Trinitarian. The Bible says God is creator. The Bible says that God is sovereign. The Bible says … (I think you get the idea). I say that I am a Calvinist. You say you are too. How did you deduce that you were a Calvinist from “God Exits?”

The Philosophical Problem and answer:

The problem with universal presuppositions arises when one asks about the status of reality, or the ontological status of universals. For the realist, the universal has some ‘type’ or ‘kind’ of reality outside of the mind. For the conceptualist, the universal has reality only within the mind. For the nominalist, the universal is nothing but a name, and has reality neither within nor outside the mind. Historically, these distinctives have existed along a continuous spectrum where the distinction is some times very fine indeed. A universal in the thinking of Aquinas was more than a mere name; it corresponded to an ontological fact. He maintained that universals are ontological issues.

As a Scripturalist, I reject all these notions because they are man made philosophical issues. When we borrow from worldly systems, we do not come up with Biblical answers. Rather, such synthesis is only a twisting or perversion of the truth. My method is axiomatic presuppositionalism. I did not say that I do not have an innate idea of God being made in His image. This the confession clearly teaches. I am arguing polemic methodology and the necessity of developing a point of beginning from which I can defend the Christian faith. I cannot do that with the barrowed capital of non-Christian thought. The term axiom is derived from its mathematical usage in which a philosophical system begins with a set of undefined elements, properties, functions, and relations upon unproved propositions. From that axiom all other propositions (theorems) of the theory are to be derived by the method of logical deduction. The Westminster Divines argued this in Chapter 1, Section 6. For the axiom all statements, propositions or theorems are deduced, except the postulate. This means the axiom cannot itself be deduced from itself or justify its point of beginning. Axioms are points of beginning that need no justification. If they did, they would not be axioms. Any necessary evidence needed to support a presupposition or axiom is not a sufficiently based presupposition or axiom (primal). Any justification for a presupposition becomes a more basic presupposition. This leads to the trap of ‘infinite regression.’ If the ‘first principle’ cannot produce any other propositions, then it fails to be meaningful, since it lacks the necessary knowledge of definition and meaning. From a theological perspective, if we fail to produce the proper axiomatic presuppostional system in our theological method, then the ‘onus probandi’ shifts from a declaration of the Truth of God’s Word to the non-productive exercise of seeking to come up with non-biblical proofs for the existence of the God of the Holy Bible which is utter futility. Our Lord Jesus told us in John 10:25 (cf. Mt. 5:18): “Scripture cannot be broken.” Theologically we affirm ‘littera scriptura manet.’ By what authority can anyone assert that their presupposition is better than the Word of God? Especially when God declares His Word is the truth and the standard for all other systems. The Word of God alone qualifies as the only sufficient axiom for Christianity. The Bible is self-authenticating, non-contradictory, and authoritatively truthful in all that it speaks. The only authority for the presupposition “God Exists” is the authority of the individual who postulates this first principle. Why should anyone believe man? Why would we turn our backs on God or authoritatively declares all these things within the Bible. Is it not interesting that the Westminster Divines began, not with the doctrine of God, but with the doctrine of Scripture, the ‘sole’ source and authority for the justification of our knowledge of Who God is, and that such a God does indeed exit. This is the doctrinal foundation for ‘sola scriptura.’ The Scripture alone! Not man and Scripture, just the God of the Scripture alone. This axiom says that the declarations that it makes are inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative on all issues of life, faith, and practice. I believe it is on this subject as well. I begin where God reveals Himself authoritatively (I have already addressed the concept in history dealing with progressive revelation in my other posting). “The Bible and the Bible alone is the Word of God.” Show me from scripture, sorry, that is not your axiom or presupposition. Show me from your first principle that I am wrong. Sorry, your first principle just states ‘that’ “God Exists.” I am asking you to do the impossible. What ever you try to argue, I will counter it with Scripture that defies the very nature of your argument. The more you try to defend you presupposition, the further from Scripture you must go. Being outside of Scripture is a very dangerous thing. If you begin with Rome, you will eventually end with Rome. I don’t believe you can escape the logical conclusions of your premise.

Sola Scriptura my friend. Have a blessed Sabbath day. I will call when I get a break from my Seminary labors.

P.S. I have spent years working in Calvin. You are mistaking the concept of innate knowledge of God with a polemic method for defending the Christian faith. I will respond in kind. BTY: Just because something is held in the Reformed Tradition, does not make it biblical. It is ’sola scriptura’ not ’sola history.’ We hold something to be correct because it is maintained in Scripture and was properly interpreted by Church as it exegetically proved it to be what the Word of God actually taught consistently, cogently, and coherently. I also think you miss Calvin’s point in his Institutes. I will be lecturing on Calvin’s Epistemological theory of the Knowledge of God this fall at a Calvin Conference.

Thank you Dr. Talbot for your follow up comments.

I also would like to thank Dr. Talbot, and Roderick as well, for taking the time to write such incredibly in-depth responses. It has often seemed that a great epistemological discussion was waiting to happen on this blog, what with all the talk of historic Christianity, authority, etc.

At this point I think it is best to let the discussion stand as it is, since I lack the command of philosophy and confessional history demonstrated by either Roderick or Dr. Talbot, and since my main concern lies in the nature of inspiration - “dynamic” - which moves away from the original topic of Roderick’s post.

Lem thanks for your excellent comments to the discussion. The epistemological issues will continue to haunt the debate with hyperpreterism. To date, every debate I’ve seen hyperpreterist Don Preston engage with a Christian over hyperpreterism has clearly been won by Don Preston (wait until the hyperpreterists read that).

The reasons Christians lose the debates with Preston ISN’T because the Bible teaches hyperpreterism but it is as you pointed out epistemological in nature. So many well-meaning Christians want to pretend Scripture is the theological football & that heretics have equal validity in handling it. We MUST keep bringing it back to the fact that the over-arching premise of hyperpreterism is that God was either unable or unwilling for 2000 years to maintain the most basic eschatological understanding within the community of saints. They clearly must start with a “god” who is incapable or unwilling to maintain truth.

It seems the way people have debated hyperpreterism to date is like debating the lines of the U.S. Constitution with someone but not allowing a debate about the Idea & definition of Freedom. Without defining our terms & setting the presuppositions, we instead will go on & on into endless debates — perhaps of the meaning of “bear arms”, be it only for state organized militias or individuals. The Federalist Papers would quickly settle such a debate, but in parallel to what we are being instructed here, we must operate in a vacuum.

Again, I am thankful for this discussion though hyperpreterists have been having a hayday with it & I look forward to the day when Dr. Talbot debates a hyperpreterist…say Don Preston so I can see how his presupposition fares once again.

Hi Roderick,

Personally, I don’t think anyone needs to debate Don Preston. I don’t believe the man should have a platform of any kind.

The recent frustation level witnessed by Dr. Gentry’s refusal is quite revealing. IF Dr. Gentry is as “off base” as Preston claims, then why does he even want to debate Gentry in the first place? It isn’t logical.

I say it’s because Dr. Gentry IS being effective that they have a burr with him…and now William Hill…and yes, Dr. Talbot has entered Preston’s line of sight.

Their frustration is mounting and their recent activity with William Hill is a good sign of that imho.

The only reason I’d like to see a debate between Dr. Talbot & Don Preston is that I would like to see Dr. Talbot putting his theorems to the test with these guys. However, besides that you are correct that the hyperpreterist frustration is mounting. They are like little kids stomping their feet louder & louder until someone will pay attention to them.

Oh, I agree with your thoughts there. With their frustration mounting, anything that gives them a feeling of legitimacy would be counter productive. That’s what I was referring to and I see you picked up on it so we are definitely on the same page.

My two cents (and avoiding the in-depth discussion at this time though I would like to weigh in on the issue very soon because discussions of this nature are generally lacking on the blog-o-sphere in general):

If Dr. Talbot would be interested in a debate I would be willing to consider it. No pressure one way or the other. My personal feeling is: “why bother?” At the end of the day one side is going to say “we won” and the other side is going to say “we won”. It usually works that way. The only point of a debate, in my view, is to get the information out there for reasonable people to chew on. Now, with that said, let me also say this about debates:

Not everyone is a debater. What this means is that some scholars are simply not good at debating issues of this nature in a situation where one needs to be “fast on their feet” throughout the debate. In these cases it “appears” that the other person actually won the argument when, in fact, the only thing they won is proving their ability to debate over against the other person’s inability to debate. I have seen this more than once. Just because a person is not good at debating does not mean he has a weakness on that topic or that he is not correct in his position. One thing does not necessitate the other, in my opinion. When one person declines to debate another person it may not be because they are afraid of the topic or do not want to engage it. There may be others reasons (such as a basic inability to debate). Of course, our hyperpreterist friends will argue that those who refuse to debate are afraid to do so because they will lose. Frankly, this is a big leap in logic if you ask me. Simply put: some people are just not gifted in participating in live debates, This does not mean their arguments are weak or wrong.

Bill those are excellent points & true for sure.

Frost vs. Talbot

I am pleased to announce that Samuel Frost and I have come to an agreement to debate the issues of Preterism. However, because of our schedules and current workloads, this will take some time to plan and bring it to pass. In the mean time, previously scheduled projects and conferences need our full attention for completion. When Samuel returns from Indiana, we will meet for lunch and begin the planning stages (for those who do not know, Samuel only lives 20 to 25 minutes from the Seminary). This is what we envision at this time. The first phase will be a written exchange published in book form. At the time of its release, we will have a conference on the issue and this will constitute the second phase. The primary medium will be (we hope it works) our new Whitefield HD Digital Production program that will allow 1000 computer hook ups to the internet to watch the conference live for those who cannot attend. We believe that groups could also gather and hook up a large TV screen to their computer for viewing and allow additional room for others who are more isolated to sign on individually. After our meeting in the next two weeks, Samuel and I will formally announce our plan and projected schedule.

That is awesome Dr. Talbot. Let me know how I may assist you in any way in research or whatever you may need.

Would it be possible to personally attend the session that will be webcast? I am also wondering if perhaps the live feed could be mirrored in some way through the TheologyWeb server to allow even more people to watch. I am completely talking ignorantly here as I know next to nothing about servers and mirroring but I could ask one of my partners (who I did remind about getting the Wiki software up btw, he is just very busy, and with me being sick, things fell to the wayside).

Will, those are great points that apply very directly to me. I am a horrid verbal debater. My mind struggles for words to express what I want to say when I am put on the spot; it is very frustrating. I am not consistently quick on my feet. What I am usually very quick at is a good satirical comeback, but that is not substance, but comic relief.

Now I like to think that I am fairly competent at written debate, but I have the same problem with expressing my thoughts so that something that some people could write in a few hours could take me four times as long. I am a VERY slow writer.

The first formal verbal debate I get into, no matter what the subject is, I will probably get creamed. That is why I prefer written debates, but that requires me to have to have a great deal of time to devote to it which now is a luxury that I rarely have.

I am eager to see the Frost-Talbot debate. Just please don’t let them turn it into, “See, Dr. Talbot thinks we’re in error but at least he still thinks we’re within the pale of Christianity” — since that seems to always be the m.o. of Frost whenever someone like DeMar, Jordan or others give hyperpreterists even a ounce of a hearing. Again, it is all about obtaining validity with these folks. They are desperate to sit at the theological table.

Dr. Talbot,

If I can help in any way I would be glad to do so. Let me know if I can do anything and what that might be.

Dee Dee & William:

When we get to that phase it might be good to see if we can open up every avenue of medium that could be used; Covenant Radio and Theology web server. This will take some time to get this project accomplished, but Sam and I are committed to see it to the end. Thanks! I will be in contact with you all. Our goal is to bring absolute clarity into the open. End the end our hope is to have a book that will be definitive and the conference will be recorded on DVD. One thing we plan to begin with is stipulations and then definitions upfront. This will save us much time so that we can focus on what is at issue.

[...] the elites of the hyperpreterist site, SGP read my epistemological discussion with Dr. Ken Talbot (ref), they concluded I was “spanked” by Dr. Talbot. They accused me of not being a [...]

[...] during a recent posting upon the subject of epistemology (ref) & a follow up article (ref), Dr. Talbot took issue with my presentations.  My eventual [...]

Hyperpret Kelly Birks in responding to hyperpret Larry Seigle says:

“If you’ve got a new believer in front of you and you want to ground them in the essentials of the faith, you can’t just hand them a bible and say “start reading.” If you do, all they will come away with a very general understanding of some of what they read, but there will be a a serious lack of “cohesion” relative to the doctrines that are presented “all over the place” in the bible. You have to state categoiries of subjects, and present the scriptures from all kinds of places in the bible in each of your categories.”

Yes indeed. Or perhaps it is like giving a person a gun and some bullets for the very first time and not instructing them on the firearms parts and functions; the proper way to load and fire the weapon. The Bible is POWERFUL and men can and do twist its words to their own destruction — both intentionally and unintentionally.

[...] but obviously weren’t prepared very well now were they. A fine example of this can be found here as well as [...]

[...] bottom line? Roderick got his hat handed to him by Dr. Talbot in a debate here here and here and when no one came to his defense he lashed out just like a spoiled little boy who [...]