When confronted with Nicene Monarchism, which some see to be an overly rational view of God, people will often complain that I am erroneously putting God into human categories of language. This I will term Clarkian Univocalism. I do not apologize for this. However, there does need to be some clarification and then defense of this practice.
First, by way of clarification, I hold to the Analogy of Proportion (Which allows univocal revelation) not the traditional Analogy of Proportionality (Which does not allow univocal revelation). The categories of divine and human are not mutually exclusive: Apophaticism. The categories of divine and human are also not Jointly exhaustive: An absolute Cataphaticism. The categories of divine and human proportionally overlap at the level of intellect and even at this level we do not have a full exhaustion. The exact area where divine and human ontology overlap is the objects of God’s knowledge. I have explained this in detail here.
Now by way of defense I would like to present to the reader why I do believe there needs to be an overlap, not necessarily a joint exhaustion, of the categories of predication-divine and human.
1. The rejection of my Clarkian Univocalism operates off of a materialist view of language. In my 68 Theses Against Jnorm’s Eastern Orthodox Theology Proper: Case Studies in Ad Hoc Reasoning I said,
2. The denial of my Clarkian Univocalism is a denial of Plenary Verbal Inspiration. Plenary verbal inspiration posits a form of revelation, where the Holy Ghost guides the writers but at the same time gives them the freedom to express the core meaning of the Spirit in their own words and express their own personalities. There is an important assumption at the base of this position. Namely, it assumes that men can understand what God is saying. The dictation theory asserts that God gave men word for word what they were to write with no freedom at all. The assumption here is man’s inability to understand what God is saying but God feels an obligation to dictate the scriptures to men so men do not mess it up. And since men cannot understand the real truth, the scriptures are mere signposts pointing to the true revelation.
3. The denial of my Clarkian Univocalism operates off of a Neo-Platonic system of Ontology where the One is outside of human predication precisely because it does not submit to the distinctions required for propositions. See here.
5. If God is outside of the categories of human language have we not now made a mockery of the word Truth? If the truth is something outside of our cognitive abilities, we then have no access to truth. We have denied revelation.
6. If God is outside of the categories of human language, and our knowledge is then full of mysteries and paradoxes, this leaves the door open for every religion and cult in the world to do the same thing. It is a rejection of Apologetics. Every time we bring up a problem with another religion they can now cop-out and say that the before mentioned problem is a mystery outside of human language.
7. If God is outside of the categories of human language, then we have no basis to formulate a creed in order to define Orthodoxy and Heresy.
9. The Scriptures plainly teach that we can understand God and his revelation. A denial of this is nothing new. Both the Papists and the Anabaptists denied it so that the former could saddle their hierarchy onto the Church and the latter could do away with the first table of the law and bring pietism into the supreme position in Christianity. From my summary of Rutherford’s Free Disputation, One Holy Catholic Church
“Acts 24:16. And herein do I exercise myself to have always a Conscience void of offense toward God, and toward man.
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Heb 6:19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Col 2:1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you areason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Eph 4:15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [11]
Assertion 1.) “A good conscience is a complete entire thing, as our text saith, both toward God and man; its not to be a moral man in the duties of the second table, and a skeptic in the duties of the first table, not in some few fundamentals, as patrons for liberty of conscience do plead, but in the whole revealed will of God; and therefore the good conscience consisteth in an indivisible point, as they say, the number of four doth, if you add one, or take one from it, you vary the essence, and make it three or five, not four; so Paul taketh in completeness in it, I have all good conscience, either all or none; and a good conscience toward God and man; not a conscience for the streets and the Church, and not for the house, and not for the days Hosanna, and not for eternity; therefore they require an habit to a good conscience, I have exercised myself to have always a good conscience, there is a difference between one song, and the habit of music, and a step and a way, Psal. 119. 133. order, (not my one single step,) but my steps, ym;[‘P in the plural number; to fall on a good word by hazard, and to salute Christ in the by, doth not quit from having an evil conscience; as one wrong step, or extemporary slip, doth not render a believer a man of an ill conscience; the wicked world quarrel with the saints before men, because they cannot live as Angels, but the true and latent cause is because they will not live as Devils, and go with them to the same excess of riot.”[12]
Assertion 2.) “It argues the word of God, of obscurity and darkness, as not being able to instruct us in all truths, and renders it as a nose of wax in all non-fundamentals, histories, narrations, etc… in which notwithstanding the Scripture is as evident, plain, simple, obvious to the lowest capacities in most points, except some few Prophecies, as it is in fundamentals, and lays a blasphemies charge on the Holy Ghost, as if he had written the Scriptures, upon an intention that we should have no assured and fixed knowledge”[13]
Obj.) Fallible men cannot be the stewards of infallible knowledge[14]
Ans. 1) “But the wisdom of God (we believe) in the Scripture, is plain, to those that open their eyes, otherwise heresy should not only be no sin, contrary to the word of God, Tit. 3. 10. 1 Tim. 3. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 6. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19. but an innocent apprehension of apparent truth, as there is no guiltiness in an eye vitiated with humors misapprehending colors that are white; and seeing them to be red when they are not so”[15]
Ans. 2) “Papists shall be in better case than we, for though they say that the Scriptures are dark and obscure, and admit of themselves divers and contrary senses, so that we cannot bottom our faith on them, yet the juridicial interpretation of the Church is to men a ground of faith, and that is the ground of faith which the Church giveth, as the only true sense of Scripture.”[16]
Ans. 3) “If any man say to you, lo here is Christ or lo there, believe it not: why if he teach me where Christ is, if I hear not him, I refuse to hear Christ, Matth. 10. 40, 41. Ergo the false Christ is knowable, Tit. 2. 10. An heretic avoid, & c. when Solomon saith, Make not friendship with an angry man, is not the formality of anger in the heart? if any should reply to Solomon, God only knows who is the angry man, who is the patient and meek man, therefore we will make friendship with all men, or with no man. Should any say, there is no such man knowable, should he not contradict the Holy Ghost? So must we say, there is not such a man knowable to a mortal man as a false Prophet, or an heretic; and therefore Paul doth but mock the Philippians, who were not infallible, when he writes to them thus, Beware of dogs; and John when he saith, If any man bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house. Might not Libertines say, God commands us to run the hazard of encroaching upon God’s chair, for who but he who knows the heart can tell who is the heretic, who not: when the Lord rebukes association with Thieves, Robbers, Slanderers, Prov. 1. 11, 12. Ps. 15. 18. holdeth he not forth that the Thief, the Robber, and the Slanderer are knowable?”[17]
Ans 4.) “and because there is no man infallible in taking up the right sense of the Scripture, if ye control the Jew, or put him off his sense of the Old Testament, which yields him this faith, Mary’s son is a false lying Prophet, the Apostles and all the martyrs are but cousening Impostors, yea domineer over the Conscience and force his faith, because ye are not infallible, ye may not condemn the way of any, for ye know not but they be the wheat, and you the tares, for ought that Scripture saith on either side: Never man in this life is sure of his faith and salvation from Scripture, and since the Jew may be wheat, if ye would go to”[18]
Obj.) “But now since the Prophets and Apostles fell asleep, no Magistrate, no Synod is infallible, all men are apt to deceive, and be deceived, for whether in fundamentals or non-fundamentals: none now can challenge Prophetical or Apostolic infallibility”[19]
Ans.) “yea but it holdeth in believing fundamentals, as well as non-fundamentals, for in neither have we Prophetical infallibility and immediate Oracles, and Scripture shows we have as great darkness, blindness of mind, natural fluctuation to believe nothing in supernatural fundamentals in the Gospel, as in non-fundamentals, but with trepidation and doubting of mind, we no more having monopolized the Spirit to us than Sectaries”[20]
e. A tender conscience smacks of popery.
“The causes of a scrupulous conscience are 1. God’s wise and just permission. 2. Satan’s working and acting on a cold, distracted, sad bodily complexion. 3. Ignorance. Weakness of judgment. 4. Immoderate fear troubling reason. 5. Inconstancy of the mind. 6. And withal some tenderness. Gregorius said, bonarum conscientiarum est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est. It is one of the most godly errors, and a sin that smelleth of grace. Papists, miserable comforters, say, a special way to be delivered, is to submit yourself to a superior’s blind command. They say, a Priest was freed of his scruple, when he obeyed Bernard’s bare word, and trusted in it; hearing that, Vade et meâ fide confisus sacrifica, go and upon my faith sacrifice confidently.”[21]
f. Summary statement
The conscience is to be a complete moral man in both the first and second tables of the law, finding its good intentions from the word of God alone. From this word we know the sins to be repented of and confessed, never to dwell on them again in guilt having been cleansed by Christ’s blood (Heb 10:22). To those pure in heart having their hearts cleansed by the washing of the Spirit in the new covenant all things are pure, that is, all things are clean regarding abrogated ceremonial dietary laws etc. (Tit 1:15, Rom 14:20). To these laws our conscience is to be strong in its understanding of what God’s moral law requires of us and what it has made free. To the meat sacrificed to idols the moral law remains the same (Ex 34:15). That is eating meat sacrificed to an idol is a sin if it is done with the knowledge that it was sacrificed to an idol (1 Cor 10: 19-21, 25-28, Rev 2:14, 20). Therefore, the conscience is vital in respect of moral law regarding what it knows and what it does not. If the conscience does not know the reason for its liberty concerning meats once forbidden in the ceremonial law, the ignorant conscience causes the man to sin if he partakes. This principle is binding in all areas of life that we are ignorant of. This however, does not mean that the conscience determines what is right and wrong. In respect to the ignorant conscience, there are differing degrees of sin on both sides: A grievous sin for partaking of the meat with ignorance and a lesser sin for being ignorant. The foundation of a good conscience is the Bible alone. A good conscience offers to God only that which he has commanded and never thinks good works can be established by the religious zeal and pretended piety of men. However, when the conscience acts upon the word of God we should, as it were, reverence the Ambassador as the King.
Decisions of Synods, though they should be examined thoroughly as the noble Bereans examined Paul’s teaching, should be received as binding on the conscience if they be found to be agreeable to scripture. The conscience is to be fully studied and persuaded of all things taught in the scripture, whether directly or by good and necessary consequence, to be equipped for every good work, not just fundamentals. No matter what experience a tender conscience may have, these experiences have no right to bind the conscience to any man made rule as if the violating of it be sin. A drunken relative gives no reason to profess alcohol a sin. A gluttonous friend makes not meat a thing carnal. A cruel cattle farmer does not make cheeseburgers iniquitous. Pornography and adultery do not make sex shameful. Lung cancer does not make moderate tobacco smoking unclean. Such a conscience reeks of false piety and man made religion.”
10. The rejection of my Clarkian Univocalism relies on Pantheistic and Pagan assumptions of God’s Infinity. People will say that I cannot put the Infinite into finite categories, not knowing that they are submitting to Pantheism. I have shown this here and here and here.
The following is my review of the section regarding metaphysics and epistemology in Ryan Hedrich’s A Systematic Refutation of Objectivism.
-1-.jpg)
Anglo Judaizer 