Monday, July 9, 2007

Theological Suicide

I should have known how it was going to go from the start. But they tricked me. It started off really good and I found myself in agreement with them. Walls and Dongell said this:

We hold that the Bible stands beneath us, giving us a foundation to our understanding; that it encircles us, marking boundaries for our speculation; that it resides within us. granting and conforming the true understanding of God and of ourselves; and it ultimately stands over us, judging according to the very mind of God.


I like this quote. But, they commit theological suicide only a few pages later.

They say this:

What are we suggesting? That in matters of biblical interpretation our own sense of certainty about what the Bible says on a given matter can't determine whether our particular understanding of the Bible is viable.

While there is some truth to this, because Catholics are "certain" that the Bible teaches transubstantiation," there is still a problem with this. Using proper hermeneutics, grammatical skills, original languages, one can be alot more certain than what Walls and Dongell suggest.

Here is a question that they pose, and I too would like an answer:

Have we not undercut the entire project of this book? After all, if we are claiming that the Bible may not be clear as we might have hoped, even about those issues directly related to the Calvinist- Arminian debate, why would we invest anytime at all in the swamps and quagmires of this longstanding theological debate?


Honestly, I really don't know. They seek to show how Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, and with the same pen say this Bible really isn't all that clear on the subject.

Another thing that they do is they take a few sentences from creeds and confessions out of their context and make it sound like they are being true to church history. But, its out of context.

OK, IF you believe the Bible is unclear on practically everything, then how in the world can you make the claim that Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, if it is so hazy and unclear. That's theological suicide.

Secondly, If the Bible itself is unclear, then the fault is God's. However, God's Word is clear enough to understand, through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and proper means of study that God has enabled us with. (He gave us a brain!!).

The problem is not that the Bible is unclear, the problem is that we live in a fallen world. Even strong Calvinists disagree on finer points of doctrine, but they have all faithfully studied the word of God. Is the Bible unclear on those issues? No. Are men just retarted? No. We live in the context of a fallen world, and that is the primary cause of disagreement on finer points of theology.


Here is the thing: I have never seen any exegesis done by an Arminian. I read a book with the chapter entitled "Approaching the Bible" and they attack the clarity of Scripture.

Here is what I want to say to the Arminians: Just please try to exegete a passage. John 6 for starters, then perhaps Ephesians 1 and 2. Look at the meaning of Greek words. Look at the historical and literary context. Look at the context of the passage in the entirety of the book. Use grammar skills you learned in second grade. That should be a good start. But if you say that Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, and then say the Bible is unclear, then you commit theological suicide and have no business debating these issues biblically and making statements like that.

23 comments:

Exist~Dissolve said...

Using proper hermeneutics, grammatical skills, original languages, one can be alot more certain than what Walls and Dongell suggest.

Upon what criterion do you determine that this is an accurate conclusion? How do you find yourself capable of determining the propriety of the hermeneutical methods upon which you would establish the veracity of this assertion? Do you not have to imbue these methodologies with a measure of infallibility in order to make such a claim?

OK, IF you believe the Bible is unclear on practically everything, then how in the world can you make the claim that Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, if it is so hazy and unclear. That's theological suicide.

The problem with your and Dongell and Walls' approach is that one believes that such an answer is to be found in Scripture. Why is such an assumption made to begin with? Something can only be "clear" or "unclear" if one has an objecitve, fully clarified perspective from which to adjudicate the measure of attainment or non-attainment of any particular theological notion to the same.

Secondly, If the Bible itself is unclear, then the fault is God's.

I hardly see why this is a necessary conclusion. As humans wrote and compiled the Scriptures into the canon that we possess today, any definitively ascertainable unclearness (which, as mentioned immediately prior, would require an impossible perspective of objectivity from which to adjudicate said unclearness) would be the fault of the writers and interpreters, not God. I see no reason why God should be blamed for poor communication and the limitations of human epistemology.

However, God's Word is clear enough to understand, through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and proper means of study that God has enabled us with. (He gave us a brain!!).

Again, upon criterion have you established such an assertion? As such would require an impossible level of objectivity, I see no reason why your objection to Dongell and Walls' methodology is compelling, nor how your claims about the exclusive viability of your own philosophical and interpretive methodology are any more meaningful and self-evident.

The bottom line is this: you cannot countenance a view of Scripture that does not enable you to make it into an absolute standard from which you believe yourself capable of pronouncing objectively verifiable truth. Interestingly enough, however, this very need translates into the most un-objective form of interpretation possible, for in tacitly proclaiming yourself capable of encapsulating absolute, objective truth within the parameters of your interpretive methodology, you have created an entirely circular and self-justified hermeneutical circle within which self-criticism is entirely impossible and against which any alternative interpretive conclusion must necessarily be relegated as anathema.

You say that you wish to see an Arminian provide a bit of exegesis: however, what will inevitably happen is that said exegesis will not measure up the predetermined conclusions which you have imposed upon the text through your presuppositional handling of the text. Because the circularity of interpretation which you have created within your methodological approaches can countenance precisely zero disagreement, you will even then remain puzzled why no one but you and those sympathetic to your cause can engage in "proper" hermeneutics.

Quite predictable.

Rhett said...

Attacking the clarity of Scripture... Who woulda thunk it??? ;)

Joshua A. Hitchcock said...

Another thing, if the scriptures are as hazy and cloudy like they claim, then it wouldn't be a very good foundation of understanding as they quote, and it really would set some unclear boundaries as it encircles us. And what good what some really unclear stuff be as it resides in us and stands over us?

Exist~Dissolve said...

Attacking the clarity of Scripture... Who woulda thunk it???

You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but I am at a loss as to upon what basis you are determining the content of the notion of "clarity" in regards to Scripture. Moreover, I am somewhat confused as to what is meant by "clarity" of Scripture in your usage.

After all, the concept of "clarity" presumes a determinative understanding of that which is its antithesis, e.g., the "unclear." However, such a presumptuous valuation further presumes that one occupies some position of objectivity in order that one might sufficiently adjudicate between that which is "clear" and "unclear." As Josh has already confessed the impossibility of this per the fallenness of human nature and limitation in epistemological constructs that would appear (at least in his understanding of fallenness) to be attendant to said fallenness.

Therefore, if fallen humanity is itself not immune, but rather embroiled in the very subjectivities of human existence and finite experience, upon what basis is one to determine 1.) that the Scriptures possess "absolute clarity" and 2.) what the content and nature of this clarity might be in re: human epistemological methodologies and theological conclusions.

As always, your scoffing at viewpoints which challenge your comfortably circular and self-justified hermeneutical frameworks belies the presuppositions which drive your conclusions but which you, surprisingly, seem wont to ignore, deny and explain away rather than dealing in a perspicuous and intellectually honest way with them.

Exist~Dissolve said...

And what good what some really unclear stuff be as it resides in us and stands over us?

Probably just as good as making grandiose claims about what inevitably boils down to self-justified assertions about the limitless abilities of human epistemology which your perspective must necessarily make absolutely and indelibly capable of encapsulating, within its creaturely finitude, the very objectivity of God.

You think Dongell and Walls are dangerous, but I think your approach is the most dangerous of all as it necessarily makes the subjectivities of the individual interpreter the dictator and disseminating locus of divine truth whose lust for power cannot be sated, save for the termination of absolute, objective truth within the exclusively one's own epistemology.

Rhett said...

Exist,

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but when the Bible says for example "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that's pretty clear... There's many things the Bible states just as clearly.

I assure you my friend -as I have told you on your blog- I am simply trying to understand the Scriptures to the best of my abilities.

Do I hold to certain presuppositions??? Yes. Of course. But who doesn't??

Here's my presuppositions:
God is the ultimate source of truth. He has revealed truth in the Bible. The more I understand the Bible, the better I will understand God, truth, and His plan of Salvation.

After years of being an Arminian, the Bible is now making more sense to me than every before. I did not set out to become a Calvinist, but it is where I ended up.

I am fully prepared to give an account to God for it.

Deviant Monk said...

Joshua-

Using proper hermeneutics, grammatical skills, original languages, one can be alot more certain than what Walls and Dongell suggest.

Proper hermeutics? what exactly qualifies as proper hermenetics? The hermeneutical method varies considerably considering one's culture, worldview, time, etc.

OK, IF you believe the Bible is unclear on practically everything, then how in the world can you make the claim that Calvinism distorts the biblical picture of God, if it is so hazy and unclear. That's theological suicide.

I would suggest that the authors of this book are staring in a completely innappropriate place. Since Calvinism is foremost a philosophical matrix, they would be better served dealing with that.

Secondly, If the Bible itself is unclear, then the fault is God's. However, God's Word is clear enough to understand, through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and proper means of study that God has enabled us with. (He gave us a brain!!).

Hardly. Communication is comprised of a communicator and a receiver. It is inescapable that any communication is somewhat dependent upon the receiver's interpretation of the communication.

The problem is not that the Bible is unclear, the problem is that we live in a fallen world. Even strong Calvinists disagree on finer points of doctrine, but they have all faithfully studied the word of God. Is the Bible unclear on those issues? No. Are men just retarted? No. We live in the context of a fallen world, and that is the primary cause of disagreement on finer points of theology.

There is far more disagreement than on just finer points of doctrine, as our conversations have demonstrated. If the fallenness of humanity is presumed, and with that the consequent impairment of understanding, why such the hang-up on whether the bible is clear or not, given that one couldn't possibly interpret it with as much clarity as it presumably has?

Another thing, if the scriptures are as hazy and cloudy like they claim, then it wouldn't be a very good foundation of understanding as they quote, and it really would set some unclear boundaries as it encircles us. And what good what some really unclear stuff be as it resides in us and stands over us?

Our entire existence and perception of such is based upon 'hazy' premises. We accept- for the most part- without question, the reality we perceive through our senses, even though we know that our senses can deceive us and can be impaired and influenced by a variety of different things. Yet that sensual perception of reality forms almost the entirity of how we perceive reality.

We rely on our logic and rationality to make sense of reality, even though we know that both our logic and rationality are based upon our perception of the world and the worldview instilled within us through our culture, family, society, experiences, etc, yet we also base a lot of our understanding of reality on these.

All of our epistemological methods have a certain level of haziness to them- it is an inescapable fact of being a finite being.

There are some things in the scrptures that are unclear and that will probably be lost forever, since, although we can understand some of the culture, time, etc., we don't have the essential nuance of being within that context, which is vital to clarity. Even within a particular context there is the unavoidable possibilty (I would even say probability) of lack of clarity in any number of areas.



rhett-

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but when the Bible says for example "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that's pretty clear... There's many things the Bible states just as clearly.

as a statement of ontological origination- sure, fairly clear. As to mode of creation...not as clear.

Exist~Dissolve said...

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but when the Bible says for example "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that's pretty clear... There's many things the Bible states just as clearly.

Pretty clear as to what? People press these few words to make mountains of theological statements, some of which are held more rigidly and dogmatically than others. But what is "clear" to you, I would suspect, is precisely so because it is what you have gone looking for.

I assure you my friend -as I have told you on your blog- I am simply trying to understand the Scriptures to the best of my abilities.

No one is denying that. My question is that if this is truly your modus operandi, how can you support perspectives (such as Joshua's) that would make objective and absolute [e.g., private interpretation] that which--by your own admission herein--is not? That is, if your and my abilities to interpret and understand Scripture is limited, where is there room for the self-justified and circularity of interpretive exclusivism which your cohorts have recently advocated?

Do I hold to certain presuppositions??? Yes. Of course. But who doesn't??

No one. That is precisely the crux of my point. The "clarity" which you presume to have over and against the claims of the recognition of "non-clarity" in Dongell and Walls is simply a different presuppositional conclusion--but the point is that both flow from the same subjectivities of human epistemology.

Here's my presuppositions:
God is the ultimate source of truth. He has revealed truth in the Bible. The more I understand the Bible, the better I will understand God, truth, and His plan of Salvation.


Those are fine, but I wonder how you can possibly assert, in a meaningfully determinative way, your interpretation over and against those who would claim precisely the same presuppositions, such as Dongell and Walls?

After years of being an Arminian, the Bible is now making more sense to me than every before. I did not set out to become a Calvinist, but it is where I ended up.

Such are the vagrancies of human epistemology.

I am fully prepared to give an account to God for it.

Gojira said...

Oh get off your liberal, postmodern high horse, E-D. Your gnosticism is showing! You have just claimed, without any foundation, that Rhett takes the scriptures out of context, that he sees only what he wants to see when you wrote "...is precisely so because it is what you have gone looking for." Now why would you write such an imbicilic thing like that when you didn't even bother to prove it? Can you show it E-D? Can you point us to where he goes and finds only what he wants to see? There is a ton that can be said about your denial of God and His written revelation. You need to either apologize to Rhett or show where his motivation is to engage in finding what he wants to find. Will you do either? It's doubtful.

“All things are dear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because ye are hearers for pleasure's sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you sub the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me.” -John Chrysostom

Exist~Dissolve said...

Oh get off your liberal, postmodern high horse, E-D. Your gnosticism is showing!

Which concept of gnosticism (of the 493 that you have now accused me) are you talking about?

You have just claimed, without any foundation, that Rhett takes the scriptures out of context, that he sees only what he wants to see when you wrote "...is precisely so because it is what you have gone looking for."

Actually, I said that I "suspect" this is the case. I did not make an absolutist statement about it. Moreover, my conclusions were based upon his own acknowledgement that he, like all others, are beholden to certain philosophical presuppositions. From this admission, I have merely extrapolated what would appear to be necessarily the case, that is, that his interpretation--like everyone else's--follows in part from the motivating influence of said presuppositions.

Now why would you write such an imbicilic thing like that when you didn't even bother to prove it?

God made me do it.

Can you show it E-D?

When you "show" that I am a gnostic apart from your pathetic and substance-less name-calling, I will "show" this.

Can you point us to where he goes and finds only what he wants to see?

As I explained above, my conclusions were based upon my extending the necessary logic of Rhett's admission to being subject--like all--to particular philosophical presuppositions which indelibly influence interpretation of Scripture, one's understanding of God, etc.

There is a ton that can be said about your denial of God and His written revelation.

Maybe, but as is typical, you will choose to rather operate on the juvenile level of name calling.

You need to either apologize to Rhett or show where his motivation is to engage in finding what he wants to find. Will you do either? It's doubtful.

I see no reason to apologize.

Joshua A. Hitchcock said...

Whoa Whoa...hold on there exist!!! You have misrepresented me entirely...so watch it there little buddy! I never claimed that my own perspective and that my personal interpretation was objective and absolute. I can admit that I don't have it all together. That has no bearing on the nature of Scripture itself. The Scriptures themselves are absolute and objective truth within themselves. I am prone to error just like the rest of humanity, but thankfully, because God's Spirit dwells in me, and God has enlightened my, as well as every genuine believers, understanding at salvation, The scriptures are a bit more clear to us than when we were alienated from the life of God and that are minds were darkened in the futility of their thinking.

Rhett said...

Exist,

I stated elsewhere that I have never set out to be a Calvinist. At one time I hated the doctrines I now defend. If anything, my biases should have driven me deeper into Arminianism and Open Theism (which I flirted with at times), not Calvinism.

There's not a single human on the planet that does not interpret ALL THINGS through the lense of countless presuppositions. I hardly see how we will could rid ourselves of them all and still be human... (Perhaps Vulcans can accomplish such a task, but I cannot!)

What I would really like to know is how you can possibly set yourself in judgment over anything we posit here -if by your own admission elsewhere- you have not been able to achieve epistemelogical certitude of anything yourself?? Who dubbed thee umpire of Human epistemology?

To be so epistemologically humble, you certainly seem pretty certain that Calvinism, above all theologies, is incorrect.

Gojira said...

"Which concept of gnosticism (of the 493 that you have now accused me) are you talking about?"

492. You have lost count. The Alaxandrian gnostics held, like you, that scripture could not yield a plain meaning. Every gnostic said that, because like you, they had their concept of higher knowledge that ruled them.

"Actually, I said that I "suspect" this is the case."

This is what you wrote: But what is "clear" to you, I would suspect, is precisely so because it is what you have gone looking for." You have just charged him with finding what he wants to find. Now how about you back it up a notch and actually demonstrate that Rhett is motivated to find in the text what he wants to find. Your use of "suspect" points that this is something that you are holding as true as part of your own thoughts. So for once, you should atleast try to do the correct thing like demonstrating your accusation. Or is that asking too much integrity from you?

"Maybe, but as is typical, you will choose to rather operate on the juvenile level of name calling."

Blah blah blah. Either apologize or demonstrate that Rhett is motivated to find in the text what he wants to find.

Joshua A. Hitchcock said...

Deviant, you said this:

"Proper hermeutics? what exactly qualifies as proper hermenetics? The hermeneutical method varies considerably considering one's culture, worldview, time, etc."

Ummm....no, I would interpret scripture the same way if I was french. In fact, there are French Christians and Christians all around the world in various cultures, and who have lived in different times that have used the same principles and continue to use the same principles of interpretation. I did not create them.


"I would suggest that the authors of this book are staring in a completely innappropriate place. Since Calvinism is foremost a philosophical matrix, they would be better served dealing with that."

Yeah....you would suggest that....but in I presuppose that the Calvinism Arminianism debate is more of a biblical/theological argument, and that is the place we should start with." But again, we disagree....and I'm not surprised...Its the same stuff over and over again.

"There is far more disagreement than on just finer points of doctrine, as our conversations have demonstrated."

Yes, but you didn't read my sentence correctly. I said this in reference to disagreements between Calvinists. Can you read?

Seeing your inability to read my own sentence correctly, I can see why you would have a problem approaching the scriptures and not able to read them correctly either.


I also admit I have my own presuppositions. My presuppositions have changed since I have read scripture. I presuppose that Man is "dead in trespasses and sins" I presuppose that "God chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless." I presuppose that God is "working all things after the counsel of his own will."

Theres just of few of my presuppositions and how I perceive them.

Deviant Monk said...

Yes, but you didn't read my sentence correctly. I said this in reference to disagreements between Calvinists. Can you read?

lol. yes, I can read. I chose to approach it in a different way. That's part of the communication process- I fully realize your intention; I just wanted to broaden it. After all, you mentioned Calvinists who had faithfully studied the scriptures, so I felt it would be appropriate to expand upon that to include everyone who has faithfully studied the scriptures.

Notwithstanding that, the disagreements among Calvinists are still about more than just fine points of doctrine. For example, there are some who are infralapsarians, and some who are supralapsarians. The difference in doctrinal conclusions that are derived from each of those amount to more than just fine points of doctrinal and theological distinction. In fact, the gulf would be relatively as great as between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist.

Seeing your inability to read my own sentence correctly, I can see why you would have a problem approaching the scriptures and not able to read them correctly either.

I fail to see how this petty degrading of my intelligence is a fruitful form of argumentation.

Ummm....no, I would interpret scripture the same way if I was french. In fact, there are French Christians and Christians all around the world in various cultures, and who have lived in different times that have used the same principles and continue to use the same principles of interpretation.

Ok, what principles then?

The sheer use of a single hermeneutical method by people in different places and times and cultures surely doesn't equate to that method being a proper hermeneutical methodology, unless pragmatism is the adjudicator of what constitutes proper hermeneutics.

I did not create them.

Nobody said you did.

Exist~Dissolve said...

There are some things in the scrptures that are unclear and that will probably be lost forever, since, although we can understand some of the culture, time, etc., we don't have the essential nuance of being within that context, which is vital to clarity. Even within a particular context there is the unavoidable possibilty (I would even say probability) of lack of clarity in any number of areas.

I agree that there are probably some meanings in Scripture that have been lost with the cessation of the cultures and worldviews of the writers. But additionally, I think one should also point out that this is not a problem.

The only way in which this would be a problem, actually, is if the Scriptures are artificially imbued with assumptions that they are somehow absolute, inerrent (whatever that means) documents that are solely the repositories of truth. Yet as Deviant and myself have shown, such a view ultimately ends in failure as it must force the interpreter to suppose themselves to be above the texts in such a way that the dual issue of personal subjectivity and incompatibility of contexts is not a barrier to subsequent propositional assertions about the absolute meaning of the text.

Rhett said...

Exist,

Following your logic (to the best of my limited ability) I am amazed you haven't already abandoned theism altogether. You'd make a good agnostic... You reason just like one I used to work with.

Gojira said...

Ya'll ever noticed when E-D and the Deviant one start grasping for straws, their use of technical language goes up? Many people do that as a form of intimidation, and some do it because it makes them look smarter than they really are.

Gojira said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gojira said...

"is if the Scriptures are artificially imbued with assumptions that they are somehow absolute, inerrent (whatever that means)"

1) If you do not know what inerrent means in a Christian context, might I suggest that you take a moment to learn what, how and why it is used? If you like, I could recommend some works for you.

2) The testimony recorded in scripture is that scripture is breathed out by God. Now allowing your anti-Biblical religion of philosophy, can you state just how, if scripture is breathed out by God, the message contained could be anything less than absolute in truth?

3) Since your gnosticism will not allow you the clarity of scripture, will you state just how God could have communicated that would have been clear?

4) There are many different philosophies in the world, how do you know you have the correct one?

Exist~Dissolve said...

1) If you do not know what inerrent means in a Christian context, might I suggest that you take a moment to learn what, how and why it is used? If you like, I could recommend some works for you.

I understand what the term means. My mention of my curiosity surrounding it was meant more sarcastically in reference to the absurd circularity of self-justifying criterion that the advocates must engage in to maintain the "consistency" of their argument.

2) The testimony recorded in scripture is that scripture is breathed out by God. Now allowing your anti-Biblical religion of philosophy, can you state just how, if scripture is breathed out by God, the message contained could be anything less than absolute in truth?

I'm really not sure how you are making the leap from "breathed out" (whatever that means in relation to communication and human epistemology) to "absolute truth." Moreover, you are naively ignoring the limitations of those who are interpreting this "absolute truth".

3) Since your gnosticism will not allow you the clarity of scripture, will you state just how God could have communicated that would have been clear?

Well, my supposed gnosticism will not allow me to buy into the naive assumptions about the abilities of interpretation that you would assume accrue to human epistemology (what you call "clarity")...but that would actually be a form of gnosticism on your part, interestingly enough.

As to communication methods, I believe that God has communicated in the person of Christ sufficiently.

4) There are many different philosophies in the world, how do you know you have the correct one?

It depends upon what kind of "knowing" you would require for this statement to obtain. If you are asking about propositionally verifiable means of knowing, I would categorically deny that such a knowledge is possible. Faith, after all, is not based in propositional assertions about truth, but is rather the crisis of entrusting one's person to the care and benevolence of God, a crisis that can never be epistemologically sorted out with absolute clarity.

Joshua A. Hitchcock said...

Exist, I am amazed at this statement:

"As to communication methods, I believe that God has communicated in the person of Christ sufficiently."

OK...Who is the person of Christ? How did you learn about him? It certainly could not have been from scripture because scripture is epistemologically unverifiable according to you. According to you, the scriptures cannot be trusted because of the problems within the interpreter, including you. So, how do you know God communicated in the person of Christ? In fact, how do you even know there was such a person? Did you live 2000 years ago? Did God zap this info into your brain in a dream.

By making the statement that God has communicated himself in the person of Christ sufficiently, you received this "sufficient" information from another source. What source might that be?

Gojira said...

"I understand what the term means. My mention of my curiosity surrounding it was meant more sarcastically in reference to the absurd circularity of self-justifying criterion that the advocates must engage in to maintain the "consistency" of their argument."

And you think you are somehow immune? That would be absurd. Does your philosophy express and communicate in words, ideas, concepts? If so, is your philosophy inerrant? Is your understanding of your philosophy inerrant? All I am seeing you do is engage a double standard.
*******************************

"I'm really not sure how you are making the leap from "breathed out" (whatever that means in relation to communication and human epistemology) to "absolute truth." Moreover, you are naively ignoring the limitations of those who are interpreting this "absolute truth".

Two things here:

Hopefully you are aware that the text of 2 Tim. 3:16 is literally that all scripture is God breathed. If you would affirm that God does not lie, how would you propose that the scriptures, which find their ultimate source in God Himself, be absolutely truthful in all that it teaches?

After looking over my question to you, I fail to see where I asked anything concerning the limitations of interpreters in any primary manner. Do you have limitations in understand philosophy, which is not God breathed? If so, you have just conceded your whole argument. Regardless, since you appear to not have comprehended my question, would you like for me to restate it?
*******************************

"Well, my supposed gnosticism will not allow me to buy into the naive assumptions about the abilities of interpretation that you would assume accrue to human epistemology (what you call "clarity")...but that would actually be a form of gnosticism on your part, interestingly enough.

As to communication methods, I believe that God has communicated in the person of Christ sufficiently."

Three things here

“Well, my supposed gnosticism will not allow me to buy into…”

Yes, indeed. We are fully aware of your Gnosticism. As I demonstrated in a related post, you stand with them in regards to the scriptures.

“As to communication methods…”

And just how did God communicate to you in the person of Christ? Were the scriptures part of that?

You use the word sufficient. If it was God communicating, can you please state why that communication was merely sufficient and not clear and inerrant absolute truth, that is if you even find in Christ absolute truth?
******************************

"It depends upon what kind of "knowing" you would require for this statement to obtain. If you are asking about propositionally verifiable means of knowing, I would categorically deny that such a knowledge is possible. Faith, after all, is not based in propositional assertions about truth, but is rather the crisis of entrusting one's person to the care and benevolence of God, a crisis that can never be epistemologically sorted out with absolute clarity."

Again, I wonder at either your reading ability or if you lack comprehension of simple common language. I ask because you would have otherwise completely evaded the question. Do you think you espouse the correct philosophy? That is either a yes or a no. As it stands now, your answer so far implies that truth is defined by individuals on an individual basis, which of course puts you far outside historical Christian thought that holds to the reality of God. Now of course, I do know of your affirmations of a goddess. Perhaps you are confused and need to know Who the real God of the universe is? After all, following your logic, no one would ever really know for sure.