Interesting subject. Is there a Part II that you were going to post?

I’ve been thinking about apologetics lately, particularly from hearing some of the conversations Gene has on his show. Being the noob that I am, it is donning on me how many approaches there are to apologetics (like presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism, etc). Would love to hear more on Multiperspectivism. Fascinating.

I am curious how MP fits into the field of epistemology. I completely understand the pragmatic aspects of a multi-perspectival approach, but I don’t see where the basis for knowledge (its epistemology) resides. At first it appears that the normative perspective is the basis of our epistemology. But then it is stated that nothing of this sort(“purely objective” knowledge) is possible. If this is the case, what sort of epistemology does the normative perspective incorporate? To me, it seems silly to insist that it even exists, given that it is impossible. However, if in fact “objective knowledge” is possible, then we may now proceed to an incorporate this triperspectival approach –given that it coincides with the objective truth of our normative perspective.

Aaron,
When I have time, I’ll develop this more precisely. Perhaps part II will cover this, or I may simply post here again to give you a more detailed definition. Suffice to say, the issue against this form of objective knowledge is not an issue of objective knowledge itself (as in the description of Van Til, Bahnsen, and other reformed presuppositionalists), but of the enlightenment view of objective knowledge as a “purely objective” knowledge apart from the knower and his perspective. This was the great failure of enlightenment philosophy since it was ultimately a rejection of our creaturehood.

Let me also suggest if you have not read it yet that you may want to pick up “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God” by Dr. Frame. He also does a nice job of tackling Dr. Clark and his view of assensus and fiducia. It may be an interesting conversation if you get the time to read it as I think it will more thoroughly clarify many of our discussions and perhaps shed some light on our articulation of MP and its epistemology.

Aaron,
One last thought (I can’t resist!). Dr. Frame points out that on the first page of his Institutes, Calvin observed rightly that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of self are interrelated. It would be easy to assume that Calvin would teach that the knoweldge of God comes first. However, Calvin says instead that he doesn’t know which comes first. This is pretty perceptive and significant. Neither the knowledge of God nor the knowledge of self is possible without the knowledge of the other. This sounds like a flimsly cop-out, but think about it- the development or growth in one area is always accompanied by develpment and growth in the other. You cannot know yourself rightly until you see yourself as God’s image- though fallen, yet saved by His grace. Also, you cannot know God rightly unless you seek Him as you are- a image bearer, creature and servant, which is the only way to really know Him on His terms. These two kinds or types of knowledge come at the same time, and the order is imperceptible to the knower. They grow together and cannot be seperate in the life of the believer. This is due to the fact that each of us are creatures created by the Creator and made in His image. As a creature, all the information we receive about God- whether it is nature, Scripture, or whatever source, must come to us through our eyes, ears, minds, and brains, or in other words; they come to us through ourselves. To argue contrary to this would be to follow a “purely objective” knowledge, which is the exact opposite of what we should desire since as Dr. Frame points out, it would “presuppose a denial of our creaturehood and thus a denial of God and of all truth.”

No one here is denying the existence of subjective knowledge. Certainly there is an innate knowledge of God in every creature, but the question is “how we know” that this subjective knowledge is truth? Before such a subjective hopeful truth is confirmed to be faithful objective truth, one is left in an affectionless existential void of despair and hopelessness. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,…(See Titus 3:3-8). And yet not all truths are revealed as objectively as one would wish. While this may be what we want (contrary to Frames opinion), it was God’s sovereign pleasure to leave some of these truths a mystery. And so while we might not be able to go down to the county courthouse and see if our name is written in the Book of Life, we nevertheless have or at least may be given a hope that while subjective is nevertheless epistemological in nature and when accompanied by the promises of scripture may be certain and known. However, this God given hope of salvation through faith, our innate knowledge of God, and the laws written on our hearts, are all grounded in objective truths of scripture. Because of this, we can discuss them purely objectively. It is “pure subjective” knowledge that is in fact impossible to exist beyond the subject. All communicable knowledge is by nature purely objective, but this is not to say that all objective knowledge is actual objective truth.

Aaron,
I think you might be missing the point here. I’m certainly not arguing for a “purely subjective” knowledge, nor is that even close to what I posted. And I think you are failing to see that discussing objective truth and having confidence in its existence is different than claiming as creatures that we can discuss these truths in a “purely objective” fashion, while not taking into consideration our disposition, presuppositions, biases and temperament. I really am having a hard time understanding why that is not fairly clear. Also, to assume that this is an orthodox reformed position (of which you may not be claiming) would be to make a philosophical error since the reformers (I think even more so than their contemporary philosophers) had an appreciation and understanding of taking in objective truths through our subjective selves. To argue against or to diminish such anthropological descriptions is to do damage to our creaturely nature and assume something greater than what the bible does about our limitations.

Let me say as an aside, I like Clark, and I see his influence in your thinking in many of our discussions, but Clark is bent toward what I believe is an imbalanced view of knowledge and faith that seems to be more of a reaction to his concerns that there is any legitimacy (at least as it relates to the nature of both how we know, and how we exercise and experience faith) to such an existential, experiential, subjective, self. Part of the breakdown in communication that occurs with you or others is due in large part to our misunderstanding of what it means to be human and know. We position ourselves in one of our perspectives and attempt to interpret and posit truths through our particular and preferred position or perspective. Without understanding, welcoming, and accepting the importance of each perspective, we are left with a feeling of speaking a different language to one another. This does not mean we throw out discussions relating to epistemology from a normative or intellectual perspective, it means that we recognize that there are other characteristics of our human design that must be considered when discussing our chosen subjects. And these other characteristics play a major part in our development and understanding of our epistemological framework. Most times when having discussions with you, I feel as if you are towing the Clarkian party line. This may be an unfair statement, but it is what I’m thinking. I think Clark was brilliant, and I believe his work has blessed me and helped me to think through difficult philosophical and apologetic issues, but he isn’t the only thinker out there, and his views in a variety of discussions like these, are often not the majority view within the reformed camp. This certainly doesn’t mean that he is right or wrong, since that would be a logical fallacy, but you must ask the question as to whether or not you are getting a balanced and thorough perspective of differing presuppositional positions. I do still hold out the suggestion, and now I would call it a challenge, to read Dr. Frame more thoroughly. I would suggest reading it not with an assumed disagreement on the outset, but actually think through and process his works as if you were trying to better understand and become a student of all systems of presuppositional thought. You may even consider looking at Dr. Bob Morey’s doxological apologetic. I could give you a great paper to work through (though it is 300 pages, so some time is needed), and even consider working through Van Til and Bahnsen, which you may have already done.

Thanks for your thoughts.

One of the great qualities of Kaleo Church is that it is multi-perspectival. I do not mean this in the epistemological sense as you and Frame do. I mean it in the sense that it allows opinions to be heard. Maybe this is merely a quality of the internet and the 21st century, but I seemed also to be a quality of the early church. With out oppositional opinions (as my own which you call “towing the Clarkian party line”), we would be left with an unthinking helpless effeminate church. The men of our church must always be challenged to think for themselves. The church is guided by the elders, but it is led corporately by men that must be able to both think and act for themselves and their families. I own Van Til’s collection of works. Bahnsen I am less familiar with. Morey, you know I have enquired about upon Chris’s as well as your high regards. You also already know that I DO read Frame as well. Given the time, I would love to read all of these men’s works. However, if I am “towing the Clarkian line,” should we also not recognize that your great offense is because you (as well as Frame) are “towing the Van Tilian party line”? The fact that I point out that Frame can not produce a valid multi-perspectival epistemology without first accepting the necessity of univocal truth between the creator and his creation, is merely an attempt to point out the tendency of the student (Frame) to make the same errors as the teacher (Van Til). If this is towing, then tow I will. But this does not mean that because of this I reject all of Frames ideas. I think that “they do intersect in many of their thoughts,” and I would say that Dr. Robert Reymond performs most aptly at providing contrast to these intersections (see “The Nature of the Bible’s Assertions about God and our Resultant Knowledge of God” in his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith). But all of this aside, I would also like to note that Liberty Tobacco is having their “Home Front San Diego Smoke Out.” And for no other reason than to spite these wretched spirits that encouraged both the Southern Baptist’s resolutions on alcohol as well as these that encourage any divisions between you and I, I would like to invite you to join me for a smoke at Liberty followed by a home brew at my humble abode. I will see you tomorrow at the men’s breakfast.

God Bless, and
Good Night and Good Luck (A movie of a great battle between two men of contrasting ideas – highly recommended).

Now that, that I can get behind (in my multiperspectival way)!!!!!

I love you brother, and I really do enjoy our conversations. I think we have a great community of being able to talk about these things. Though I must admit, I wish they were more over a pint and a stogie as I think it would also breed a love for one another that the internet often fails to produce.

See you in the a.m.