Big respect to Reece for doing this. Lots of refusing to actually talk to each other happening in our corner of the reformed world, so this is such a breath of fresh air.
Mr. Reece is a very generous conversation partner. I kept expecting him to jump in to answer a question, but every time he let Stephen work through his own thoughts toward a better version of the question. Really great way to achieve clarity in a discussion
This was terrific! I’m glad Reece was able to pin down Wolfe with distinct categories. I’m not anti-Wolfe, but sometimes he is less clear than Reece is with his categories. Excellent dialogue! I would listen to 10 of these! Keep them coming. Respectful, clear, and dare I say, Christian. Thank you
@@juanjohn-charles3538 No. Reece genuinely seems great. But I find most popular theonomists right now to be incredibly arrogant in their own ignorance.
@@BavinckGuy When you say “the most popular theonomists,” who do you mean? I find that Wolfe’s followers tend to ignore the actual “founding fathers” of theonomy, such as Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. RJ Rushdoony, and pay attention rather to random “theonomists” that don’t actually represent the position accurately. It’s a form of strawman to ignore the best advocates of theonomy and focus on modernist liberals and then use them as representative of the theonomic position.
So awesome to see this dialogue and the issues actually discussed directly. This is what we’ve been needing. So grateful for David Reece actually engaging.
We must use a definition of knowledge that is closer to Paul's definition. In Romans 1:20, Paul seems to presuppose that true knowledge can exist while being divorced from special revelation. To put it in several different ways, - Pagans can "clearly perceive" invisible attributes. - Pagans can perceive invisible attributes by means of created things. - God has made created things plain to them, and therefore they can perceive invisible attributes. - Pagans could not plainly know or clearly perceive invisible attributes or eternal dynamics if the "things that have been made" could not be truly known. Great conversation on both sides. Fantastic guest.
You forgot something from Romans 1. First, that the unrighteous suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Second, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” This shows that unbelievers apart from regeneration are futile in their thinking and they suppress the truth they know in their hearts, and cannot do otherwise apart from regeneration.
I don't deny anything you said, It doesn't overrule the previous verses. A saving knowledge of God in particular is impossible without special revelation. The natural world speaks enough to damn, but not to save. We can truly know that we are damned by looking at the created things, but true belief in God comes by supernatural means.
@ But isn’t that knowledge that creation damns them suppressed in unrighteousness? I don’t know many pagans, if any at all, that ever acknowledge on their own that creation damns them. Yes, they know it in a sense in that they must know it to suppress it, so they cannot interpret creation properly without regeneration and special revelation in our fallen state.
@@trentcurtis7925 So if because of depravity, truth is suppressed in unrighteousness, the question then becomes, how can they be regenerate? And before that, why should they become regenerate?
@@TimeToFlush They are made regenerate by a supernatural act of God, nothing they do for themselves. In their total depravity, there is nothing they can do to choose God. God chooses them, and that is why they are regenerated, because of God’s free and unmerited choice in election. Regeneration is a supernatural miracle, not the product of any totally depraved human being’s work or imagination.
running commentary as I watch: 28:00 - Consider the common operation of the Holy Spirit on this point or John Owen’s idea of original “natural theology”. 34:34 apply the first mover principle. God’s action of revealing these truths is logically prior. 1:03:35 a good follow up discussion would simply be a tag teamed exposition of Romans 1-3. 1:16:55 “the way we interpret”- Augustine’s City of God and his response to the accusations of the heathens comes to mind here. 1:35:23 “what ought a nation to do” - the natural law as understood by a mind renewed by Christ is the only finally satisfying answer here. If you understand what Bavinck means by “The heteronomy of law and the autonomy of man are reconciled only by this theonomy,” then you’re well on your way to reconciling this part of the conversation. (From PoR, page 208). 1:41:15 Kuyper and Bavinck would have something to say about that. Maybe more than you’d want to read haha. 1:45:03 “presupposed lenses” there is no neutrality and Stephen’s desire for a more robust phenomenology of politics ultimately only will translate into God honoring directions if understood in light of their telos. 1:45:52 JH Bavinck’s conception of worldvision and worldview are helpful here. The 1st is the naive perception of the world, and the second is the broader and more robust conception of the world derived from integrating the analysis of the world Stephen sees as essential (which is correct). Think The Master and The Emissary in miniature with less neuroscience.
Reece seems too busy building a christian empire in Arizona to be spending time podcasting. Dude is a baller, owns a nice company and started his own investment fund etc.
OUTLINE 1. Introduction Overview of Stephen Wolfe and David Reece Purpose of the dialogue 2. Reece's Business Ventures (< 5 min) Description of Reece Fund Goals of creating Christian businesses 3. Epistemology Definition and importance of epistemology Different systems of thought regarding knowledge acquisition 4. The Role of Scripture Scripture as the basis for knowledge and morality The relationship between knowledge and civil power 5. Human Nature and Morality Discussion on man's inherent ability to discern right from wrong The impact of the Fall on human rationality and morality
This was fantastic. I look forward to the continuation of this discussion. As a mathematician, I have learned to dread worldview discussions since they invariably wish to put onto math a framework which really fits better with almost any other discipline. Perhaps math gives an example of objective reality which the fall has not corrupted. I mean, our ability to do math is corrupt sure. But, math is there to discover both for the lost and the elect. I would put forth that math is good. But, I am biased.
Summary The dialogue between Stephen Wolfe and David Reece, focuses on epistemology, the nature of knowledge, and the implications of Christian thought in various domains, including civil power and ethics. The discussion begins with a short introduction to Reece's business endeavors aimed at fostering a Christian economic culture. The conversation then quickly shifts to foundational philosophical questions about how knowledge is acquired, the role of Scripture in understanding reality, and the moral implications of human actions. Reece emphasizes that true knowledge is rooted in divine revelation and logical coherence, while Wolfe challenges this view by exploring the internal moral principles that guide human behavior. Throughout the dialogue, both speakers navigate complex theological and philosophical concepts, ultimately advocating for a worldview that aligns with Christian doctrine.
Multiple-Choice Questions 1. What area of study is primarily discussed in the dialogue? o A) Metaphysics o B) Epistemology o C) Ethics o D) Aesthetics 2. According to the dialogue, what does scripture provide regarding the nature of war? o A) Specific predictions about future wars o B) General principles of sin and motivation o C) Detailed historical accounts of all wars o D) A comprehensive political theory 3. What do Wolf and Reese suggest is necessary for understanding the complexities of modern conflicts? o A) A strict adherence to scripture o B) Empirical analysis o C) Philosophical reasoning alone o D) Historical narratives only 4. Which philosopher's argument is referenced in the discussion about human sentiments and moral principles? o A) Immanuel Kant o B) Friedrich Nietzsche o C) David Hume o D) John Locke 5. What is one of the key limitations of scripture mentioned in the dialogue? o A) It is too complex to understand o B) It does not provide a clear moral framework o C) It cannot predict specific future events o D) It is irrelevant to modern society Answer 1: B) Epistemology Answer 2: B) General principles of sin and motivation Answer 3: B) Empirical analysis Answer 4: C) David Hume Answer 5: C) It cannot predict specific future events
Reece’s concept of epistemology is completely correct. Just look at ancient cultures. They discovered a wheel rolls by accident. It was only western Christian’s, beginning with the assumption that God was Rational and Understandable that we got all modern conveniences.
We were made for the world and the world was made for us. God stuffed our brain with stuff seldom used. I remember my amazement when I watched our first child know exactly what to do and exactly where to find her first meal (similarly with Adam no doubt when he got hungry). How many other things will follow like that with my child I thought? Will I hinder or help her along the way? Karen Wynn conducted a famous experiment showing that babies as young as 5 months old can perform basic addition and subtraction. Setup: Babies were shown a small stage where one doll was placed, then a screen was raised to hide the doll. Another doll was visibly added behind the screen, and the screen was then lowered. In some cases, the screen revealed two dolls (expected outcome), while in others it revealed only one doll or three dolls (unexpected outcomes). Results: Babies stared longer at the unexpected outcomes, suggesting they understood something was numerically "off." This indicated they could mentally compute "1 + 1 = 2." I came across a video on UA-cam called "Building a Cathedral without Science or Mathematics." It got me thinking about what might happen if you could clear your mind of all the lessons drilled into you, the ones that sometimes get in the way of the work your heart and hands want to do. I’m not talking about personal beliefs or feelings getting in the way, but the hard rules of logic and mathematics-the kind of knowledge you thought you would take the time to learn to help you. It makes you wonder all the more what God gave us in this mind of ours.
Job 33:14-29 (KJV) For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword. He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out. Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth: He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness. He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man, alkitab.app/v/e20001ba848d
Interesting. What prophet of divine revelation instructed or guided or influenced the tales of the men that fill the pages of Job? Did all this knowledge this book contains come from general revelation?
What might Reece and Wolfe say God's reasons would be for choosing a pagan Roman Empire rather than the nation of Israel as the time and place for revealing His greatest message to man in Christianity? Which of the two pathways is most likely to lead to those conditions again?
1:57:20 "The discussion comes down to the role of Scripture in the evaluation process and how sufficient is it." Here is one testimony from a king of a nation for what it is worth: Psalms 119:99-100 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts. Here is another from an Apostle of a Church: 2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Which came first, facts or logic? 1:55:30 "I’m just saying we have certain tests that we should apply, and from that, we can know what’s right and what’s wrong. I think we need Scripture to understand the goal and the means that we should apply." One of the first things God did to the mob of people He took out of Egypt to form into their own nation was to give them a history lesson and not a math lesson. A nation in formation requires a clear, unified understanding of its origins and identity, providing a foundation for collective purpose. Confuse people about where they come from and you can weaken their nation to the forces of evil to overtake it. A defined narrative fosters stability and mutual understanding among the people. It makes leadership possible. (No one can lead a multi-cultural society that has 7 religions and 7 sets of core values and 7 stories of origins.) Whatever young Israel may have heard about themselves through oral tradition or elsewhere, God now sought to codify into something they could know with certainty and pass on to each succeeding generation. After this, the need for logic would follow. And note this, God wasn't your common, ordinary, everyday, boring history professor. He had His ways of making His statements stick. Deut 4:33-34 "Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived? 34 "Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
One more thing regarding certainty of truth: Gödel's first incompleteness theorem tells us that there are unprovable truths. It's wrong to equate provability with truth. Requiring a "chain of reasoning" is reasonable in one sense, but you need to prove that we never actually believe unprovable truths in practice.
I did not know what you meant, so I checked it out. This is interesting. The founders appealed to self-evident truths in the their Declaration of Independence. There is a big need for that in any political movement. I will leave what I found to help others think about this. *1. Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem:* This theorem, formulated by mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1931, states that in any consistent formal system that is capable of expressing basic arithmetic, there are statements (truths) that cannot be proven within that system. In other words, there are true mathematical statements that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. This implies that no formal system can be both complete (able to prove every truth) and consistent (free of contradictions). *2. Truth vs. Provability:* The distinction between truth and provability is crucial. Truth refers to the actual state of affairs or the correctness of a statement, while provability refers to the ability to derive that statement from a set of axioms or rules within a formal system. Gödel's theorem shows that there are truths that are not provable, meaning that just because something cannot be proven within a system does not mean it is not true. *3. Chain of Reasoning:* The idea of requiring a "chain of reasoning" suggests that to establish knowledge or belief in a truth, one should be able to provide a logical justification or proof. This is a common approach in philosophy and mathematics, where logical coherence and justification are valued. However, Gödel's theorem challenges this notion by indicating that there are truths that exist outside of any such chain of reasoning within a formal system. *4. Unprovable Truths in Practice:* The statement raises an important point about the nature of belief and knowledge. It suggests that while we may require proofs or reasoning to justify our beliefs, in practice, humans often accept certain truths that cannot be formally proven. For example, many people hold beliefs about moral truths, existential questions, or even certain mathematical truths that they accept intuitively or through experience, rather than through formal proof. *5. Conclusion:* The challenge posed by the statement is to recognize that while a rigorous chain of reasoning is valuable for establishing knowledge, it does not encompass the entirety of what we consider to be true. It invites a deeper exploration of how we come to believe in truths that may be unprovable and encourages an understanding that our beliefs can be informed by intuition, experience, and other forms of reasoning that do not fit neatly into formal systems. In summary, the statement emphasizes the complexity of truth and belief, highlighting that not all truths can be captured by formal proofs, and that human belief often extends beyond what can be formally justified.
Reece started off weak but finished strong. not that you guys were competing. I think there's still a language barrier going on concerning this issue. I don't think Stephen is understanding how revelation takes place in gaining knowledge, that is, that it's not just a matter of reading scripture
What were the Biblical writers approach to such subjects as history, political systems, and ideologies? The Biblical writers, operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not explicitly employ empirical analysis as it is understood in modern political science. However, they did incorporate an understanding of historical contexts, political systems, and cultural ideologies into their writings, weaving these elements into the broader narrative of God's relationship with humanity. One clear example can be found in the Old Testament, particularly in the books of 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles. These books provide a historical account of the kings of Israel and Judah, intertwining the spiritual condition of the nation with its political leadership. The writers evaluate the reigns of various kings based on their adherence to God's commandments and their influence on the nation's religious and moral life. This approach demonstrates an understanding of how political leadership and national policies impact the spiritual well-being of a society. The same could be said about the book of Genesis and Exodus as much as these books contain the history of man prior to the Exodus. On Israel's march to The Promise Land, not only do we have the giving of the God's Law, but also the giving of their history. Another example is the Book of Daniel, which is set against the backdrop of Babylonian and Persian empires. Daniel, a Jewish exile in Babylon, serves in the courts of foreign kings and interprets their dreams, offering insights into the rise and fall of empires. The book includes detailed historical references and reflects an understanding of the political dynamics of the time. Daniel's prophecies also reveal a recognition of how God's sovereignty operates through the events of history and the actions of world leaders. In the Book of Amos, a farmer, someone rooted in the soil and seasons, steps into a role far beyond his station. He was a plain, hardworking man, not schooled in prophecy or trained in the ways of religion. He was called to unearth the truth. In the first two chapters, he points to the nations around him. He brings into focus their history, their mistakes (sin), and their judgment. He asks his people to look and learn. It’s rather simple, but it matters. In the New Testament, the Gospel writers and Paul, in his epistles, display an awareness of the Roman Empire's political and social context. Jesus' teachings often touched on themes relevant to the political climate of his day, such as taxation, justice, and the relationship between spiritual and earthly authority (e.g., "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's," Mark 12:17). While the Biblical writers did not systematically examine historical and contemporary events in the same way as modern political scientists, their writings do reflect an understanding of the political, social, and cultural contexts of their time. They balanced the eternal truths of God's Word with an awareness of the world around them, providing insights that remain relevant for understanding the relationship between faith and politics.
Just curious if anyone happens to be familiar enough with each person’s position… Does either Stephen or David align more closely with Herman Bavinck’s position on epistemology? In particular, I’m currently working through Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, and a good bit of what was said here reminded me of chapter 7 from volume 1 (the chapter on Scientific Foundations). It seemed to me like some parts of the discussion argued for a similar position to Bavinck’s, but honestly a lot of this still goes above my head. I’m just a normal layman trying to better understand God’s Word and the reformed tradition, so I don’t have any formal training in this and my career has no direct tie to any of these topics. Any helpful insights would be appreciated!
I believe Richard Muller or another writer has an article called Herman Bavinck’s Thomistic Epistemology from years ago, it may be a good starting place. He may have more in common with some of what Wolfe has claimed
Simon Kennedy talks about Bavinck's epistemology in Against Worldview. His explanation amounts to basically Thomas Reid's view, though Kennedy does not mention Reid.
1:49:00 The milk and meat of it: the will? The problem described in **Hebrews 5:11-14**, where individuals fail to grow in spiritual maturity and remain dependent on basic principles, has its political parallel in a lack of progress and discernment within governance and civic life. This issue can be seen as **arrested political development**, where both leaders and citizens fail to engage deeply with the foundational principles and complex realities necessary for effective governance. -------- *Hebrews 5:11-14 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.* -------- How do milk and meat relate to epistemology? In the **American government**, this parallel to Hebrews 5 can manifest in several ways: 1. **Policy Short-Sightedness:** Leaders and institutions often address problems with simplistic, short-term fixes ("milk") rather than confronting systemic, long-term challenges ("solid food"). For example, continually raising the debt ceiling without addressing root causes like fiscal responsibility reflects an inability to engage with the deeper complexities of economic stewardship. 2. **Civic Education Deficiency:** A widespread lack of understanding of constitutional principles, civic responsibilities, and historical context among both lawmakers and the public mirrors the spiritual issue of needing to relearn "elementary principles." This deficiency weakens meaningful participation in democracy and hinders the ability to make informed decisions. 3. **Polarization and Reactionary Governance:** Just as spiritual infants fail to discern good from evil, political immaturity can be seen in the polarization of discourse, where debates devolve into partisan conflicts rather than constructive dialogue aimed at the common good. The inability to engage in balanced, nuanced decision-making stymies progress. 4. **Over-Reliance on Established Systems:** Like relying on milk rather than transitioning to solid food, the government can become stuck in outdated systems or superficial fixes, avoiding meaningful reform because it requires effort and maturity. Examples include deferred infrastructure upgrades or insufficient investment in education and innovation. This failure parallels physical-world issues like stunted growth or lack of skill development, where an unwillingness to practice discipline and engage with complexity prevents maturity. The solution lies in fostering **political maturity and discernment**, both among leaders and the electorate. This requires disciplined study of foundational principles, thoughtful engagement with diverse perspectives, and sustained effort to address complex challenges. Just as spiritual maturity is achieved through practice and training, a healthy democracy requires citizens and leaders to grow in their ability to discern what is best for the long-term common good. *But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor. ~ Noah Webster*
I wish Reece asked Wolfe how he knows that government regulation and ownership of oceans and lakes is good, for example. This would concretize the conversation. There is no indication of such a thing in Scripture (the general equity of God’s law), but Wolfe holds to it. This would press him to suggest some external authority (experience, reason etc.) to justify it, which is effectively adding to God’s law in the name of autonomous ideas.
There is no indication in scripture of any other punishment for disobedient children other than be@ting with the rod of correction. Any other punitive discipline for misbehavior (chores, time out, loss of privileges, grounding etc.) is adding to God's law with autonomous ideas and therefore sin. Respectfully, do you see how foolish this type of 'theonomic' logic is?
@@trentcurtis7925 The same way you do, when you make a thousand decisions every day based on the same observation and experience. You already do this in your daily life all the time, but you just don't want to use it to make law
@@smhbbag1 I know my reasoning with relation to certain actions is right insofar as it is in within the bounds of Scripture, and government ownership of lakes and oceans is not within the bounds of scripture, so it is not correct. The basic principles for such a law are not present anywhere in the Bible. So I’ll ask again, tell me how you know that laws for government ownership of lakes and oceans is right or just.
How do we know that Adam had the "10 commandments" written on his heart in his innocent state? I don't see that found anywhere in scripture. This just feels like using our imaginations to build a foundation of anthropology
The 10 Commandments are where the moral law is "Summarily comprehended". They are a summary of God's own eternal moral law/moral character. Man was created after God's own image in Knowledge, Righteousness, and Holiness, with dominion over the creatures (WSC 10). It logically follows that Adam had complete knowledge of this moral law in his state of innocence, despite it not having been formally revealed in scripture yet at Mount Sinai.
David Reece's problem is he's taking Bahnsen's arguments against atheists, and generalizing it to everyone. It only works against materialists. Unbelievers of other kinds came come up with a rational system for why logic exists.
@@SamuraiEAC I posted unlimited examples in the original comment. Read it 10 more times until you understand it. And then listen to the Bahnsen/Stein debate again and meditate on why he says "the impossibility of the contrary."
@@SamuraiEAC You questions are bad faith. You didn't even read my original comment before replying. Stop wasting my time. Be quick to hear slow to speak.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
Big respect to Reece for doing this. Lots of refusing to actually talk to each other happening in our corner of the reformed world, so this is such a breath of fresh air.
Yes more of this pls
What an excellent discussion. Pure substance, no fluff. The Lone Bulwark is getting better and better.
Mr. Reece is a very generous conversation partner. I kept expecting him to jump in to answer a question, but every time he let Stephen work through his own thoughts toward a better version of the question. Really great way to achieve clarity in a discussion
I’m happy, and we the church are, and will be blessed with talks like this. Thanks bro’s!
This is my new favorite podcast
It's the future 🎉
This was terrific! I’m glad Reece was able to pin down Wolfe with distinct categories. I’m not anti-Wolfe, but sometimes he is less clear than Reece is with his categories. Excellent dialogue! I would listen to 10 of these! Keep them coming. Respectful, clear, and dare I say, Christian. Thank you
Have you been following Pastor Reece for a while? Have you listned to his sermons?
I’m really looking forward to this. I have a lot of respect for David Recce.
What an awesome discussion with two great men and thinkers. we need more of this
"Are you ready to stop recording? Yes!"
Well, I for one, was not ready for you to stop recording... ha!
Looking forward to the next one!😊
Reece seems like one of the few Theonomist who aren't insufferable
Backhanded compliment
@@juanjohn-charles3538 No. Reece genuinely seems great. But I find most popular theonomists right now to be incredibly arrogant in their own ignorance.
@@BavinckGuy When you say “the most popular theonomists,” who do you mean? I find that Wolfe’s followers tend to ignore the actual “founding fathers” of theonomy, such as Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. RJ Rushdoony, and pay attention rather to random “theonomists” that don’t actually represent the position accurately. It’s a form of strawman to ignore the best advocates of theonomy and focus on modernist liberals and then use them as representative of the theonomic position.
@@trentcurtis7925 I'm referring to modern Theonomists like Durbin, Boot, White, Wilson, Sandlin, Bahsen Jr., etc.
@@BavinckGuy And in what way are they insufferable?
So awesome to see this dialogue and the issues actually discussed directly. This is what we’ve been needing. So grateful for David Reece actually engaging.
We must use a definition of knowledge that is closer to Paul's definition.
In Romans 1:20, Paul seems to presuppose that true knowledge can exist while being divorced from special revelation. To put it in several different ways,
- Pagans can "clearly perceive" invisible attributes.
- Pagans can perceive invisible attributes by means of created things.
- God has made created things plain to them, and therefore they can perceive invisible attributes.
- Pagans could not plainly know or clearly perceive invisible attributes or eternal dynamics if the "things that have been made" could not be truly known.
Great conversation on both sides. Fantastic guest.
You forgot something from Romans 1. First, that the unrighteous suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Second, “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
This shows that unbelievers apart from regeneration are futile in their thinking and they suppress the truth they know in their hearts, and cannot do otherwise apart from regeneration.
I don't deny anything you said, It doesn't overrule the previous verses. A saving knowledge of God in particular is impossible without special revelation. The natural world speaks enough to damn, but not to save. We can truly know that we are damned by looking at the created things, but true belief in God comes by supernatural means.
@ But isn’t that knowledge that creation damns them suppressed in unrighteousness? I don’t know many pagans, if any at all, that ever acknowledge on their own that creation damns them. Yes, they know it in a sense in that they must know it to suppress it, so they cannot interpret creation properly without regeneration and special revelation in our fallen state.
@@trentcurtis7925 So if because of depravity, truth is suppressed in unrighteousness, the question then becomes, how can they be regenerate? And before that, why should they become regenerate?
@@TimeToFlush They are made regenerate by a supernatural act of God, nothing they do for themselves. In their total depravity, there is nothing they can do to choose God. God chooses them, and that is why they are regenerated, because of God’s free and unmerited choice in election. Regeneration is a supernatural miracle, not the product of any totally depraved human being’s work or imagination.
running commentary as I watch:
28:00 - Consider the common operation of the Holy Spirit on this point or John Owen’s idea of original “natural theology”.
34:34 apply the first mover principle. God’s action of revealing these truths is logically prior.
1:03:35 a good follow up discussion would simply be a tag teamed exposition of Romans 1-3.
1:16:55 “the way we interpret”- Augustine’s City of God and his response to the accusations of the heathens comes to mind here.
1:35:23 “what ought a nation to do” - the natural law as understood by a mind renewed by Christ is the only finally satisfying answer here. If you understand what Bavinck means by “The heteronomy of law and the autonomy of man are reconciled only by this theonomy,” then you’re well on your way to reconciling this part of the conversation. (From PoR, page 208).
1:41:15 Kuyper and Bavinck would have something to say about that. Maybe more than you’d want to read haha.
1:45:03 “presupposed lenses” there is no neutrality and Stephen’s desire for a more robust phenomenology of politics ultimately only will translate into God honoring directions if understood in light of their telos.
1:45:52 JH Bavinck’s conception of worldvision and worldview are helpful here. The 1st is the naive perception of the world, and the second is the broader and more robust conception of the world derived from integrating the analysis of the world Stephen sees as essential (which is correct). Think The Master and The Emissary in miniature with less neuroscience.
Pastor Reece, please start a podcast. Would love to hear every voice who advocates for a new Christendom run through this exercise.
Reece seems too busy building a christian empire in Arizona to be spending time podcasting. Dude is a baller, owns a nice company and started his own investment fund etc.
24:03 David Reece- "We don't actually arrive at presuppositions by our experience." A very important point made here.
that introl gets me every time.
OUTLINE
1. Introduction
Overview of Stephen Wolfe and David Reece
Purpose of the dialogue
2. Reece's Business Ventures (< 5 min)
Description of Reece Fund
Goals of creating Christian businesses
3. Epistemology
Definition and importance of epistemology
Different systems of thought regarding knowledge acquisition
4. The Role of Scripture
Scripture as the basis for knowledge and morality
The relationship between knowledge and civil power
5. Human Nature and Morality
Discussion on man's inherent ability to discern right from wrong
The impact of the Fall on human rationality and morality
Maybe Wolfe has already done this, however, it might help him to read more of Gordon H. Clark towards obtaining a better grasp of Reece's thought.
Subscribed! Keep up the good content Dr. Wolfe! David Reece is a good brother.
This was fantastic. I look forward to the continuation of this discussion. As a mathematician, I have learned to dread worldview discussions since they invariably wish to put onto math a framework which really fits better with almost any other discipline. Perhaps math gives an example of objective reality which the fall has not corrupted. I mean, our ability to do math is corrupt sure. But, math is there to discover both for the lost and the elect. I would put forth that math is good. But, I am biased.
Summary
The dialogue between Stephen Wolfe and David Reece, focuses on epistemology, the nature of knowledge, and the implications of Christian thought in various domains, including civil power and ethics. The discussion begins with a short introduction to Reece's business endeavors aimed at fostering a Christian economic culture. The conversation then quickly shifts to foundational philosophical questions about how knowledge is acquired, the role of Scripture in understanding reality, and the moral implications of human actions. Reece emphasizes that true knowledge is rooted in divine revelation and logical coherence, while Wolfe challenges this view by exploring the internal moral principles that guide human behavior. Throughout the dialogue, both speakers navigate complex theological and philosophical concepts, ultimately advocating for a worldview that aligns with Christian doctrine.
I wish I wasn’t so dumb so I could get more out of these discussions.
Thanks, guys!! Do it again!!!
Multiple-Choice Questions
1. What area of study is primarily discussed in the dialogue?
o A) Metaphysics
o B) Epistemology
o C) Ethics
o D) Aesthetics
2. According to the dialogue, what does scripture provide regarding the nature of war?
o A) Specific predictions about future wars
o B) General principles of sin and motivation
o C) Detailed historical accounts of all wars
o D) A comprehensive political theory
3. What do Wolf and Reese suggest is necessary for understanding the complexities of modern conflicts?
o A) A strict adherence to scripture
o B) Empirical analysis
o C) Philosophical reasoning alone
o D) Historical narratives only
4. Which philosopher's argument is referenced in the discussion about human sentiments and moral principles?
o A) Immanuel Kant
o B) Friedrich Nietzsche
o C) David Hume
o D) John Locke
5. What is one of the key limitations of scripture mentioned in the dialogue?
o A) It is too complex to understand
o B) It does not provide a clear moral framework
o C) It cannot predict specific future events
o D) It is irrelevant to modern society
Answer 1: B) Epistemology
Answer 2: B) General principles of sin and motivation
Answer 3: B) Empirical analysis
Answer 4: C) David Hume
Answer 5: C) It cannot predict specific future events
Haven’t even listened yet, but please make more content like this. This is helpful. Really happy to see this.
Would love to see more dialogue like this in the Reformed world.
Props to David for doing this. Good convo.
This was a good convo!
I would ask how David deals with Chokma being used to describe the skill with which the artisans built the temple in the OT?
Good discussion. I had a bit of trouble following David at times, which I think was due to some novel or technical definitions.
Reece’s concept of epistemology is completely correct. Just look at ancient cultures. They discovered a wheel rolls by accident. It was only western Christian’s, beginning with the assumption that God was Rational and Understandable that we got all modern conveniences.
We were made for the world and the world was made for us. God stuffed our brain with stuff seldom used. I remember my amazement when I watched our first child know exactly what to do and exactly where to find her first meal (similarly with Adam no doubt when he got hungry). How many other things will follow like that with my child I thought? Will I hinder or help her along the way?
Karen Wynn conducted a famous experiment showing that babies as young as 5 months old can perform basic addition and subtraction.
Setup:
Babies were shown a small stage where one doll was placed, then a screen was raised to hide the doll. Another doll was visibly added behind the screen, and the screen was then lowered. In some cases, the screen revealed two dolls (expected outcome), while in others it revealed only one doll or three dolls (unexpected outcomes).
Results:
Babies stared longer at the unexpected outcomes, suggesting they understood something was numerically "off."
This indicated they could mentally compute "1 + 1 = 2."
I came across a video on UA-cam called "Building a Cathedral without Science or Mathematics." It got me thinking about what might happen if you could clear your mind of all the lessons drilled into you, the ones that sometimes get in the way of the work your heart and hands want to do. I’m not talking about personal beliefs or feelings getting in the way, but the hard rules of logic and mathematics-the kind of knowledge you thought you would take the time to learn to help you. It makes you wonder all the more what God gave us in this mind of ours.
I think it would have helped to agree that there is only one moral law. Natural law is the moral expressed in the Ten commandments.
Are you born with built-in categories for 1960s and 70s Ford Mustangs?
Please have more of this.
Job 33:14-29 (KJV) For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;
Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,
That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.
He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.
He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:
So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.
His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.
Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers.
If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness:
Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.
His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:
He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.
He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.
Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man,
alkitab.app/v/e20001ba848d
Interesting. What prophet of divine revelation instructed or guided or influenced the tales of the men that fill the pages of Job? Did all this knowledge this book contains come from general revelation?
I feel there were a lot of misconceptions on the part of Wolfe cleared up in this conversation
What might Reece and Wolfe say God's reasons would be for choosing a pagan Roman Empire rather than the nation of Israel as the time and place for revealing His greatest message to man in Christianity? Which of the two pathways is most likely to lead to those conditions again?
1:57:20 "The discussion comes down to the role of Scripture in the evaluation process and how sufficient is it."
Here is one testimony from a king of a nation for what it is worth:
Psalms 119:99-100 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts.
Here is another from an Apostle of a Church:
2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality as perceived by God.-R.C. Sproul. Nice and short.
Which came first, facts or logic?
1:55:30 "I’m just saying we have certain tests that we should apply, and from that, we can know what’s right and what’s wrong. I think we need Scripture to understand the goal and the means that we should apply."
One of the first things God did to the mob of people He took out of Egypt to form into their own nation was to give them a history lesson and not a math lesson.
A nation in formation requires a clear, unified understanding of its origins and identity, providing a foundation for collective purpose. Confuse people about where they come from and you can weaken their nation to the forces of evil to overtake it. A defined narrative fosters stability and mutual understanding among the people. It makes leadership possible. (No one can lead a multi-cultural society that has 7 religions and 7 sets of core values and 7 stories of origins.)
Whatever young Israel may have heard about themselves through oral tradition or elsewhere, God now sought to codify into something they could know with certainty and pass on to each succeeding generation. After this, the need for logic would follow.
And note this, God wasn't your common, ordinary, everyday, boring history professor. He had His ways of making His statements stick.
Deut 4:33-34 "Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived? 34 "Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
One more thing regarding certainty of truth: Gödel's first incompleteness theorem tells us that there are unprovable truths. It's wrong to equate provability with truth. Requiring a "chain of reasoning" is reasonable in one sense, but you need to prove that we never actually believe unprovable truths in practice.
I did not know what you meant, so I checked it out. This is interesting. The founders appealed to self-evident truths in the their Declaration of Independence. There is a big need for that in any political movement. I will leave what I found to help others think about this.
*1. Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem:* This theorem, formulated by mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1931, states that in any consistent formal system that is capable of expressing basic arithmetic, there are statements (truths) that cannot be proven within that system. In other words, there are true mathematical statements that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. This implies that no formal system can be both complete (able to prove every truth) and consistent (free of contradictions).
*2. Truth vs. Provability:* The distinction between truth and provability is crucial. Truth refers to the actual state of affairs or the correctness of a statement, while provability refers to the ability to derive that statement from a set of axioms or rules within a formal system. Gödel's theorem shows that there are truths that are not provable, meaning that just because something cannot be proven within a system does not mean it is not true.
*3. Chain of Reasoning:* The idea of requiring a "chain of reasoning" suggests that to establish knowledge or belief in a truth, one should be able to provide a logical justification or proof. This is a common approach in philosophy and mathematics, where logical coherence and justification are valued. However, Gödel's theorem challenges this notion by indicating that there are truths that exist outside of any such chain of reasoning within a formal system.
*4. Unprovable Truths in Practice:* The statement raises an important point about the nature of belief and knowledge. It suggests that while we may require proofs or reasoning to justify our beliefs, in practice, humans often accept certain truths that cannot be formally proven. For example, many people hold beliefs about moral truths, existential questions, or even certain mathematical truths that they accept intuitively or through experience, rather than through formal proof.
*5. Conclusion:* The challenge posed by the statement is to recognize that while a rigorous chain of reasoning is valuable for establishing knowledge, it does not encompass the entirety of what we consider to be true. It invites a deeper exploration of how we come to believe in truths that may be unprovable and encourages an understanding that our beliefs can be informed by intuition, experience, and other forms of reasoning that do not fit neatly into formal systems.
In summary, the statement emphasizes the complexity of truth and belief, highlighting that not all truths can be captured by formal proofs, and that human belief often extends beyond what can be formally justified.
Reece started off weak but finished strong. not that you guys were competing. I think there's still a language barrier going on concerning this issue. I don't think Stephen is understanding how revelation takes place in gaining knowledge, that is, that it's not just a matter of reading scripture
worldview is just a set of presuppositions. everyone has one, regardless how how distasteful that might be
If men can suppress the truth in unrighteousness, wouldn't that assume that men have some truth outside of righteousness to suppress?
Very nice. And, it's Biblical so it can't be discarded without thought.
What were the Biblical writers approach to such subjects as history, political systems, and ideologies?
The Biblical writers, operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not explicitly employ empirical analysis as it is understood in modern political science. However, they did incorporate an understanding of historical contexts, political systems, and cultural ideologies into their writings, weaving these elements into the broader narrative of God's relationship with humanity.
One clear example can be found in the Old Testament, particularly in the books of 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles. These books provide a historical account of the kings of Israel and Judah, intertwining the spiritual condition of the nation with its political leadership. The writers evaluate the reigns of various kings based on their adherence to God's commandments and their influence on the nation's religious and moral life. This approach demonstrates an understanding of how political leadership and national policies impact the spiritual well-being of a society.
The same could be said about the book of Genesis and Exodus as much as these books contain the history of man prior to the Exodus. On Israel's march to The Promise Land, not only do we have the giving of the God's Law, but also the giving of their history.
Another example is the Book of Daniel, which is set against the backdrop of Babylonian and Persian empires. Daniel, a Jewish exile in Babylon, serves in the courts of foreign kings and interprets their dreams, offering insights into the rise and fall of empires. The book includes detailed historical references and reflects an understanding of the political dynamics of the time. Daniel's prophecies also reveal a recognition of how God's sovereignty operates through the events of history and the actions of world leaders.
In the Book of Amos, a farmer, someone rooted in the soil and seasons, steps into a role far beyond his station. He was a plain, hardworking man, not schooled in prophecy or trained in the ways of religion. He was called to unearth the truth. In the first two chapters, he points to the nations around him. He brings into focus their history, their mistakes (sin), and their judgment. He asks his people to look and learn. It’s rather simple, but it matters.
In the New Testament, the Gospel writers and Paul, in his epistles, display an awareness of the Roman Empire's political and social context. Jesus' teachings often touched on themes relevant to the political climate of his day, such as taxation, justice, and the relationship between spiritual and earthly authority (e.g., "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's," Mark 12:17).
While the Biblical writers did not systematically examine historical and contemporary events in the same way as modern political scientists, their writings do reflect an understanding of the political, social, and cultural contexts of their time. They balanced the eternal truths of God's Word with an awareness of the world around them, providing insights that remain relevant for understanding the relationship between faith and politics.
Just curious if anyone happens to be familiar enough with each person’s position… Does either Stephen or David align more closely with Herman Bavinck’s position on epistemology?
In particular, I’m currently working through Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, and a good bit of what was said here reminded me of chapter 7 from volume 1 (the chapter on Scientific Foundations). It seemed to me like some parts of the discussion argued for a similar position to Bavinck’s, but honestly a lot of this still goes above my head. I’m just a normal layman trying to better understand God’s Word and the reformed tradition, so I don’t have any formal training in this and my career has no direct tie to any of these topics. Any helpful insights would be appreciated!
I believe Richard Muller or another writer has an article called Herman Bavinck’s Thomistic Epistemology from years ago, it may be a good starting place. He may have more in common with some of what Wolfe has claimed
@ I’ll look into that. Thanks for the response, sir.
Simon Kennedy talks about Bavinck's epistemology in Against Worldview. His explanation amounts to basically Thomas Reid's view, though Kennedy does not mention Reid.
1:49:00 The milk and meat of it: the will?
The problem described in **Hebrews 5:11-14**, where individuals fail to grow in spiritual maturity and remain dependent on basic principles, has its political parallel in a lack of progress and discernment within governance and civic life. This issue can be seen as **arrested political development**, where both leaders and citizens fail to engage deeply with the foundational principles and complex realities necessary for effective governance.
--------
*Hebrews 5:11-14 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.*
--------
How do milk and meat relate to epistemology?
In the **American government**, this parallel to Hebrews 5 can manifest in several ways:
1. **Policy Short-Sightedness:**
Leaders and institutions often address problems with simplistic, short-term fixes ("milk") rather than confronting systemic, long-term challenges ("solid food"). For example, continually raising the debt ceiling without addressing root causes like fiscal responsibility reflects an inability to engage with the deeper complexities of economic stewardship.
2. **Civic Education Deficiency:**
A widespread lack of understanding of constitutional principles, civic responsibilities, and historical context among both lawmakers and the public mirrors the spiritual issue of needing to relearn "elementary principles." This deficiency weakens meaningful participation in democracy and hinders the ability to make informed decisions.
3. **Polarization and Reactionary Governance:**
Just as spiritual infants fail to discern good from evil, political immaturity can be seen in the polarization of discourse, where debates devolve into partisan conflicts rather than constructive dialogue aimed at the common good. The inability to engage in balanced, nuanced decision-making stymies progress.
4. **Over-Reliance on Established Systems:**
Like relying on milk rather than transitioning to solid food, the government can become stuck in outdated systems or superficial fixes, avoiding meaningful reform because it requires effort and maturity. Examples include deferred infrastructure upgrades or insufficient investment in education and innovation.
This failure parallels physical-world issues like stunted growth or lack of skill development, where an unwillingness to practice discipline and engage with complexity prevents maturity.
The solution lies in fostering **political maturity and discernment**, both among leaders and the electorate. This requires disciplined study of foundational principles, thoughtful engagement with diverse perspectives, and sustained effort to address complex challenges. Just as spiritual maturity is achieved through practice and training, a healthy democracy requires citizens and leaders to grow in their ability to discern what is best for the long-term common good.
*But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor. ~ Noah Webster*
MORE!
Such a boomer moment at the end. 😂
👀
I wish Reece asked Wolfe how he knows that government regulation and ownership of oceans and lakes is good, for example. This would concretize the conversation. There is no indication of such a thing in Scripture (the general equity of God’s law), but Wolfe holds to it. This would press him to suggest some external authority (experience, reason etc.) to justify it, which is effectively adding to God’s law in the name of autonomous ideas.
Experience and observation are perfectly valid reasons to make law, lol
There is no indication in scripture of any other punishment for disobedient children other than be@ting with the rod of correction. Any other punitive discipline for misbehavior (chores, time out, loss of privileges, grounding etc.) is adding to God's law with autonomous ideas and therefore sin. Respectfully, do you see how foolish this type of 'theonomic' logic is?
@@smhbbag1 How do you know your reason and experience are correct?
@@trentcurtis7925 The same way you do, when you make a thousand decisions every day based on the same observation and experience.
You already do this in your daily life all the time, but you just don't want to use it to make law
@@smhbbag1 I know my reasoning with relation to certain actions is right insofar as it is in within the bounds of Scripture, and government ownership of lakes and oceans is not within the bounds of scripture, so it is not correct. The basic principles for such a law are not present anywhere in the Bible. So I’ll ask again, tell me how you know that laws for government ownership of lakes and oceans is right or just.
How do we know that Adam had the "10 commandments" written on his heart in his innocent state? I don't see that found anywhere in scripture. This just feels like using our imaginations to build a foundation of anthropology
The 10 Commandments are where the moral law is "Summarily comprehended". They are a summary of God's own eternal moral law/moral character. Man was created after God's own image in Knowledge, Righteousness, and Holiness, with dominion over the creatures (WSC 10). It logically follows that Adam had complete knowledge of this moral law in his state of innocence, despite it not having been formally revealed in scripture yet at Mount Sinai.
David Reece's problem is he's taking Bahnsen's arguments against atheists, and generalizing it to everyone. It only works against materialists. Unbelievers of other kinds came come up with a rational system for why logic exists.
Not really. Atheists have reasons for logic too, they are just bad reasons. Same for all false religions.
Do you have an example? Where does the laws of logic exist? Where do the rules of math exist?
@@SamuraiEAC I posted unlimited examples in the original comment. Read it 10 more times until you understand it. And then listen to the Bahnsen/Stein debate again and meditate on why he says "the impossibility of the contrary."
@@yellomoth Unlimited examples? Wow. Mind naming one specifically?
@@SamuraiEAC You questions are bad faith. You didn't even read my original comment before replying. Stop wasting my time. Be quick to hear slow to speak.
"that's why he was able to fall" again, how does he know this?
"Adam had a properly formed understanding of God's essence" HOW?
He walked with God.
And was not corrupted by sin.