Question About Scripturalism

JDWiseman · #1 (**permalink**) 02-11-2007, 04:53 PM

My interest in apologetical discussions isn't remotely as great as others on the board, but I wanted to ask a question for the Scripturalists. This is a simple question, and its not meant to be any "silver bullet", because I'm sure you've dealt with it before; I just don't recall seeing it mentioned in any of the discussions.

In Romans 1, Paul states that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, and understood, through the created order. Without being sophistic, couldn't we agree that "clearly seeing" and "understanding" something, so much so that they are culpable for its rejection, is tantamount to "knowing"?

In chapter two, speaking of Gentiles who have not the law, and presumably mankind in general, bereft of the Scriptures, Paul states that they "by nature" are aware of moral standards of God, hence their conscience either excuses or accuses them.

According to Scripturalism, how could Gentiles, who don't have the Scriptures, "know" enough about God, and enough about His moral commands, to be found culpable in His sight?

Like I said, I realize you've probably heard it before; just wondering what your response would be.

Magma2 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-11-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDWiseman

In Romans 1, Paul states that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, and understood, through the created order. Without being sophistic, couldn't we agree that "clearly seeing" and "understanding" something, so much so that they are culpable for its rejection, is tantamount to "knowing"?

In chapter two, speaking of Gentiles who have not the law, and presumably mankind in general, bereft of the Scriptures, Paul states that they "by nature" are aware of moral standards of God, hence their conscience either excuses or accuses them.

According to Scripturalism, how could Gentiles, who don't have the Scriptures, "know" enough about God, and enough about His moral commands, to be found culpable in His sight?

Like I said, I realize you've probably heard it before; just wondering what your response would be.

I want to thank you for not attempting to marshal Romans 1 as "proof" that empiricism, or, more specifically, "sensation," provides an alternate source of knowledge. The Scriptures do tell us that all men have a_priori equipment (no man is born a blank slate) and that certain truths or forms, including the law (Rom. 2:15), are revealed to all men and it's on this basis that all men are culpable. The Scriptures tell us that all men understand these truths and **in this sense all men know God.** The Scriptures also tell us that men apart from Christ do not know God or even the truth (see John 7:28, 1 Th 4:5 and elsewhere). That's why I think it is important to determine the sense in which men might be said to know and not know God. Jesus said; "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I suppose the examples you cite are the reasons why the truth of the Gospel, and the truth of Scripture in general, is such an offense to the unbeliever. I suppose it also explains why when one comes to believe it's like having a light come on and all of a sudden things make sense. However, without acknowledging God unbelievers can provide no positive account for what they recognize inherently and for what they suppress. Knowledge in the sense of having a justified true belief requires an account of the truth and this is something no man can give apart from God's Word and God's Spirit working through the Word. The entire history of philosophy provides example after example how men universally apart from Christ reject the truth and instead actively suppress it. Frankly, apart from revelation no man can come to know he even has any apriori or inherent equipment. Kant at least recognized the need for an apriori, but I don't think many here will argue that his categories successfully provided a basis by which truth might be known.

Hope that helps.

Civbert · #3 (**permalink**) 02-12-2007, 03:03 PM

Excellent questions.

First, I don't think Scripturalism demands that one deduce all the propositions one "knows" from Scripture in order to know them. I think Scripture clearly indicates that God places knowledge directly into the minds of all men. We are all created with the knowledge of the existence of God. In other words, one need not be aware of everything one knows, or even (on a second order level) know how they know what they know. There is knowledge within our minds that we may not be aware of, that we know. Under the right circumstances, this knowledge may come to our awareness - and yet we might still not understand how we know it. But we still know.

However, the epistemology of Scripturalism gives us the epistemic foundation and tools to justify any claims of knowledge. If we can show how something is true from Scripture, can say with confidence, "this I know". The unbeliever knows God exists. However, the unbeliever doesn't know he knows it. He is not aware of having this knowledge. (There is very little an unbeliever can justify knowing.

Keep in mind that there are "orders" of knowledge. There is "what we know" and there is "what we know we know". Scripturalism can help you with the second order - of knowing what you know. It doesn't preclude that we can know many things (on a first order level) even if we don't (on a second level order) know we know them.

All men have an a first order level (innate) knowledge of good and evil, and on the existence of God, simply because they are created with this knowledge. However, they can give no epistemic justification for what they know. On a second order level, they know nothing because they can not give any account for the knowledge written on their hearts (minds).

As Christians, we can give the justification for this spiritual knowledge all men are born with. Thus we can know that all men have a "justified true belief" in the existence of God, and in God's laws.