I want a chance to explain my understanding of Scripturalism, and epistemology in general - and maybe clear up some misunderstandings. I don't present myself as an expert in philosophy or an authority on scripturalism - but I spent some time working out what I think it means and I find it best satisfies my desire for a sound biblical worldview.

So I'd like to start this thread by asking people how they define epistemology, knowledge, scripturalism, and other relevant terms. Then maybe we can look at the strengths and weaknesses of scripturalism and compare it to other epidemiologies.

So, let's gets going.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Here are a few questions I have wanted to see Scripturalists take on:

Would you say the scripturalism is a form of classical foundationalism?

How do you regard the old saws such as "You don't know unless you know you know."

Is the method my which you acquire familiarity with the axioms of Scripture relevant to whether they can properly be taken as axioms?

__________________
T.E. Wilder
Independent Reformed Church of Maplewood
Oakdale, MN
http://www.contra-mundum.org
http://secondscreenings.wordpress.com

Just wondering, do you derogate common sense observations such as your existance as mere "opinions"? For another one, which I know you must get a lot, how do you consider the need for empirical data to receive the Scriptures( eg. sight, hearing )? If I cannot be said to know anything through experience, then I cannot know whether what I'm reading as Scripture should be what I attempt to construct my ideas from, etc.. What do you say?

__________________
Tyler Upchurch
Talkative Fellow
Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church
Mason, TN
- - - - - - -
My Library!

I think it is. All I know of foundationalism is a wikipedia article on it I read a few months ago, and it seems that scripturalism is a kind of foundationalism. I believe foundationalism says that knowledge must be founded on something in order to be justified. I consider scripture to be the foundation of knowledge. (BTW, Bahnsen and Van-Til agree.)

I'm not really sure. Do you mean that a person knows what they know? Personally, I think a person is rarely aware of the knowledge their minds posses. I think people possess knowledge they are unaware of. But that is my opinion, I don't think scripturalism addresses that issue directly.

No, I don't think so. I take scripture itself as the axiom. But how I come to learn or understand true scripture is a different issue. By method do you mean reading or hearing, or induction/deduction?

Anthony,

Why aren't you interacting with Paul? It's kind of strange. He defined the terms almost two days ago.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I do, yes. I don't think on can gain any real knowledge from experience. But I do not derogate "mere" opinion. I think most of what we believe is opinion. And a great deal of that opinion are things we are wise in believing. Experience can add great weight to opinions even if it can not justify those beliefs as knowledge.

I don't believe "reading and hearing" are really empirical functions in the sense of the epistemology called empiricism. For a proposition to be justified by empiricism, it must be based solely on sensory experience. Reading, and hearing (language) requires one to understand a language before one can take sounds and sights and translate them into words and ideas. If you can take a collection of sound vibrations and turn them into ideas that are also true propositions, without knowing any language - then you have gained knowledge empirically.

With the exception of your post here, I was answering them in order. First tewilder, then polemic_turtle. Next will be Paul.

OK?

Roger. I guess I should have assumed you were busy. My sincere apologies.

Thanks, Paul. Anyone else?

I would have simply said 'a theory of knowledge'. But I agree with your definition as it best defines epistemology in general. The scope of this discussion is a particular epistemology. Rationalism, empiricism, mysticism, etc, can all be considered different theories of knowledge.

That works for me. I think the rest is more of an epistemology then a definition of knowledge.

I guess before I "interact" with more of Paul's definitions, I should give my own definitions - which I will in my next post.

Knowledge - justified true belief.

Epistemology - a theory of knowledge.

Scripturalism - (the epistemology of) - that the Bible alone is God's Word, and therefore all scriptures, and whatever can be deduced therefrom, are justified true beliefs and are therefore knowledge.

Now let me look at bit at Paul's definition of scripturalism.

That's about it as far as the epistemology goes.

I certainly agree with this, but it's not part of the definition of scripturalism.

This isn't a part of the definition of scripturalism. And personally, I disagree that knowledge must be certain.


Certainly.


Again, "certainty" is not the issue. All scripturalism asserts is that since the propositions of scripture are true, so too are all propositions which can be validly deduced from scripture true. This is simply a consequence of saying the propositions of scripture are true.


I don't know about this "we can only know...". But I don't know of any other propositions one can justify true then those of scripture and those deduced from them. If there is any other way to show a proposition is justified true, I'm open to learning what that is.

I think you brought up some important issues - and not just for scripturalism. Certainty is an important issue for epistemology in general. I think it's debatable if it is a necessary ingredient for "knowledge". But "certainty" could be one desideratum of an epistemology, and one which scripturalism offers and other's lack.

Also, in common usage of "know", it means those things one is certain of. "I just know she loves me or she wouldn't have bought me that gold chain. It proves her love is true." Here we have "know" and "proves" used colloquially. But is "she loves me" a justified true belief? Does her buying a gold chain for him logically prove her love is true?

Empiricism seems to be an issue that comes up from time to time. Mainly because of the idea that knowledge gained through reading or hearing is the knowledge described by the epistemology called empiricism. While reading and hearing does require the use of our senses, it is not really empirical. Empirical knowledge would be knowledge that is gained only through sensory input.

On the other hand, "empirical data" is generally observational data about an object like color, texture, shape. If you read about the yellow rose that is 1 foot tall, that is not empirical data. If you observe a rose and conclude it is yellow and 1 foot tall, that is technically empirical data (data from observation), but that itself is not "empiricism" because the ideas of "yellow" and "1-foot" are concepts that are a priori to the observation of the rose. Empiricism says that knowledge is based solely on sensory input. That means nothing is a priori to the sensations. You must start with the mind completely blank, then give is sensations like sight and sound, and produce propositions. If you add none-sensory information (like words and ideas passed on from parents), then you've undermined the theory of empiricism. This gets us into theories of language and I'm sure a true empiricist will give an evolutionary theory of language to explain it.

I don't think so. I think one could say something is justified if it is accountable. If it can be shown to be the case. I think there are whole areas of philosophy dedicated to "justification" in this sense. But I think simply to say that something is justified if it can be accounted for.

Could you explain the ideas of "internalist" and "externalist" . I read something about them on a philosophy site, and the idea the JTB was insufficient due to the Gettier (sp?) problems. Ironically, the Gettier problems presumed empiricism was the valid epistemology. But I might be crossing some wires.


Not that I know of.
I do think this is another desideratum of epistemology, but not a deal breaker.


No. Not IMO. If that were the case, could we know anything. I guess you mean being wrong about P being true - that you think P is justified true, but you could be wrong. Well anyone could be wrong. I could misunderstand scripture, or be mistaken in my deductive reasoning. But I don't think one have to personally deduce something to know it. But, if P is scripture, it is true, and if Q is correctly deduced from scripture, it too is true.


Sure. And Adam would have justified true belief. But since it was not written down in scripture, we can't know it. Now, if God reveals something to you directly (enlightens your mind to some truth), that is a justified true belief. But it's not very useful since you can not pass that justification true belief on to me. I guess, if I believe it, I know it in a sense. But (you like this), I don't think I'd know that I knew it. There ought to be some means of knowing what we know, even if it is not essential. We know a lot of things we don't know we know IMO.


Yes. But I think my prior comments show the problem. What ever God reveals to us is knowledge. But something revealed to our minds in such a direct fashion could not be shared. Is this related to the internalist/externalist issues?

Anyway, I think there are internal and external perspectives to knowledge. Knowledge is in a sense completely independent of man, since all truth is God's mind. And so, any belief a man has that is also a proposition God knows, would be knowledge. But one a practical level, what good is knowledge we don't know we know? Isn't that a more important part of epistemology? If we can't have some guidance in determining what is justifiable true, then how can we say we know what we think we know. I think these are interesting things one needs to consider.


I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that I think non-Scripturalists can know things, yes I do think non-Scripturalists can know things. Can they justify knowing things, no I don't think they can.

Actually I have. But I think the details may work out differently between different Scripturalists. The standard Scripturalist epistemology is simply: Knowledge is the Scriptures and what can be deduced from Scripture. The only difference between what I wrote and Cheung is I don't make the claim all knowledge is... That is simply because I like to use terms like "all" in the deductive logical sense of "each and every".

But I think Cheung would agree that God has not revealed all his knowledge, and that God has revealed some knowledge to individuals that is not recorded in Scripture. But for a statement of epistemology, using all in a less vigorous fashion is reasonable because the knowledge available outside of scripturalism is nigh impossible to justify. It may be a knowledge that one can never "know" you know. Ya know?

One can be even more general I suppose and say knowledge is only what God reveals. But I think Van Til, Bahnsen, Clark, John Robbins, and Cheung (to name a few presuppositionalists and Scripturalists) would agree with the statement that for the Christian world-view, God's Word is the Foundation of Knowledge. Isn't that a chapter in Bahnsen's book?

I think I covered that question in the prior comments. I think the statement is correct as it applied to the knowledge men can share between them. From a Christian worldview perspective, God's Word is the foundation of all knowledge.

I'm not certain about Chueng's scripturalism in all it's details, but it works as a solid system of epistemology - so I have few problems with it. It may not agree with my views in detail, but we are getting beyond the essentials of scripturalism and into the finer details for working it out.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the so-called "infallibilist constraint". I would think a good epistemology should have less guesswork and better justification than offered by intuition.

Maybe you can explain what an "infallibilist constraint" is in general. Every place I've looked points to papal infallibility. Well the reformers threw out papal infallibility and turned to scriptural infallibility. I agree with the in-errancy and infallibility of scripture. If that makes scripturalism infallible - I'm all for it.

(PS - when I google "infallibilist constraint" all I got were links to this board and aquascum's screed. I thought "infallibilst constraint" was a standard epistemological term of objection. Maybe aquascum made up the term. Or maybe one of his professors did. It does not seem to be a standard category in epistemology.)

(PPS - having better luck with "infallibilist epistemology". But I haven't figured out if "infallibilist" is anything more than a neutral term. If I get time, I'll read some more and see what I can see. )

Cheung does consider scripturalism to be infallible in principle - in the same sense that logical deduction is infallible. He doesn't say that people are infallible, and do not need to be to have knowledge. So I don't understand you point. It might be helpful to explain terms such as "infallibilist" and internalist and externalist in regular language. Most people reading this will not understand this technical/philosophical jargon, and if it can't be said in regular speech, then I find it suspect.

Well so far he has been right. But if the "infallibilist constraint" means one can not know something unless one can know it infallibly, then I don't think Cheung says this. It's one thing to say ones system is irrefutable and invincible, but that does not imply that Scripturalists can never be wrong. We are all sinners and incapable of perfect understanding. What we do know, ultimately, is by God's grace and power. You agree that in order to correctly discern scripture, one is completely dependent on the Holy Spirit. Yes? So whatever truth the Spirit reveals to your mind, will be infallibly true.


If proposition B is deducible from Scripture, then B is a justified true proposition.

Sounds correct to me. Tell me, how do you know when you know something? We can go round and round over this internalism/externalism but it doesn't' really effect scripturalism.

Oy! Did I clarify anything?? I hope so, but I'm not sure about some of these issues. I have my opinions on them, some more strongly held then others. But mostly they are just opinions and from speaking with Cheung, I think he would agree they are not necessarily critical issues. They are very interesting and worth study, and could be important too. But I don't know if they are issues we can perfectly settle. As I said before, none seem to be deal breakers. I could be wrong so I'm happy to be further educated.

P.S. I've covered a lot of stuff so please don't feel rushed. I know you wanted to address some other questions I asked in the prior posts and I'd be happy to have to answer those before you address all that was covered in this post.

P.P.S. To tewilder and polemic_turtle,I did answer your questions, I don't want you to miss them since this thread has grown long and it was earlier on that I replied. I'd like others to participate and maybe help us clear up some of the questions I'm a little fuzzy on. Any Scripturalists out there want to add some comments?? Paul and I could easily dominate this thread but others may have more interesting comments and insights than I do.

Sure.

I think so.


Yes. I believe we can deduce the laws of logic and rules of inference from Scripture. It would kind of be like reverse engineering. But the procedure would be in effect to say, if Scripture follows the laws of logic (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) then the laws are validated by scripture. Van Til said all things conform to the law of contradiction (LC), Clark said language and meaning depend on the LC. Since scripture is language, and it is meaningful, then it must be the case that scripture affirms the laws of logic.

Second, if arguments in scripture use the rules of inference, then the rules of inference are valid. And indeed, the rules of inference are found in arguments given by Christ himself. So that's good enough for me.

The above quote is merely a statement that says that if a statement is true, then what ever can be deduced from it by "good and necessary consequences" is also true. This is also confirmed by the WCF.


B is still a proposition. Since the belief B is also justified true, then B is also knowledge.

It could be, but I suppose it's all in how you define "classical foundationalism" since I've come across some definitions which would seem compatible with Scripturalism, others not so much. If you mean that in order for any system of thought to start it must start somewhere, then I think, yes, Scripturalism, being a more consistent form of biblical presuppositionalism is concerning with where one starts.

Why would this be an old saw? Or, has it simply been abandoned since non-Christian epistemology has been unable to produce or account for any knowledge at all?

I think the method of Scripturalism is nicely summed up in WCF 1.5. Technically, I don't think there is any divergence between WCF 1 and Scripturalism. Prior to Dr. Robbins coining the phrase Clark would refer to his position as the "Westminster Principle" (see Clark's response to Mavordes for example) among other names over the years including "Dogmatism."

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

I say many confuse arbitrary marks on a page with Scripture, but Scripture consists of propositions and imperatives, none of which can be perceived with the eyes or the ears. To hear or see in Scripture is a metaphor for the enlightening work of the Spirit. It has to do with intellection and not sensation. As Jesus said repeatedly; "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." The problem, of course, is most to whom the word comes do not hear or see and the reason is because their minds have been darkened (see Eph. 4:17,18 and elsewhere). Ezek 12:2; Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house. Their problem is not that their eyesight is bad or they're in need of hearing aids, rather their minds are alienated from God in Christ who said His very words are spirit and life. Biblically one comes to know the truth and grow in the truth the same way they come to be saved, and that by the grace of God alone.

Since when are you the standard bearer of all things epistemological? Actually, you might be a good reason to bring back that old saw.


The "Shotgun" Manata attempt at divide and conquer. Having to deal with what Gordon Clark thought and wrote might be asking too much, since Scripturalism is, after all, a reference to Clark's philosophic distinctives, not Anthony's, mine or anyone else's. I suppose that way you can thump your chest and think you've actually accomplished something.