Scripturalism Revisited

Brian Bosse · #1 (**permalink**) 08-16-2007, 11:56 PM

Hello Civbert and the Puritan Board,

What is the basis for being able to claim to have any knowledge whatsoever? Just today, Civbert answered this question in the following manner…

Quote:

A Christian need not adopt the subjectivistic presuppositions of modern epistemology. We have the objective Word of God as the foundation of knowledge.

Scriptuarlists trumpet the idea that Scripture alone is the foundation for knowledge, and point to the axiomatic system of Gordon Clark as the practical development of this. Gordon Clark says that his axiomatic system has one axiom, and that from this one axiom propositions can be derived that are rightly called knowledge. Clark’s axiom (the Axiom) is as follows…

Axiom: The Bible alone is the Word of God.

Essentially, a proposition is rightly called justified knowledge if and only if the proposition is derived via deduction from the one Axiom. (Induction invalidates any argument, and thereby disqualifies any conclusion as being justified knowledge.) Scripturalists mean to be able to draw such conclusions as ‘Jesus is Messiah’ from the one axiom alone. However, it is my contention that when pressed they are unable to draw any conclusions from the one axiom that can be rightly called justified knowledge. That is to say, given their own criteria, they cannot justify any proposition as being knowledge. At this point this is just mere assertion on my part. But before going further, I want to allow the Scripturalist to comment in case I have not been accurate in my representations.

Sincerely,

Brian

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 12:11 AM

Can I add one other axiom that seems to be unstated. Clark also presupposed that God thinks using Aristotalean logic. Thus it is not only the single Axiom that the Bible alone is the Word of God but the second axiom that all logical deductions from that axiom must use Aristotalean logic because both God and man univocally reason that way.

Brian Bosse · #3 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 11:26 AM

Hello Rich,

Quote:

Clark also presupposed that God thinks using Aristotalean logic. Thus it is not only the single Axiom that the Bible alone is the Word of God but the second axiom that all logical deductions from that axiom must use Aristotalean logic because both God and man univocally reason that way.

I have a couple of thought regarding this. (1) When Clark says that one can go from the one axiom to a particular proposition of Scripture via deduction he has in mind the syllogistic deductive form that Aristotle expounded on. However, I do not believe that either Clark or other Scripturalists would insist that the deductive argument be via syllogism for it to be considered justified. Their beef is that it must be deductive. So, Reductio Ad Absurdum, Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, etc...would be considered acceptable forms of deductive argumentation. (2) You are correct in pointing out that there must be more than the one axiom to derive a proposition from Scripture. The deductive apparatus itself must be axiomatic. This is one major flaw in Scripturalism.

With that said, I really appreciate what Clark was trying to do. In principle, I agree with him. However, it does not appear that Clark was sophisticated enough in his understanding of formal axiomatic systems. These types of systems are very explicit, and Clark was not very explicit. Clark resisted this type of explictness referring to it as "clanking machinery." The problem with this is that "the devil is in the details." When one begins to drill down on the axiomatic system, Scripturalism fails to deliver.

Sincerely,

Brian

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 11:33 AM

Brian,

The reason I'm saying that is that I was listening to an MP3 lecture by Frame recently and he recounted a conversation he heard with Clark one time at a conference.

Clark had argued that God's logic and our logic are the same so somebody asked him: "Which logic?" Without hesitation Clark answered: Aristotalean logic. When asked how he knew that, Clark replied that he had written a paper defending that idea.

Thus, the interesting thing is that one must not only accept Scripture as the one axiom but must also reason like God does using Aristotalean logic on the basis of Clark's paper.

Brian Bosse · #5 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 12:15 PM

Hello Rich,

Thank you for the backgound information.

Quote:

Clark had argued that God's logic and our logic are the same so somebody asked him: "Which logic?" Without hesitation Clark answered: Aristotalean logic. When asked how he knew that, Clark replied that he had written a paper defending that idea.

I am unfamilar with the paper, and I would say Clark's answer is a little vague. Aristotle's logic was not strictly syllogistic. Aristotle used all of the argument forms I mentioned in my previous post. If Clark meant what you think he meant, then that is a shame. It will be another mark against Scripturalism.

Sincerely,

Brian

Jeff_Bartel · #6 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Rich,

Thank you for the backgound information.

Quote:

Clark had argued that God's logic and our logic are the same so somebody asked him: "Which logic?" Without hesitation Clark answered: Aristotalean logic. When asked how he knew that, Clark replied that he had written a paper defending that idea.

I am unfamilar with the paper, and I would say Clark's answer is a little vague. Aristotle's logic was not strictly syllogistic. Aristotle used all of the argument forms I mentioned in my previous post. If Clark meant what you think he meant, then that is a shame. It will be another mark against Scripturalism.

Sincerely,

Brian

I would be interested in looking into this more. As I understand Clark, he would agree with Brian's understanding about what is known as traditional logic (deductive in nature) and not narrowly Aristotelian.

Civbert · #7 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

.. The deductive apparatus itself must be axiomatic. This is one major flaw in Scripturalism.

With that said, I really appreciate what Clark was trying to do. In principle, I agree with him. However, it does not appear that Clark was sophisticated enough in his understanding of formal axiomatic systems. These types of systems are very explicit, and Clark was not very explicit. Clark resisted this type of explictness referring to it as "clanking machinery." The problem with this is that "the devil is in the details." When one begins to drill down on the axiomatic system, Scripturalism fails to deliver.

I think you are hitting on the answer - Clark was not interested in developing a formal axiomatic system. However, this does not mean that Scripturalism fails to deliver - only that Clark did not strictly formalize his epistemology.

The laws of logic are assumed valid as they are necessary for any rational system of thought. If not the law of contradiction (LC), we would not be able to speak to each other in any meaningful manner. So the LC is much a part of language and thought that to say it is an axiom of the system is redundant. Clark said basically that the laws of logic are so embedded into Scripture, that simply making Scripture the logical starting point of his epistemology is entirely sufficient.

Civbert · #8 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

...
Axiom: The Bible alone is the Word of God.

Essentially, a proposition is rightly called justified knowledge if and only if the proposition is derived via deduction from the one Axiom. (Induction invalidates any argument, and thereby disqualifies any conclusion as being justified knowledge.) Scripturalists mean to be able to draw such conclusions as ‘Jesus is Messiah’ from the one axiom alone. However, it is my contention that when pressed they are unable to draw any conclusions from the one axiom that can be rightly called justified knowledge. That is to say, given their own criteria, they cannot justify any proposition as being knowledge. At this point this is just mere assertion on my part. But before going further, I want to allow the Scripturalist to comment in case I have not been accurate in my representations.

As you noted, Clark did not formalize his system into a mathematically precise system. But if he were going to do so, he would have started by noting that in traditional Aristotelian logic, the A form implies the I form.

That is: All (a is b) [the A form] implies Some (a is b) [the I form].

An example would be that all men in Italy are Italian (the A form), therefore some men, those that live in Rome, are Italian (the I form).

The application of this to the Axiom of Scripturalism is: All Scripture is the Word of God implies that some Scripture ("Jesus is the Christ") is also the Word of God. Basically, when Clark says that Scripture is the axiom of Christian knowledge, he means that every proposition of Scripture is true. We can trust God's Word for true knowledge.

Civbert · #9 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 04:17 PM

While we at this, I would like to challenge anyone to provide a reasonable alternative to Scripturalism. What would it be, and how would you formulate it?

One thing I have noticed in my interactions with critics of Scripturalism is a complete absence of any alternatives to it. So I wonder, if not Scripturalism, then what?

Cheshire Cat · #10 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 04:31 PM

Modified Van Tilianism. By modified, I mean not in 100% agreement w/ Van Til on everything. I'm off to go camping for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond to anything, but others can defend that claim anyways.

armourbearer · #11 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

While we at this, I would like to challenge anyone to provide a reasonable alternative to Scripturalism. What would it be, and how would you formulate it?

One thing I have noticed in my interactions with critics of Scripturalism is a complete absence of any alternatives to it. So I wonder, if not Scripturalism, then what?

Realism is the biblical alternative. See Ronald Nash's "Life's Ultimate Questions."

Semper Fidelis · #12 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 08:01 PM

That's interesting that this question should come up.

I've been reading The Sensualistic Philosophy by Dabney (see http://www.naphtali.com). While reading it, I'm struck by how much Dabney critiques in a way that is "pre-suppositional". By that I mean that, on the surface, he has the very same critiques of materialistic worldviews that you'll hear from a modern pre-suppositionalist.

I was actually thinking about a thread on this subject and don't want to sidetrack this discussion. I do know that Bahnsen in his History of Western Philosophy audio series and Frame too in his Apologetics audio both critique Common Sense Realism for being simplistic and not really very good philosophy.

Part of me is left thinking this after studying the history of philosophy: Why are we constantly trying to construct a philosophical system that is all encompassing? By that I mean an epistemology, metaphysic, and ethic. I've heard both Van Til and Clark criticized because it's not a full-orbed philosophical treatment.

But then (it seems to me) the way that a valid view of the world is judged is by academia and whether you've gotten everything to fit into the categories they've built over the last few thousand years.

My gut reaction is to say: Why do we need another system? The tools are useful to critique our thinking but one thing I do like about realism as opposed to some more insistent view is that it still insists on reasonable thinking but doesn't insist that all our thinking be shoehorned into a system external to the Word. My criticism of Clarkianism is primarily that it turns everything in the world into propositions but life is more than that. Philosophy has then become less a tool than a controlling influence.

armourbearer · #13 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 08:13 PM

Rich, all realists were presuppositionalists before the term became trendy. There are two ways to combat Kant's wall. Deny sense perception altogether, as idealists do; or insist that man's capacity to think is itself a rational category, as realists do. A rational capacity prior to the thought process is what we now call a presupposition. This is what Dabney was arguing for. Nash puts it is more modern terms that we would be familiar with.

Brian Bosse · #14 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 08:14 PM

Hello Civbert,

Quote:

An example would be that all men in Italy are Italian (the A form), therefore some men, those that live in Rome, are Italian (the I form).

Civbert, your example is not valid. The A proposition, “All men in Italy are Italian,” leads to the I proposition, “Some men in Italy are Italian.” No more and no less. You have added additional information to your I statement. Not only did you do this here, but you made the very same mistake in the next more pertinent example.

Quote:

The application of this to the Axiom of Scripturalism is: All Scripture is the Word of God implies that some Scripture ("Jesus is the Christ") is also the Word of God.

The A proposition, “All Scripture is the Word of God,” leads to the I proposition, “Some Scripture is the Word of God.” No more and no less. There is no parenthetical “Jesus is the Christ.” My contention is that when everything is laid bare, Scripturalism fails. It cannot give us any knowledge that we can call justified.

Quote:

One thing I have noticed in my interactions with critics of Scripturalism is a complete absence of any alternatives to it.

This is beside the point. You claim that Scripturalism solves epistemological problems. Whether or not a challenger can present a better alternative is irrelevant. So here is my challenge to you: Present one valid argument from the axiom to a particular proposition of Scripture such that the conclusion would be considered justified knowledge. Be a good logician by being very precise. Remember, I claim that a Scripturalist cannot be precise and deliver the goods. Show me that I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Brian

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Rich,

Thank you for the backgound information.

Quote:

Clark had argued that God's logic and our logic are the same so somebody asked him: "Which logic?" Without hesitation Clark answered: Aristotalean logic. When asked how he knew that, Clark replied that he had written a paper defending that idea.

I am unfamilar with the paper, and I would say Clark's answer is a little vague. Aristotle's logic was not strictly syllogistic. Aristotle used all of the argument forms I mentioned in my previous post. If Clark meant what you think he meant, then that is a shame. It will be another mark against Scripturalism.

Sincerely,

Brian

I would be interested in looking into this more. As I understand Clark, he would agree with Brian's understanding about what is known as traditional logic (deductive in nature) and not narrowly Aristotelian.

If you go to http://itunes.rts.edu and then click to launch iTunes, you'll be taken to the RTS store inside of iTunes where you can download tons of audio files for free. Under Theology you'll find Christian Apologetics. I think his statements are in lesson 16. He's definitely talking about Clark in that lecture. I'm not saying you have to agree with Frame but rather than third hand reporting you might as well listen to what Frame says.

victorbravo · #16 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Rich,

Thank you for the backgound information.

I am unfamilar with the paper, and I would say Clark's answer is a little vague. Aristotle's logic was not strictly syllogistic. Aristotle used all of the argument forms I mentioned in my previous post. If Clark meant what you think he meant, then that is a shame. It will be another mark against Scripturalism.

Sincerely,

Brian

I would be interested in looking into this more. As I understand Clark, he would agree with Brian's understanding about what is known as traditional logic (deductive in nature) and not narrowly Aristotelian.

If you go to http://itunes.rts.edu and then click to launch iTunes, you'll be taken to the RTS store inside of iTunes where you can download tons of audio files for free. Under Theology you'll find Christian Apologetics. I think his statements are in lesson 16. He's definitely talking about Clark in that lecture. I'm not saying you have to agree with Frame but rather than third hand reporting you might as well listen to what Frame says.

This is very subjective, Rich, but I listened to that lecture too, and I've also listened to some of Clark's lectures. I have a suspicion that he was being a bit facetious on the question. I know Frame remembers it as being a serious answser, but listening to Clark, he often says something outlandish and you can almost hear a wink.

Semper Fidelis · #17 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 08:53 PM

Fair enough Vic. I provided the link so that listeners can get a better sense of the truth of the matter than my reporting what Frame said that Clark said.

Civbert · #18 (**permalink**) 08-17-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Civbert,

Quote:

An example would be that all men in Italy are Italian (the A form), therefore some men, those that live in Rome, are Italian (the I form).

Civbert, your example is not valid. The A proposition, “All men in Italy are Italian,” leads to the I proposition, “Some men in Italy are Italian.” No more and no less. You have added additional information to your I statement. Not only did you do this here, but you made the very same mistake in the next more pertinent example.

Quote:

The application of this to the Axiom of Scripturalism is: All Scripture is the Word of God implies that some Scripture ("Jesus is the Christ") is also the Word of God.

The A proposition, “All Scripture is the Word of God,” leads to the I proposition, “Some Scripture is the Word of God.” No more and no less.

Much more, much much more. When you say the Bible is true, the world "Bible" in not merely a sound. The term itself implies it's definition. Your restriction "no more and no less" is incorrect. Every term in a sentence logically implies it's definition. And it's definition is both connotative and denotative.

So "Jesus is the Christ" is a valid deduction of "Scripture is true" because Scripture implies the denotative definition that includes the proposition "Jesus is the Christ". It is valid and sound by definition of Scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Quote:

One thing I have noticed in my interactions with critics of Scripturalism is a complete absence of any alternatives to it.

This is beside the point. You claim that Scripturalism solves epistemological problems. Whether or not a challenger can present a better alternative is irrelevant. So here is my challenge to you: Present one valid argument from the axiom to a particular proposition of Scripture such that the conclusion would be considered justified knowledge. Be a good logician by being very precise. Remember, I claim that a Scripturalist cannot be precise and deliver the goods. Show me that I am wrong.

Done. See above.

Civbert · #19 (**permalink**) 08-18-2007, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Rich, all realists were presuppositionalists before the term became trendy. There are two ways to combat Kant's wall. Deny sense perception altogether, as idealists do; or insist that man's capacity to think is itself a rational category, as realists do. A rational capacity prior to the thought process is what we now call a presupposition. This is what Dabney was arguing for. Nash puts it is more modern terms that we would be familiar with.

Interesting. But "deny sense perception altogether, as idealists do; or insist that man's capacity to think is itself a rational category, as realists do." are not mutually exclusive.

Since you keep bringing up realism and idealism - perhaps you would care to define and contrast them. I've read that materialism is the contrary of idealism.

Also, are you speaking of "common sense realism", "Platonic realism", "epistemological realism", what?

Was not Jonathan Edwards an idealist?

Also interesting that Ronald Nash was a student of and heavily influenced by Gordon Clark. Maybe he was a realist, but it makes me wonder if realism vs idealism is actually a critical point of contention.

Civbert · #20 (**permalink**) 08-18-2007, 12:58 AM

Another interesting observation:

I believe Clark may have been an idealist, but he was also an "epistemological realist." He believed that knowledge consists of propositional truths and these truths define reality (idealism), but also these truths exist independently of human minds (epistemological realism). That is, two people can know A in the same sense because the proposition A exists independent of any one person. I suppose Clark was a metaphysical idealist and an epistemological realist.