The Epistemology of Scripturalism

[Pergamum]

Hey guys;

Sorry to barge in on your apologetics party, but I have a question that may pertain - though bear with me because I do not know much jargon:


If all knowledge must be from Scripture or deduced from Scripture (like it appears that some say), how would one respond to me if I were to say that I know a potentially infinite number of items apart from Scripture..mainly that 2 +2 = 4 and 4+4=8 and 8+8=16 and on to eternity? This bit of knowledge appears very knowable, even outside of anything from Scripture.

 

[Magma2]

Anyway, in regards to your claim about the thermometer, it's not sufficient for warrant because it's broken. It isn't functioning properly. So, in this case, if you looked at it and concluded that it was 74 degrees, and it was 74 degrees, it still would not be warranted since it was by *accident* that you believe it is 74 degrees. Epistemologists usually try to rule out lucky guesses, accidents, coincidences, and the like, as 'knowledge.'

Point of order. You’re talking to me. While no crime, you miss the point. Ersatz Epistemologists might *usually* try to rule out lucky guess, etc., but that is hardly a guard or even a method by which to exclude them. Also, it seems to me that they (you) open the door to virtually every sort of question begging provided it's couched in the right, subjective, framework.

Second, I grant one would be *justified* if he didn't know that it was broken, since he'd be flouting no epistemic dutues in believing the thermometer, but not warranted. And so this would be a Gettier case. He'd have JTB, but not knowledge.

It seems to me you’ve flouted your epistemic duties from the get go. Per your own examples warrant rests on subjective standards and modes of reliability which would seem to make warrant very easy to obtain for almost any claim to knowledge – including those claims which result from ignorance (i.e., not realizing that your thermometer is stuck). After all, weathermen are generally reliable and I’m sure most in San Diego would have warrant to believe every day it’s going to be 74 degrees in paradise, but even with fully functioning thermometers the best weatherman are often wrong (in most other places besides San Diego, more often than not). Yet, the dutiful Epistemologist maintains reliability gives rise to warrant which, when combined with belief, even those beliefs which may in fact be true, results in knowledge. By your definition science then is a cognitive enterprise for its methods, are, if nothing else, reliable. The problem is they’re also completely fallacious as more than a few even non-Christian philosophers of science pointed out long ago. While nothing new, it does seem that the packaging has changed.

Lastly, regarding the brain lesions, I actually said the belief produced by the lesion, i.e., that upon being appeared to redly (by a red object) the lesion causes your brain to produce the belief that you have a lesion, *is reliable.* It does this everytime, though you don't know why you now suddenly feel a strong urge to believe that you have a brain lesion. So, I *am* claiming that they are reliable. My point, though, is that this belief is not warranted, since, again, we have malfunction. So, even though it is true, caused by a reliable process, we don't have knowledge.

I misunderstood you, albeit “upon being appeared to redly” doesn’t seem to be remotely grammatical. No bother, it still doesn’t answer the objection why beliefs stemming from a reliable malfunction do not or cannot give rise to knowledge? Certainly you can't call something a malfunction if don't know that it is, therefore it seems to me that you can't ignore the possibility. If conclusions to properly functioning formally fallacious arguments can be reliable and provide warrant, malfunctions can provide adequate warrant in order for any dutiful Epistemologist to call it “knowledge.”

Again, it seems to me that RE lowers the epistemic bar in an effort to make Christian theism, or perhaps theism in general, respectable at Yale, or, more fittingly, Notre Dame. And while I will not argue with T. E. Wilder that I should be better read, what I have read leads me to suspect that RE is nothing but a veiled form of Thomism and nobody does Thomism better than the Fighting Irish.

And so all I was pointing out, was that I'm not merely "reliabilist." My position avoids these counter examples. I defined my position on page 1 of this thread. If you had red it, you'd see I wasn't a mere reliabilist. You pegged me wrong. You don't know my position. That's what I was saying, Sean.

One thing at a time Paul, one thing at a time.

 

[Magma2]

If all knowledge must be from Scripture or deduced from Scripture (like it appears that some say), how would one respond to me if I were to say that I know a potentially infinite number of items apart from Scripture..mainly that 2 +2 = 4 and 4+4=8 and 8+8=16 and on to eternity? This bit of knowledge appears very knowable, even outside of anything from Scripture.

Hi Trevor. Knowledge strictly speaking requires an account. The point is that most Christians do not believe that Scripture has a monopoly on truth (more properly, the truth which can be known) or even that the truth claim of any proposition needs even any account. It is a dark age. Those who do would say for any proposition to rise to the level of knowledge it must be accounted for per the Scriptures. After all, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect (complete, lacking nothing), thoroughly furnished unto all good works -- not just some good works -- and if arithmetic is a good work, then I would agree Scripture must have something to say about this as well. Fortunately it does. For a good place to start see J.C. Keister's Math and the Bible at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=55 .

 

[Magma2]

Sean, are you promoting alethic Scripturalism here? Even Coghill agres that alethic Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent:

[1] No extra-biblical proposition is true. (Alethic Scripturalism Thesis)
[2] [1] is an extra-biblical proposition.
Therefore
[3] [1] is not true.

I don't want you to make a complete fool out of yourself, so you need to take time to read what I've said and stop jumping to conclusions. I never said that no extra-biblical proposition is true. We know there are many extra-biblical propositions that are true, see my response to Rev. Winzer for starters. Stop trying to build straw men. It makes you look even more desperate.

 

[Magma2]

Let's note that this thread is about Scripturalist Epistemology. You can feel free to start another one. T'would be a shame to escape scrutiny by going on the offensive. Anyway...

Oh, don’t worry, I haven’t even read your tome yet. I figure Anthony can handle you. I did happen to catch your repetition of the old saw that one’s own salvific state doesn’t rise to the level of knowledge. Scary stuff. Do yourself a favor, don’t read Edwards.

A belief obtained by a lucky guess does not count as knowledge. A belief obtained by an accident does not count as knowledge. I really don't even understand your criticism here. Are you trying to argue that reliable cognitive faculties are sufficient to furnish us with knowledge?

I thought I was being very plain. I’ll try again and hopefully even more simply, since I didn’t think I was being cryptic in the least. I’ll put it in the form of a question; By what method do you determine proper functionality in every situation? And, how do you know that proper functionality can or will contribute to knowledge of anything whatsoever? And, none of this really has to do with brain lesions or even reliable cognitive faculties, whatever they might consist of. I’m happy to stick with your broken thermometer. I realize that asking how you know something is old hat for "epistemologists" these days, but call me old fashion. However, given a reliablistic component to knowledge acquisition, knowledge itself would appear to be an ever moving target.

iii) I'm not commmitted right now to scientific realism or anti-realism. Still studying the issue. But since I could go either way and not have my views on warrant change, to bring this up is really just a red herring. Now, if you think that my view of warrant (given on page 1) necessarily entails scientific realism, then show me the deduction.

I was just going by your definition of knowledge:

Knowledge: Warranted true belief, where warrant is defined as that quantity, enougn of which turns true belief into knowledge. A belief B has warrant for S if B is produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties, functioning in an epistemic environment sufficiently similar to the one S's cognitive faculties were designed for, the design plan governing the production of B has as a function or purpose the production of true beliefs, the design plan is a good one, and S has no undefeated-defeaters D for B.

By your criterion, science would appear to be a cognitive enterprise. Don’t take it personal, I’m just trying to apply what you’re saying.

Standard analytic language. Inded, if yougoogled it, you'd see that language employed myriad times. It's not just 'redly' either. I could be appeared to treely, orangly, horsely, etc

Redly didn’t give me problems, it was “upon being appeared to redly” sounded fragmented and nonsensical. Still does. NB.

Well I don't think that the ravages of sin are the way God intended us to function properly. Now, certainly the tumor has a function, but is it an *epistemic* function? But, again, I don't see the point of your critique. Maybe you could spell it out for us. You've shown no formal fallacies. You not undermined my position. You've merely asserted so much. Furthermore, given my critique above, and your theory of knowledge, you don't *know* any of the things you're charging me with.

Of course the ravages of sin includes first and foremost sin's noetic effects as well. I don’t know how to make it plainer for you, but, and by way of a positive example, would you agree that the scientific method comports quite nicely with your definition of warrant? Yes or no should cover it.

Well, you're free to hold that unjustified opinion. Anyway, your bar doesn't allow you to know your own position. It's not really a problem if one "lowers the bar" and put the bar where it was supposed to be. So it "seems to me" that you're just begging a lot of questions here.

I’m just asking questions. Is that too much from you? BTW, I’m not offended in the least by the idea that the Scriptures provide the necessary condition and account for knowledge. For in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, even if you refuse to accept or believe it.

 

[Magma2]

Since all truth is known, and since Scripture has a monopoly on it, then is all truth in Scripture?

All truth is certainly known, for God the omniscient Lord God of Truth and what He thinks is true simply because He thinks it, however even my 8 year old son can see it doesn't follow that all truth is therefore in Scripture. Your argument is fallacious and putting it in the form of a question doesn't help.

Or, what about the statement itself? Do you know it? Is it true? What you said is not "in Scripture" and so either it's not true or you don't know it. I tried for a few minutes to deduce "monopoly" from Scripture, no luck. Perhaps you could help?

See what I mean by looking foolish? Funny, you won't find the word Trinity in the Scriptures either, but I don't think even you'd be so silly as to suggest that the idea of the Trinity is not a valid inference from Scripture. As for the idea of Scripture having a monopoly on truth, please see my reply to T.E. Wilder above for biblical passages that will help point you in the right direction. For what it's worth I would love to see you attempt to defend the principle of sola Scripture someday. Maybe you can let me know when you're ready to take on even a half-competent Romanists?

At any rate, I do appreciate your concern for me. That I not come off looking like a fool. That I not build strawmen. That I not look "even more" desparate. Thanks!

I don't want you to look like a fool, so you're welcome.

 

[Magma2]

Hi again Sean,

For a guy who just a day ago swore he wouldn't talk to me, now I can't shut you up.

If your salvific state can be known, then according to what you and Anthiny have stated above, please deduce it from Scripture. Let me see the deduction. And, just a little historical detail, Edwards wasn't a Scripturalist.

You need to slow down, you obviously are getting ahead of yourself and attributing things to me which I have never said. That would be rude.

I only commented that I noticed in your tome where you assert; "The confession and the Bible says that we may know that we are saved" and that this is proof that Scripturalism fails. Blah, blah, blah. Well, you're wrong, neither the Bible nor the Confession state that we can know we are saved. Take some time and study WCF XVIII.

As for Edwards not being a Scripturalist, he was certainly closer to Gordon Clark on a number of issues, including this one, than you are.

While it is true that no man can deduce his own salvific state from Scripture [apart from those who are specifically named as being part of the beloved in Scripture], it doesn’t follow that assurance is impossible nor is this position unique to Scripturalism. But assurance isn't knowledge. Jonathan Edwards wrote:

"It appears also that the affection which is occasioned by the coming of all text of Scripture must be vain, when the affection is founded on something that is supposed to be taught by it, which really is not contained in it, nor in any other Scripture; because such supposed instruction is not real instruction, but a mistake and misapprehension of the mind. As for instance, when persons suppose that they are expressly taught by some Scripture coming to their minds, that they in particular are beloved of God, or that their sins are forgiven, that God is their Father, and the like. This is a mistake or misapprehension; for the Scripture nowhere reveals the individual persons who are beloved, expressly; but only by consequence, by revealing the qualifications of persons that are beloved of God: and therefore this matter is not to be learned form Scripture any other way than by consequence, and from these qualifications, for things are not to be learned from the Scripture any other way than they are taught in the Scripture." [emphasis mine -- Religious Affections pg 194]

The Westminister Confession of Faith states concerning the doctrine of assurance; "This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it . . . ." As Edwards states above, coming to an assurance that we are the Lord's beloved is arrived at by "consequence" as opposed to something that is inferred from the propositions of Scripture. Unless someone is going to claim special revelation quite apart from Scripture as their source for knowledge, assurance is a consequence or a fruit of faith, not an object of knowledge.

So your objection against Scripturalism, on this point, is completely without merit. And, frankly that's pretty much all I've read so far since I haven't had a chance to read your tome yet. You won't give me a break.

You're all over the place. Shifting goal posts. Our discussion will end if you continue to act in an underhanded way.

And,

i) Anyone reading this thread knows I've patiently been answering *all* of your questions.

Hardly. While some of that might be my fault, because you say you don't understand my objections, most of it isn't. For example my question concerning whether or not YOUR definition of knowledge comports and supports the methods of science. This couldn't have been more straight forward. I can't see why it wouldn't answer it, but it appears you haven't answered at all. I even gave you a yes/no option.

Sean, if you contionue to interact in this way, we're done.

Interact in what way? I wish you would stop threatening, it is really getting tiresome.

 

[Civbert]

You seem to be saying that you can have knowledge which it is irrational for you to believe.

Sure.

To everyone who has posted since I last checked in, I'll try to respond to comments directed at me - but if I miss anything critical please point it out.

Thanks.

 

[Civbert]

Just a quick comment: Actually deductive inference does not generate justification, it only transfers it. So if your prior propositions are true but not justified, then your inferential beliefs will not be justified either.

Is that a fact, or just a position you are taking?

One thing I believe is true is that all rational epistemic systems require some sort of axiom or starting point. Nothing is logically prior to the axiom, so the axiom must be assumed. Strictly speaking, the axiom is not "justified". However, that does not mean you can not defend your axiom. If you can't defend your axiom, it's not a very good axiom to adopt. But that being said, starting with your system's axiom, if it is true, then anything you can deduce from the axiom is justified true. Justification is not transfered from proposition to proposition from premise to conclusion. Rather, if the premises are true, then the truth of the conclusion is also true.

So for the epistemology of the WCF (a.k.a. Scripturalism), whatever is Scripture, or deduced by good and necessary consequences, is justified true belief. But the axiom, that the Bible is the Word of God, this must be taken ultimately without proof.

The Westminster Divines recognized that the Bible's ultimate authority is derived from God, not man's reasoning.

1:4 The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God (1Th_2:13; 2Ti_3:16; 2Pe_1:19, 2Pe_1:21; 1Jo_5:9)

Therefore the Holy Scriptures are the foundational axiom for a Christian's knowledge.

We believe the Scriptures are God's inerrant revelation due to the testimony of the Holy Spirit:

yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (WCF 1:5 )

We do have evidence for the Bible that we should use to defend it as our axiom:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture (1Ti_3:15). And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: (WCF 1:5)

But we are to consider all it says, and all that can be deduced from it as justified truth:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:

Nothing else is necessary for the Christian's knowledge. All he requires for his whole life, faith, salvation, and God's glory, is perfectly accounted for by God's revelation.

 

[MW]

Anthony and Sean, do you agree with this statement by John Owen (Works 4:64, 65) concerning the work of the Spirit?

He gives unto believers a spiritual sense of the power and reality of the things believed, whereby their faith is greatly established... And on the account of this spiritual experience is our perception of spiritual things so often expressed by acts of sense, as tasting, seeing, feeling, and the like means of assurance in things natural. And when believers have attained hereunto, they do find the divine wisdom, goodness, and authority of God so present unto them as that they need neither argument, nor motive, nor anything else, to persuade them unto or confirm them in believing.

Owen states that this spiritual experience "cannot rationally be contended about, seeing those who have received it cannot fully express it, and those who have not cannot understand it, nor the efficacy which it hath to secure and establish the mind.”

Consider also Thomas Goodwin (Works 4:297):

Therefore, now, if you ask me what it is the saints know, which another man knows not? I answer you fully, he himself cannot tell you, for it is certain, as to that impression which the Holy Ghost leaves upon the heart of a man, that man can never make the like impression on another; he may describe it to you, but he cannot convey the same image and impression upon the heart of any man else.

 

[Civbert]

There's a lot in the post I am referring to from Paul, and I haven't finished reading it all - so I'm just giving my response to the beginning to start.

Also, please follow the link to Paul's post for his quotes since they do not embed themselves. These are the ABC quotes:

(A) The epistemology of Scripturalism is (once again) that knowledge is the propositions of Scripture and that which can be deduced from Scripture by "good and necessary consequences".

(B) Scripture is the first principle of the Christian worldview, so that true knowledge consists of only what is directly stated in Scripture and what is validly deducible from Scripture; all other propositions amount to unjustified opinion at best.

(C) It is sufficient to say that if one can demonstrate that P is scripture or deducible therefrom, then S is justified in claiming to know P. That seems self evident. Do you agree?

And the following is my comments to Paul's post.

Anthony, right now I'm trying to nail your position down. So, bear with me.

The Analysis of Scripturalism

I. Is (A) claiming that it is necessary and sufficient that to know that P, P mys be true, P must be believed, and P must be shown to be deduced from Scripture, or Scripture itself?

Nope. I said P must be deducible from Scripture. I didn't say it must be deduced or shown.

II. Or, is (A) claiming that someone S can know what is deduced from true scriptural propositions, and S can also know things that are not deducible from Scripture?

Still no, this is not a good start. Notice you went from (A) "must be deduced," to (B) "not deducible." These are not mutually exclusive. The answer is "must be deducible".

Also notice the scope of C is different than A and B. C is looking at how a person may demonstrate some belief is justified as knowledge. A and B are looking at knowledge in general and how a proposition is justified true belief.

(B) denies (II) above. Does Anthony deny (II) as well, or does he deny (B)?

I deny both (I) and (II). I didn't write B. You have my definition of Scripturalism. Are you planning on showing how my presentation differs from Cheung? I can only give you my understand of Scripturalism. If you have a beef with Chueng, have at it. But my view does not have to mirror Cheungs for it to be valid, or for his to be valid.

Take (C), now. All this is saying is that if someone has validly deduced a proposition from scriptural propositions, then one knows his conclusion. But (C) cannot be "Scripturalism" because then almost every orthodox Christian would have been a Scripturalist! Surely this can't be correct.

Surprise! That is correct. (C) is not a definition of Scripturalism, it is Scripturalism in practice. Scripturalism is simply a restatement of the principles put forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The name "Scripturalism" is modern, the principle dates back to the beginning of the Christian faith.

Indeed, if *this* was all Scripturalism was claiming, then one wonders what anyone has been debating about.

I often wonder that myself. You are putting imputing more utility to the statement than was intended. I did not make the statement as being "all Scripturalism claimed". It was a simple an answer to a question you asked.

(C) says nothing about *other* ways of obtaining knowledge.

Nope. It doesn't.

Furthermore, if (C) is "Scripturalism" then you'll notice that (B) isn't. Or, at least, (B) is not logically entailed by (C).

At least. (C) is not Scripturalism per say. It was not offered as a definition of Scripturalism, (A) was. (C) was a simple common sense answer demonstrating the principle of Scripturalism. Ironically, it shows how basically Christian the principle of Scripturalism is.

For example, if I claim that: "if you want to go to the store, then you can take your car," I have not said that this is the *only* way to get to the store.

(A) seems to be saying that knowledge *is* what is deduced from Scripture, or Scripture itself. And so (A) seems to be closer to (B). That is, if you have not deduced P from scripture (or, it is not deducible from Scripture), then you don't know that P.

It seems that your parenthetic comments are a bit more correct than your direct statements. If it is not deducible from Scripture, then is can not be shown to be knowledge. But read that slowly. I did not say you could not "know" P, I only said an individual could not justify that P is knowledge.

I've been beating that for a while now.

But Anthony's first definition of Scripturalism is closer to (C).

You mean my only definition. But it is no surprise that it is closer to (C). After all, I did write both statements. Is it a crime to be consistent?

That's all for now Paul. I hope the rest doesn't hang on your misunderstandings shown in (I) and (II). But you clearly spent a lot of effort on the rest of the post so I will return to it.

 

[Don]

Is that a fact, or just a position you are taking?

A basic rule of inference. If I unjustifiedly accept P1 as my axiom (and as true) and deduce P2, P3, and P4 from this proposition, how is justification created for me believing that P2, P3, and P4 are true (even though they may be true). I may justifiedly believe that P2, P3, and P4 deductively follow from P1, but this does not give me justification for believing the content of P2, P3, and P4 as being true. You have neither knowledge nor justification for P1 and hence, none for the others. This is why Descartes attempted to go back to a belief that was indubitable for him and transmit that justification to his other beliefs.

One thing I believe is true is that all rational epistemic systems require some sort of axiom or starting point. Nothing is logically prior to the axiom, so the axiom must be assumed. Strictly speaking, the axiom is not "justified". However, that does not mean you can not defend your axiom.

You are switching positions now. If you can defend your axiom, then how is it not justified (in some sense)? Justification is broadly considered as giving reasons for one's beliefs.

If you can't defend your axiom, it's not a very good axiom to adopt. But that being said, starting with your system's axiom, if it is true, then anything you can deduce from the axiom is justified true. Justification is not transfered from proposition to proposition from premise to conclusion. Rather, if the premises are true, then the truth of the conclusion is also true.

See above. I agree that *if* the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows, but you are attempting to sneak justification (and knowledge) of those premises in there as well.

 

[Civbert]

Anthony and Sean, do you agree with this statement by John Owen (Works 4:64, 65) concerning the work of the Spirit?

Honestly, I can't say that I agree with it. He has not explained what "spiritual experience" means. To me, this is pious sounding nonsense. But that's nothing new for Christians. It is always good to sound "spiritual" .

Owen states that this spiritual experience "cannot rationally be contended about, seeing those who have received it cannot fully express it, and those who have not cannot understand it, nor the efficacy which it hath to secure and establish the mind.”

More of the same.

Consider also Thomas Goodwin (Works 4:297):

Mystical nonsense. Sorry.

 

[MW]

Honestly, I can say that I agree with it. He has not explained what "spiritual experience" means. To me, this is pious sounding nonsense. But that's nothing new for Christians. It is always good to sound "spiritual" .


More of the same.

Mystical nonsense. Sorry.

Anthony, I think you should at least pause before you speak of the glorious work of the Holy Spirit as pious sounding and mystical nonsense.

 

[Magma2]

Owen states that this spiritual experience "cannot rationally be contended about, seeing those who have received it cannot fully express it, and those who have not cannot understand it, nor the efficacy which it hath to secure and establish the mind.”

I'm not quite sure what Owen is talking about in the first quote you provided, so I suppose I would have to read more, but this latter quote would seem to apply to any experience someone might be unable to account for or explain, religious or otherwise. Why he would attribute an inexplicable feeling that secures in the mind of some a certain conviction to the Holy Spirit is a bit puzzling. It might be and it just as easily might not be. John Wesley waxed on about having his heart strangely warmed, yet came to deny many of the central doctrines of the faith. Even the great Edwards was convinced the Spirit was moving as evidenced by the emotional experience of those who heard him preach during the Great Awakening. As it turned out, at least per letters I've read subsequent to that time, Edwards was wrong and many of those same people ended up kicking the man out of his own church and he lamented that the state of religion was worse in New England only two years after the supposed Great Awakening then it was prior.

Let me ask you, in your church when and if you ask people for a profession of faith, let's say when seeking church membership or as a communicant, would you accept in its place; "I cannot tell you, but I'm certain that the Holy Ghost left an impression upon my heart. I can't explain it to you, but I felt the Spirit work. I had an experience and while I can't describe it to you, I know I am a Christian."

 

[Civbert]

A basic rule of inference. If I unjustifiedly accept P1 as my axiom (and as true) and deduce P2, P3, and P4 from this proposition, how is justification created for me believing that P2, P3, and P4 are true (even though they may be true).

Indeed, but your are talking about justifying believing something. I am speaking of justifying the truth of something. If P1 is true, and P2 is validly deduced from P1, then P2 is justified true. But P2 is not knowledge unless P2 is deduced from my epistemic axiom. And since I am starting with God's Word, then I think I can both justify the truth of a P2, and justify believing P2, and justify saying I know P2. Do you agree?

You are switching positions now. If you can defend your axiom, then how is it not justified (in some sense)? Justification is broadly considered as giving reasons for one's beliefs.

Because my defense for the axiom not a justification in the sense of justified in "justified true belief". My justification for all that follows from the axiom is a deductive proof. The laws of logic and rules of inference are the tools that justify a proposition is knowledge. The axiom is taken on faith. It can not be proven true logically. But everything that follows from the axiom is proven true by deductive logic.

See above. I agree that *if* the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows, but you are attempting to sneak justification (and knowledge) of those premises in there as well.

I'm not sneaking anything. I am trying to clarify why when it comes to knowledge, the justification is based on simple deductive principles. The axiom is not. The axiom is defended on many grounds, but never proven. And this is true for all rational epistemic systems. If this is not the case, then knowledge is impossible to justify.

 

[Civbert]

Anthony, I think you should at least pause before you speak of the glorious work of the Holy Spirit as pious sounding and mystical nonsense.

I don't assume that emotional experiences are the work of the Holy Spirit no matter how pious sounding the words are. And it was the words that apear to be pious sounding and mystical nonsense. You are assuming they were are genuine works of the Holy Spirit - maybe because the words sound so pious.

 

[MW]

Let me ask you, in your church when and if you ask people for a profession of faith, let's say when seeking church membership or as a communicant, would you accept in its place; "I cannot tell you, but I'm certain that the Holy Ghost left an impression upon my heart. I can't explain it to you, but I felt the Spirit work. I had an experience and while I can't describe it to you, I know I am a Christian."

Sean, you seem to have missed the point of both Owen and Goodwin. You continually speak about justification and account. Puritan Scripturists speak of the demonstration of the Spirit as transcending rational argumentation. Every argument requires its own type of proof. Ethical, historical, rational arguments require different kinds of proof to substantiate them. A spiritual truth requires a demonstration of the Spirit. This, reformed theology contends, cannot be rationally proved.

Now to come to your question -- we believe in the visible church. Membership in the visible church requires a profession of faith. Not faith per se, but a profession of it. Only God knows who are His elect and who are not. It is quite possible for a person to provide rationally coherent statements as to what they profess to believe and still not believe what they are saying. Your system does not allow for this. Your system is not reformed or presbyterian.

May I suggest that you do a Bible study on such passages as speak of Jesus as God's unspeakable gift, of the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, of joy unspeakable and full of glory, of peace which transcends all undertanding, I am afraid that you are bordering on saying that we have the same knowlege as God has even in respect of quantity.

 

[MW]

I don't assume that emotional experiences are the work of the Holy Spirit no matter how pious sounding the words are. And it was the words that apear to be pious sounding and mystical nonsense. You are assuming they were are genuine works of the Holy Spirit - maybe because the words sound so pious.

I maintain with the reformed tradition that the work of the Holy Spirit is mysterious. I am sorry to hear, Anthony, that you do not follow the reformed faith in this instance, but it should still give you pause before condemning it as mystical nonsense. I hope you can come to say with Calvin that the Spirit's testimony is something you feel engraved like a seal upon your heart.

 

[Civbert]

Bullocks! Scripturalism is the claim that one can only know what it deducible from the Bible. If P is not deducible from the Bible, then it is not knowable. You know it. Why are you guys being so shady.

You're not really interested in a discussion. You say if P not deducible, it's not knowable. I never said that. You are carefully wording things so you can have your line of attract. But I carefully worded my definition because it removes that line of attack.

I very specifically said P can not be shown to be knowledge. I made it very clear that that does not imply you can not know P. This is why you keep trying to force me to that one specific point. It is the lynch pin of your refutation. But since I pulled it out, you have no reason to refute Scripturalism. You declare it "Bullocks" and try to tell me what Scripturalism really means and then provide a formulation you can knock down. That's called a straw man argument.

You seem to be committed to refuting Scripturalism even if it means ignoring all sound reasoning in it's defense.

Are you ready to go on or are you committed to the strawman that Scripturalism means that S can not know P unless it's deduced from Scripture.

 

[Civbert]

... and so does Robbins.

John Robbins has said that one can know propositions without deducing them from Scripture.

 

[Don]

Indeed, but your are talking about justifying believing something. I am speaking of justifying the truth of something. If P1 is true, and P2 is validly deduced from P1, then P2 is justified true. But P2 is not knowledge unless P2 is deduced from my epistemic axiom. And since I am starting with God's Word, then I think I can both justify the truth of a P2, and justify believing P2, and justify saying I know P2. Do you agree?.

No I don't agree because even if it is 'justified true' (whatever that means) there is still no justification for me to believe the truth of any propositions that are deduced unless I am justified in believing the truth of my axiom (or premises). As I said earlier, I may be justified in believing that some conclusions follow from particular premises based on deduction, but so what? In other words,, I have no reason to believe their truth, only that they follow from a particular axiom (or set of premises). It's like you say one thing and then turn around and say the opposite - compare the first sentence with the next to last sentence. How is the justification for *believing the truth* of P2 created since it's not transferred from your axiom (and not just being justified in believing that it follows from your axiom)?

Also, for your inferential beliefs to constitute knowledge, your axiom would have to be knowledge as well (and not just have justification). But once you claim to have knowledge or justification for your axiom, you fall prey to Dr. Sudduth's critiques.

Because my defense for the axiom not a justification in the sense of justified in "justified true belief". My justification for all that follows from the axiom is a deductive proof. The laws of logic and rules of inference are the tools that justify a proposition is knowledge. The axiom is taken on faith. It can not be proven true logically. But everything that follows from the axiom is proven true by deductive logic.

Well I don't know how you are using 'faith', but if you are using it in a manner to connote that it doesn't have justification or is not knowledge, then you don't create either of them by deductive inference.

I'm not sneaking anything. I am trying to clarify why when it comes to knowledge, the justification is based on simple deductive principles. The axiom is not. The axiom is defended on many grounds, but never proven. And this is true for all rational epistemic systems. If this is not the case, then knowledge is impossible to justify.

I never intimated that an axiom is an inferential belief, so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

 

[Magma2]

Sean, you seem to have missed the point of both Owen and Goodwin. You continually speak about justification and account. Puritan Scripturists speak of the demonstration of the Spirit as transcending rational argumentation.

Then "Puritan Scripturists" weren't interested in developing a biblical epistemology, so you miss the point and your citations are irrelevant to this discussion.

Now to come to your question -- we believe in the visible church. Membership in the visible church requires a profession of faith. Not faith per se, but a profession of it. Only God knows who are His elect and who are not.

Indeed. Maybe you can explain this to Paul since he believes a man can know his own salvific state, not in the sense of coming to an unwavering confidence or assurance, but rather one's one elect state is an object of knowledge which we acquire quite apart from God's revelation in Scripture. If that were the case then it would not follow that "only God knows who are His elect and who are not."

It is quite possible for a person to provide rationally coherent statements as to what they profess to believe and still not believe what they are saying. Your system does not allow for this. Your system is not reformed or presbyterian.

Then you don't understand the system I'm defending and the one Gordon Clark advanced throughout his career. But, of course, instead of asking for clarification you dogmatically conclude "your system is not reformed or presbyterian." Hogwash. More importantly, you will not accept feeling or subjective experience in place of a profession, nor should you. Hypocrites notwithstanding. So, again, you have failed to demonstrate that feelings, emotions and experiences are cognitive.

Like I said, your objections are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[MW]

Then "Puritan Scripturists" weren't interested in developing a biblical epistemology, so you miss the point and your citations are irrelevant to this discussion.

You are correct, they were not interested in developing a biblical epistemology, but in simply accepting the one that is taught there. They understood that men believe because of the ineffable work of the Holy Spirit. They were convinced -- on the basis that men are not regenerated by believing propositions, but believe propositions because they are regenerated -- that no rational argument can be given to account for the new creature in Christ.

 

[Magma2]

Howdy Sean!

Too bad, I was hoping you’d finally make good on your threats.

And so what does it mean to say that Scripture has a "monopoly" on it? If there is more truth, and more truth that can be known, that it outside Scripture (which, ther epropably is, since God knows many more propositions than are in the Bible), then what does it mean to say that Scripture has a "monopoly" on truth, or the truth that can be known. I've offered no argument on this point, yet.

Many do not think that the Bible alone is the Word of God. Many, like you, think truth can be found in many different places through various different sources quite apart from Scripture. So, if the Bible alone is not the Word of God, where else might it be found? Well, while you won't tell me, Van Til thought that science was cognitive. Many think that truth can be garnered through feelings, experience, sensation or by any number of other means. Look at Rev. Winzer’s post. I’m open to argument, but so far you really haven’t provided any, and, at least from what I can tell, your definition of knowledge can provide sufficient warrant to almost any truth claim. Plus, rather than maintaining the definition which Clark operated on, i.e., knowledge as justified true belief, you constantly equivocate. Hence, your "critique" falls flat.

See what I mean by looking foolish? Funny, you won't find the word Trinity in the Scriptures either, but I don't think even you'd be so silly as to suggest that the idea of the Trinity is not a valid inference from Scripture. As for the idea of Scripture having a monopoly on truth, please see my reply to T.E. Wilder above for biblical passages that will help point you in the right direction. For what it's worth I would love to see you attempt to defend the principle of sola Scripture someday. Maybe you can let me know when you're ready to take on even a half-competent Romanists?

The passages you cited don't have the word "monopoly" and since it's a vague term, how could I possibly see that it is logically inferred from the verses you cited. I don't even know what you mean by that, yet.

You won’t find the word Trinity either. Big deal. As for monopoly, since when is that a “vague term”? Is something that is exclusively possessed difficult for you to grasp?

I have no problem defending sola Scriptura. What's funny is that one of our members, D. T. King, has co-authored a fine series on the issue of sola Scriptura. Nothing remotely resembling Scripturalism is in there. James White's book on sola Scriptura also doesn't have any Scripturalist implication. Nether does Sproul's or Mathison's edited volume. I agree that Scripture is the final authority for all matters pertaining to life and godliness. I agree that Scripture is sufficient. But this does not mean that "knowledge consists only of biblical propositions or propositions deduced therefrom."

I never said all defenders of sola Scriptura were Scripturalists in epistemology, Sproul for example is a Thomist. I do however think that Scripturalism is applying the principle of sola Scriptura to epistemology. The fact that others prior to Clark failed to recognize this foundational principle as having philosophic import, is something to lament not praise. Further, to quote Dr. Gary Crampton, who is a Scripturalist:

. . . Paul, in Timothy 3:15-17 restricts knowledge to the complete canon of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Not only the “sacred writings” . . . of the Old Testament (verse15), but “all Scripture,” both the old and the New is God-breathed (verse 16) and thoroughly equips us for “every good work (verse 17)." Thus, if knowledge were available to us outside of Scripture, Paul’s statement would be false and misleading.

And, again, in response to the two-source theory of truth held by Morton Smith:

Unfortunately, Dr. Smith has adopted the all too prevalent “two-source” theory of truth, wherein it is asserted that science, history, and psychology furnish men truth in addition to the Word of God. This contradicts the many statements in Scripture that the wisdom of the world is foolishness. The Bible claims to have a monopoly on truth: “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). As the Westminster Confession of Faith says: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things [note the universal “all things”] necessary for his glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing [including science, history, and psychology] at any time is to be added” (1:6).

Scripture has a monopoly on truth.

So far all you’ve demonstrated is that you do not hold to the principle of Scripture alone when it comes to epistemology. As you can see you're not alone. You constantly ridicule those who think that Scripture alone is our only source for truth. Yet, the Scriptures say, "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Not that there is some light in them, or that there might be some truth in what they say, but no light at all. The Scriptures say the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Paul asks; “ hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” Evidently not for some.

Lastly, I see you've yet again chosen to reason fallaciously. You trie to poison the well against my position by implying it denies sola Scriptura. You argue ad bacculum by implying that someone who holds my position couldn't even win a debate with a "half-competent" RC apologist.

I apologize, that wasn’t my intent. What I did intend to say is that the same arguments used in defense of the principle of Scripture alone in opposition to the so-called Magisterial or teaching authority of the Roman church/state and extra-biblical claims to the truth of “church teaching,” can be used in support of the idea that Scripture has a monopoly on truth. Sometimes when a person can apply a principle in one area doesn’t mean they consistently apply it in others. You've provided some good examples.

It is you who needs to slow down. My critique said that on your temrs, we can't know that we're saved. Now you admit that. So my critique was spot on. I never said "Scripturalism failes" because of that. I merely said that this was a problem.

Not a problem at all. I suppose you think it a problem for Edwards and the Confession too?

As far as the Bible saying we can know that we are saved, 1 John 5:13 tells us,

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life."

“. . . And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.”

I don’t know why you stopped where you did, but, no, the bible doesn’t say little Timmy or your Grandmother know in the strict sense they are saved -- in the sense I've used the word which you constantly ignore. Granny and Timmy might be deceived? After all, the Confession asserts; “Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God and estate of salvation . . . .” If assurance is synonymous with justified true belief deception would be impossible for they would be able to provide an account for the truth they claim to know. Knowledge, at least if we're going to do epistemology, requires an account. Instead, the passage teaches that those who believe in the name of the Son of God may know that they have eternal life in the sense of having confidence in those things which are written. Otherwise the Confession would be in error since it says that this “infallible assurance” or unwavering confidence “doth not so belong to the essence of faith,” but you say it does!

The word that is translated “know” is eido which means to see, perceive, discern, to understand and, while it can mean to have knowledge, it also means to cherish as in 1 Th. 5:12. For example, an argument which you oddly attribute to “neophyte Scripturalists” (must be a real neophyte) is;

P1. All who call upon the name of the Lord are saved.

P2. I call upon the name of the Lord.

C1. Therefore I am saved

Then you pull apart this argument by saying that P2 is a problem for everyone for P2 cannot be inferred from Scripture. You’re correct. How do you arrive at P2? Well, not from 1 John 5:13. 1 John could be used to support P1, but not P2. Two different propositions entirely. Instead the Confession and the Scriptures exhort us that it is our duty “to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure.” You confuse assurance with knowledge. The Confession writers evidently weren’t so easily confused.

And, the context of the book is that we can "know" these things by looking at our life, and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the Confession states that the “true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker” of biblical assurance. If assurance were an object of knowledge instead of a state of mind, it would no longer be assurance and Edwards couldn’t say “this matter is not to be learned . . . any other way than by consequence.”

The only way you can advance your argument is by NOT maintaining knowledge as JTB, but rather saying that knowledge is assurance too. If that were the case self-deception and hypocrisy would be impossible. Truth would be acquired. Your entire argument hangs on an equivocation.

And if you can't know that your life is honoring to God, how can you know that you can have assurance?

See what I mean. Assurance is not knowledge, yet you continually confuse the two. To think you have the nerve to accuse others of being “sophomoric.”

 

[Magma2]

Sean, you don't think the Bible alone is the word of God. Remember, you said the Bible is made up of arbitrary marks on a page. Scripture is different, you said.

You do make it difficult to interact respectfully when you intentionally say such stupid things and seemingly just for effect.

But, yes, I do think the Bible is the word of God. It is God's sole written revelation to man. But, God said many other words that were not recorded in the Bible, Sean. And those are His words just the same.

No doubt He did, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Many, like you, think truth can be found in many different places through various different sources quite apart from Scripture.
If a truth can be found in "different places" than Scripture, then there is extra-Scriptural truth. But you apparently think there is no truth to be found that is not found in Scripture. But this statement, is not true, for it is not found in the Bible! If it is true, what source did it come from? Anyway, it appears that you are an alethic Scripturalist, and therefore you hold to a self-referentially incoherent position.

Again, it’s very hard to take you seriously when you insist on making unthinking and asinine remarks. If Scripture is God's sole written revelation, and we can even agree (unlike papists and charismatics) that former ways of God's revealing his will to his people have ceased, then if one is going to come to a knowledge of the truth, then it would follow that Scripture alone is the only means possible. The search for truth by other means is, and has been, vanity.

Those like you who insist on a two-source theory of truth must provide an account for whatever your preferred additional source(s) might be. It's not enough to simply say; I think I have a pain, therefore it is true I have a pain. That's not an argument. It's an assertion.

Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth. I realize you do not accept the idea that knowledge requires an account, but then you are a hypocrite for demanding it from others including atheists like Dan Barker. Frankly, you owe the man an apology and I mean that sincerely.

But, here's an extra-biblical truth: I'm experiencing a pain. Since that is an immediate deliverance of one of my mental states, it is undeniable. It is true. And it is not a deliverance of Scripture.

So, let me be clear, is every immediate deliverance of one of your many mental states true because to you they’re undeniable? How do you know it’s true you are experiencing a pain? Please provide an account of how you know this? Perhaps you’re still in bed and dreaming you’re experiencing a pain. Maybe it’s one of your brain lesions causing you to think you’re experiencing a pain. But why restrict knowledge to just subjective experiences, after all your headache is not my headache. Perhaps every thought that pops into your mind is an immediate deliverance of one of your mental states. I’m quite sure Paul Manata as God sounds quite appealing and all the propositions you think are true are true for no other reason than you think them.

Second, you haven't shown that my definition of knowledge can provide sufficient warrant to almost any truth claim. The only attempt you made was your straw man argument which assumed I was simply a reliabalist. I addressed those critiques and you've let it fade away into archive history.

Regardless of what you think I’ve shown or not, I have shown that your definition is not mine, Gordon Clark’s, nor does it have anything to do with what a Scripturalist or biblical epistemology is concerned with yet you continually confuse the two. You’ve already provided a nice example that what you think is true is true because you think it. While I’m sure you’re quite happy believing this, I find it hard to believe you’ll find many adherents to your philosophy of knowledge. But, hey, Jim Jones had some success. Go for it!

I realize you keep trying to pin so-called Alethic Scripturalism on me (the only place where your so-called "critique" of Scripturalism, if in fact AS had anything to do with Scripturalism, would carry any weight), but I’ve already, and repeatedly, refuted your attempts and have done so again above. At this point it's safe to say you’ve abandoned argument and have simply resorted to liable. More signs of desperation Paul.

Further, to quote Dr. Gary Crampton, who is a Scripturalist:

. . . Paul, in Timothy 3:15-17 restricts knowledge to the complete canon of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Not only the “sacred writings” . . . of the Old Testament (verse15), but “all Scripture,” both the old and the New is God-breathed (verse 16) and thoroughly equips us for “every good work (verse 17)." Thus, if knowledge were available to us outside of Scripture, Paul’s statement would be false and misleading.

I don't see where Paul "restricts knowledge" to the "completed canon" in II Tim. 3:16.

Neither do Romanists. Actually, most use the exact same subterfuge. I guess you’ve found a new home. Clearly you don’t take the universals Paul uses like “all”, “every”, “perfect” seriously.

I don’t know why you stopped where you did, but, no, the bible doesn’t say little Timmy or your Grandmother know in the strict sense they are saved -- in the sense I've used the word which you constantly ignore.
Yeah, I know that they don't know in the sense you're using it. But you haven't shown the Bible uses it in your sense.

Indeed I have and many times. Do the truths of Scripture just bounce off your mind or do they just fall through one of the many lesions you mentioned? Besides the verses already adduced, according to Paul, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ . . . .” To the law and the testimony . . . not to every and any thought that might pop into your head. Not only is the axiom of Scripture necessary for knowledge of God, it is the only basis for any knowledge of anything whatsoever (see Timothy and not Timmy above), for God alone is truth itself. Clark was correct when he said:

". . . it may be pointed out that if God is supreme, as we claim, there can be no higher source than self-disclosure. God cannot be deduced from any superior principle. Therefore the same conclusion follows: either revelation must be accepted as an axiom or there is no knowledge of God at all."

And, since God alone is truth (want me to prove that too from the Scriptures?) and knowledge is concerned with how truth might be obtained, not only is the axiom of Scripture necessary for knowledge of God, it follows that it is the only basis for any knowledge of anything whatsoever for there is no truth apart from God. Apart from the axiom of Scripture, Clark correctly argued that knowledge is simply not possible on any other basis at all. Thankfully, and to date, you have done precisely nothing to prove him wrong.

You need to try harder Paul.

Quote:
Then you pull apart this argument by saying that P2 is a problem for everyone for P2 cannot be inferred from Scripture. You’re correct. How do you arrive at P2? Well, not from 1 John 5:13. 1 John could be used to support P1, but not P2. Two different propositions entirely.

I think we can know it by watching our lives, growing in or sanctification, and the internal witness of the holy Spirit.

The problem with your supposition is that assurance, which is possible, is not knowledge. Otherwise it could not be shaken, diminished, and intermitted. You keep forgetting that knowledge is concerned with the acquisition of truth, not with opinions which may or may not be true. The point is you might be wrong just like those who will cry 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' These men obviously were watching their lives very closely and they could even point to impressive and even great works as evidence of their sanctification. They even cried Lord, Lord so I’m quite sure they thought they had the internal witness of the Holy Spirit as well. Yet the Lord will say; 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

If the truth of our salvific state could be arrived at as you describe then Paul was talking nonsense when he commands us; Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! He tells us to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. If we could validly infer our eternal blessedness from our subjective experience, then such commands would be without meaning. They would be superfluous. Biblical assurance is rooted in the promises and propositions of God, we are to have confidence in them not in ourselves. Assurance is not a source of knowledge, nor should the two be confused as you have done.

 

[Magma2]

Given the concept, our knowledge is immediate, but the given is, itself, mediated by sensory information processing.

While there is little doubt that I’ve wasted enough time refuting you, I thought I would just point out just a few more examples of your inability to effectively deal with the issues at hand. Notice the above by which you come to assert the epistemic import of “sensation,” yet if knowledge is mediated it is not immediate. You contradict yourself and glaringly so.

<snip blabbering on about Cheung, who, incidently, and as far as I can tell, doesn’t even consider himself a Scripturalist. Why don’t you save that drivel for your blog?>

And so for the Scripturalist, the written word is superfluous.

Since I had used Scripture and the Bible interchangeably, I guess I provided you an opportunity to go off on a screed about ink marks and the like. That’s fine. Yet, as anyone can see from your post, not only is knowledge immediately mediated (huh?), you also nowhere demonstrate how you arrive at, say, justification by belief alone, starting form ink marks? Nope, you don’t even attempt it, yet you assert sensation has a cognitive function. Pathetic.

what do you mean by "an account?"

A rational argument. For example, if you think truth can be gleaned from sensing black ink marks on a page, you need to start by, at the very least, defining what you mean by sensation and from there demonstrate how arbitrary black marks on a page can give rise to universal and true propositions like “all men have sinned.” Outside of that, you’re just begging the question.

Moreover, you'll note that I said these beliefs are immediate.

Uh, no you did not. You said the “given” in your theory is that knowledge itself is “mediated by sensory information processing.” Well, I don’t see it as a given at all. Something cannot be both mediated and immediate. It is either one or the other. You can’t have it both ways even in that Van Tilian world you inhabit of contradictions and antinomies. So, it looks to me that you’ve opted for the latter since you say it’s a given that knowledge is mediated by sensory information processing. But, what is this “sensory information processing”? Well, you haven’t told us. You need to start by defining sensation and then provide some demonstration of how this information processing might give rise to knowledge as requested above. Let’s see your argument? Let’s see your account.

For what it's worth and just an aside, I’ve met many pew sitters and even those who have spent lifetimes studying the ink marks in the book called the Bible who have never come to a knowledge of the truth and remain in their sins even to this day. Perhaps if you could explain this sensory information processing method you’re putting forth for the acquisition of knowledge, they too might come to know the truth?

Well, who knows what *you* mean by an account. Considered broadly enough, my definition of knowledge fits with this. Furthermore, I already corrected you about the Dan Barker thing. I'd appreciate you not calling me a hypocrite

No, I think you are a hypocrite and I would ask you to listen to your debate with the man again. You had no problem whatsoever challenging the man to account for the many assertions he made given his worldview. Now you pretend to have no idea what is meant by an account! It must be one of those vague terms like monopoly.

you're somehow thinking that because *some* beliefs do not require an "account" (e.g., basic ones), then I must think that *no* beliefs require an account? But that's fallacious.

That’s not what I think at all, I think you do and say whatever is convenient. No account needed for your phantom pain which you assert is “undeniable” hence true sans any account whatsoever. OTOH an account is needed if you’re an atheist. Don’t worry, I get it.

That's what proper functioning epistemic agents made in the image of God should do.

I guess people with brain lesions and imbeciles need not apply. As to little lost Timmy, even as infants my kids could sing; Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Oddly and ironically (given your extreme hostility), that’s pretty much the Scirpturalism of Gordon Clark in nutshell. I couldn’t say it better myself little Timmy.

If I was dreaming I was experiencing a pain, it would still be true that I was experiencing a pain, albeit the experience took place in my dream. And, if it a were brain lesion causing the pain experience, it is still true that I am *experiencing* a pain.

I have no doubt you’re experiencing pain right about now, but what you have not done is shown that your experience of pain is cognitive. I would think a person will experience pain when he puts his hand on a burning stove, a leper probably not so much, but it doesn’t follow from this that his pain – or lack thereof -- provides an epistemological process by which the truth of any given proposition might be obtained. You seem to keep forgetting that only propositions can be true or false and you most certainly haven’t show how the pain in your head (and I guess I'm just a pain in your ____) gives rise to knowledge. All you’ve done is assert and beg the question.

They are immediately present. And therefore I deny your request for an "account."

Well isn’t that convenient.

<snip meandering>

Of course, if you hold that knowledge must be infallible, certain, and indubitable, then I can see where you're coming from.

Good. Finally. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever. Amen!

 

[JWJ]

Just wanted to pass on a quick note to Civbert: You are doing a good job in holding your view and stating your point. What I have read only reinforces my Scripturalism. I wish I had the time to engage in this conversation but I am too busy with a church plant.


Jim

 

[Don]

P.S. Oh, and for all you know, your planting a new McDonalds franchise, not a church.

 

[Magma2]

P.S. Oh, and for all you know, your planting a new McDonalds franchise, not a church.

Me too, but for a completely different reason.