Sean Gerety quotes three statements by John Robbins. Let’s examine them.
In the strict sense no one in the twentieth century knows that he is a man, for he has not deduced it from the Bible. (Now perhaps such a deduction is possible, and I would be open to an argument on that point.) It is an opinion we hold. You do not know that you are a man. Your opinion may be true, but unless you can show me the argument, it does not rise to the level of knowledge.
Question: when Robbins says that extrascriptural claims are only opinions because they don’t rise to the level of knowledge, is his statement about extrascriptural claims a true statement? Does he know that extrascriptural claims are only opinions? Or does he merely opine that extrascriptural claims are only opinions?
According to Scripturalism, he can’t know that extrascriptural claims are only opinions, for his own statement is not deducible from Scripture.
So he can’t claim that Scripturalism is true. That’s just his opinion. And for all he knows, it may be an ignorant opinion.
I distinguish–as the Bible and Plato do–between three noetic states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Perhaps [some] do not so distinguish. But why would [someone] not distinguish between knowledge and opinion, or knowledge and ignorance? It seems to me that a refusal or failure to distinguish between these three states can lead only to greater confusion.
Question: is his statement about the three noetic states a true statement? Does he know that there are three noetic states? Or does he merely opine that there are three noetic states?
If opinion falls short of knowledge, then how does he distinguish opinion from ignorance?
Is his distinction between opinion and ignorance a witting distinction, or an ignorant distinction?
All men are sinners.
Michael Sudduth is a man.
Therefore, Michael Sudduth is a sinner.
The syllogism is valid.
How does he know this syllogism is valid? Did he deduce this syllogism from Scripture?
Or is it merely his opinion that this syllogism is valid? And how does he distinguish his opinion of validity from ignorance?