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?
Hey Steve, I agree that there doesn't seem to be any Scripturalist answer to your first point, but could the second and third not be adequately answered by observing that they are analytic truths?
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Bnonn
Even if they're true by definition, did Robbins deduce the definitions from Scripture? Where did he come up with the definitions?
ReplyDeleteDid he deduce deductive syllogisms (i.e. that form of argument) from Scripture?
It seems to me that Scripturalist have such a high view of the Bible as the verbal (*special*) revelation of God, that they do so to the virtual denial of the natural world as God's *general* revelation. As Van Til taught, God's special revelation was never meant to function apart from God's general revelation, or vice versa.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Dr. Clark's apologetical maneuver to render Scripture *unassailable* by denying non-believers the ability learn or know anything through sensation and induction has lead to the unexpected result of making Scripture inasscessible to the Believer!!!.
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteApropos your question, there's another problem with Robbins' syllogism. A syllogism depends on inference. How does a Scripturalist acquire his knowledge of logic? From the Bible?
Even if the Bible implicitly taught modus ponens, a student of Scripture couldn't infer that from Scripture unless he already had a working knowledge of logic. So the Bible can't be his source of knowledge for informal logic.
As such, does the Scripturalism know modus ponens, or does he merely opine modus ponens? His position would commit him to the latter.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIn line with your comments, Scripturalists in fact believe that they must deduce these laws from the Bible. I asked Gerety how he knew the LNC, and, rather than say 'it's analytic', he pointed me to a "deduction" of the LNC from the Bible. I interacted with the deduction here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/just-say-no-to-scripturalism.html
If I recall correctly, I've heard Robbins and read Cheung and Clark teach that it is because we're made in God's rational image, that we have inate concepts/notions/categories (etc) implanted within us.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's because Scripturalists believe that Christ is the only teacher (Matt. 23:8), being the Logos or Logic of God (John 1:1), and the light that lights every man who enters the world (John 1:9) which explains occasionalistic divine illumination and why logic is inherent in human makeup (unlike animals who are without "reason" (literally without "logic" 2 Pet. 2:12).
ANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDelete"If I recall correctly, I've heard Robbins and read Cheung and Clark teach that it is because we're made in God's rational image, that we have inate concepts/notions/categories (etc) implanted within us."
The problem with appealing to an innate knowledge of logic is that such knowledge would be a mode of extrascriptural knowledge, pace Scripturalism. If Scripture is the only source of knowledge, then we cannot have an innate knowledge of logic.
Consistent with Scripturalism, we could only acquire our knowledge of logic from Scripture. But unless we already had a working knowledge of informal logic, we'd be unable to grasp the teaching of Scripture. So this is one of the dilemmas which Scripturalism has boxed itself into.
What logic is inherent in man? Aristotelian? How's that argument go? I'm not even sure I know aht that means. Of course the capacity for rational thought is inherent in man's makeup. But that's not to say that a particular logic is innate in man. And, of course, how the Scripturalist knows any of this remains a problem
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeleteHope to have a brotherly discussion on the following.
You wrote: “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?"
I think it would be fairer to say that Robbins believes that all Biblical claims “rise to the level of knowledge” and that because all extra-scriptural knowledge claims have not been verified by a word from God, one must offer justification for them which would be as certain as a word from God.
Robbins’ would then ask for that justification.
IMU, for Robbins, knowledge is defined as justified truth believed, where justification is verification by a word from God; and he held that only the Scriptures offer us such a word. What is more certain than a word from God?
When God speaks there is no question as to the epistemic status of whatever He says.
So, if a claim is justified as knowledge by virtue of it being a word from God, then any proposition not verified by a word from God must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God in order to be known.
Any proposition which he does not hold axiomatically as being a word from God is opinions unless it can be shown to be as certain as a word from God.
This doesn’t mean that extra-Biblical claims are not true. But apart from a word from God he does not claim to know them to be true. This is not to affirm that they are false.
Just because I cannot know that I am a man does not mean that it is not true. Just because the scientist does not know theory X does not mean it will not produce great results.
Robbin’s holds axiomatically that the propositions of the 66 books of Scripture are divinely inspired and are thus ipso facto epistemically justified. Accordingly, a proposition outside Scripture is not known unless justification can be provided for it which is as certain as a word from God.
Again, I think Robbins would want to see such justification.
You wrote: “Does he know that extrascriptural claims are only opinions?”
Again, it seems that if justification requires a word from God, anything which does not have verification by a word from God is not known. Robbin’s calls these claims opinions (which can be either true or false).
You wrote: “Or does he merely opine that extrascriptural claims are only opinions?”
Again, it seems that if all Bible is knowledge because it is a word from God, then any other claim must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God. I think that until such justification is provided, Robbins is correct to call all such extra-Scriptural claims opinion or whatever.
You wrote: “he can’t know that extrascriptural claims are only opinions, for his own statement is not deducible from Scripture.”
IMU, Robbins would not argue in this way. By making Scripture axiomatic, the propositions of Scripture become the indubitables and are knowledge by nature of their place in his system. All other proposition which are not Scripture are therefore not known apart from a word from God. This seems consistent to me. And you can call these other propositions whatever you want; Robbins called them opinions.
Robbins claims that all Bible is knowledge. That is, there is nothing more certainly known than a word from God and the Bible is a word from God.
All other claims to knowledge must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God.
You wrote: “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.”
IMU, saying, “he can’t claim that Scripturalism is true” is like saying, “Calvinists can’t say Calvinism is true because the Bible doesn’t say Calvinism is true.”
Hope to get some feed back on this. I know there is great hostility between the VanTillians and Clarkians. I don’t want anything to do with it. I hope that whoever responds will set that immaturity aside and be motivated to work together for the Kingdom.
In Christ,
Jp
Sean Gerety quoting the late Dr. Robbins:
ReplyDeleteJohn Robbins:
==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. If you claim to know that you are a man, please show me the argument. Please do not water down, dilute, or make ambiguous the definition of the word “knowledge.” Don’t blur it with opinion. Don’t bother citing immediate “self-knowledge” or some such notion, for the Scriptures explicitly say: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” What you take to be easily come by, the Scripture says is impossible. Why should anyone believe you rather than Scripture?
“So if we have the opinion that we are men, then the syllogism I provided [all men are sinners, ___ is a man, therefore ____ is a sinner] is neither absurd nor irrelevant; it is right on target. We may or may not be correct in our opinion, but if we have that opinion, if you have that opinion, you are required to believe that you are a sinner.
“In addition, Paul in 2 Cor 10:5b tells us that we are to take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,” and this would include our opinions as well as our knowledge.”==
Robbins did not know he was a man, and thus he did not know he was a sinner. Since he would say that his heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, he could not even know that he was not being deceived into thinking he was saved. And Gerety says that the truth or falsehood of the minor premise isn't even that important. Well, if it's not that important, then it logically follows that the conclusion isn't that important either. Clarkians cannot make any certain judgments about anything. They might as well just shut up, because all of their opining is possibly meaningless.
See:
www.outsidethecamp.org/efl270.htm and:
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl61.htm
Mr. Duncan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “Robbins did not know he was a man, and thus he did not know he was a sinner… he could not even know that he was not being deceived into thinking he was saved.”
Of course, the word “know” may be used in many senses. I would only comment that knowledge is a subspecies of belief and that what matters is that Dr. Robbins believed these things to be true. That is, something can be believed to be true *and be true* yet not be known. IMU, it makes no difference that Dr. Robbin’s did not know any of the above. Dr. Robbin’s affirms that any proposition from God (contained in the Bible alone) is known just because God reveal it.
On the other hand, anyone who claims to know that they are a man must explain how *they* know. What, for you, would make that proposition known? In addition, if you claim to have knowledge of Scripture via sensation, I’d ask you to explain how a perception (or sensation) becomes a proposition and then how that proposition may become certain. And if you need sensation even to get to Scripture then any appeal to Scripture to establish your position would be unwarranted; they cannot both be first.
The question then arises as to how Dr. Robbin’s could have known God’s propositional revelation since the ink symbols on paper must be observed. The answer as I understand it is that the question begs the question; it is like asking, “How can men receive propositional revelation without the senses if propositional revelation requires the senses?” One must justify the statement that the senses are always necessary in the knowledge process. I believe that God is in sovereign control of the proposition that we acquire and believe – however that process works and on whatever occasion pleases Him (dream, sense, etc.).
You wrote: “Clarkians cannot make any certain judgments about anything.”
Again, knowledge is a subspecies of belief, some beliefs we have justification for (and are thus known), others we do not. We may believe something to be true and therefore certain, without knowing that it is true and therefore certain. And just because we don’t know something to be true does not mean that it is not true.
On the other hand, how would you argue that Chris Duncan is a sinner is certain? Will you simply assert that you are a man and leave it at that? Do you have a positive epistemological construction of your own which explains how “Chris Duncan is a sinner” can be known?
You wrote: “…Gerety says …the truth or falsehood of the minor premise isn't even that important. …then it logically follows that the conclusion isn't.”
I don’t know what Sean meant by “important”, but the important point is that that minor premise (Chris Duncan is a man) does not have the epistemic justification that the major premise (all men are sinners) has, and therefore the conclusion, which may in fact be “important” for Chris Duncan, is nevertheless no more certainly known than the minor premise.
But again, this does not mean the conclusion is not true, nor does it mean Chris Duncan doesn’t believe the conclusion to be true.
You wrote: “They might as well just shut up…”
One thing I can’t stand about philosophical conversations in these circles is that that all sides seem committed to being uncharitable, stubborn, and cutting (i.e. your “just shut up”). Such attitudes should not characterize conversations between and about brothers.
Needless to say, even if Clark is wrong, what is your alternative? And if that alternative does not stand to critical scrutiny, will you take your own advice? What if you still honestly believed you were right even though all else thought you were wrong; wouldn’t you wish your brothers were charitable, patient and helpful to you in that hour, to *not* just tell you to “shut up” (which we tell even our little ones not to say to each other)?
Oh sure, the other guy started it, etc.
What did Lord Christ start?
~Jp