Proverbs 3:5-6: A Biblical Basis for Revelational Epistemology

I have heard people claim that the Bible does not present us with a specific epistemological theory. It has been claimed that the Bible does not speak on epistemology and so we should not try to read any epistemological theories into the text. While it may be true that the Bible is not an epistemology textbook, there are various passages and doctrines of Scripture that have profound epistemological implications. One of such passages is Proverbs 3:5-6 which reads:

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.(KJV)

Here we have what I believe to be a powerful repudiation of an autonomous approach to any area of human life—including philosophy and epistemology! 

First, we are instructed to trust the Lord with all our hearts. This implies a total, unconditional and unquestioned submission to God—His word, providence, will, etc. Our trust in God cannot be conditional, being contingent on, say, the approval of logical or scientific considerations.

The word translated ‘trust’ in verse 5 means ‘to lie helpless, facedown.’ It pictures a servant waiting for the master’s command in readiness to obey, or a defeated soldier yielding himself to the conquering general (Wiersbe)

We are to approach God with total surrender and trust Him completely. We are not to put our trust in anything else. This trust must be total—it must be with all our heart.

They trust  not God at all that do it not alone. He that stands with one foot on a rock, and another foot upon a quicksand, will sink and perish as certainly as he that stands with both feet on a quicksand.(Trapp)

This trust is not the mere cold assent of enlightened judgment. It is trust…with all your heart. It is a childlike, unwavering confidence in our Father’s well-proved wisdom, faithfulness, and love.(Bridges)

Then, we are instructed not to lean on our own understanding. This is a direct Biblical repudiation of any attempt by man to be independent in religious and intellectual endeavors. Scripture here makes an implicit distinction between man’s understanding and God’s understanding. It paints human understanding as something should not be relied upon. In other words, we must resist any temptation to be self-sufficient or self-dependent. Our epistemology must in the same way be guided by our trust in God and not on our own understanding.

It is on GOD, not on thyself, that thou art commanded to depend. He who trusts in his own heart is a fool…. Self-sufficiency and self-dependence have been the ruin of mankind ever since the fall of Adam. The grand sin of the human race is their continual endeavour to live independently of God. (Clarke)

In short, not our reason and understanding at best, and much less as carnal and unsanctified, but the word of God only is our rule of judgment, and the standard of our faith and practice; and to that we should have recourse and be directed by it, and not lean to our own understandings.(Gill)

 Furthermore, in all our ways we are to acknowledge God. This applies to our philosophical undertakings as well. God must be acknowledged and presupposed even when we think about philosophy and knowledge. Even when we reason, we are to acknowledge that it is God that grants us such powers by creating us in His image. We should not think ourselves as being self-sufficient. God must be acknowledged in all areas.

If we are to adhere to this passage of Scripture, we cannot conduct epistemology or philosophy in an autonomous fashion. Our epistemology must be revelational in nature—trusting God at every point, presupposing the authority of His word and providence, leaning not on our own understanding and acknowledging that He is the one who makes all our endeavors possible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th
Read more