Soul, Epistemology, and the Scripturalist Concept

Introduction
The debate on the nature of the soul is one of the pillars of Western and Islamic philosophy, having been approached in various ways by figures such as Avicenna, Averroes, and Thomas Aquinas. However, Scripturalism, a framework developed in the 20th and 21st centuries by thinkers like Gordon Haddon Clark and Vincent Cheung, proposes a thought structure centered on biblical revelation, rejecting the autonomy of human reason. This article explores how Scripturalism offers a more coherent and theologically aligned response to questions concerning the nature of the soul, highlighting the role of the Divine Logos.

Section 1: Classical Views on the Soul
1.1 Avicenna (Ibn Sina)
Avicenna proposed a fundamental ontological distinction between essence and existence, asserting that true knowledge depends on the Active Intellect, a transcendental entity that illuminates the human mind. The soul, in his view, is a perfection of the body but remains immortal and separate from matter¹. Avicenna’s epistemology relies on illumination by the Active Intellect, raising questions about the autonomy of the soul and its relationship with God².

1.2 Averroes (Ibn Rushd)
Averroes argued that the intellect is unique and shared among all human beings. This thesis of the unity of the intellect implied that there is no individuality in thought, which would undermine the concept of personal immortality³. He also maintained that human reason could comprehend universal truths without the need for a divine intermediary, a position that provoked strong opposition from Christian theologians⁴.

1.3 Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas sought to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine, asserting that the soul is the substantial form of the body. He viewed reason and faith as complementary, claiming that human knowledge begins with sensory perception but is elevated through rational capacity. However, he preserved a distinction between primary causes (God) and secondary causes (natural laws), which creates philosophical tensions within Christian theology⁵.

Footnotes:

1. Avicenna, The Metaphysics of The Healing (English translation by Michael Marmura). The work explores the distinction between essence and existence and the role of the Active Intellect in the theory of knowledge.
2. Avicenna, Psychology from The Healing, a section where he details the immortality of the soul and its relationship to the body.
3. Averroes, Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima, where he develops his thesis on the unity of the intellect.
4. Reference to Thomas Aquinas’ critique in De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas.
5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.75–76, where he discusses the relationship between the soul and the body, as well as causality.
6. Gordon H. Clark, The Lord God of Truth. Clark argues that knowledge can only be guaranteed when derived from the Bible, discussing the insufficiency of autonomous epistemologies.
7. Vincent Cheung, Captive to Reason. Cheung criticizes empiricism and rationalism, advocating for an epistemology grounded in divine revelation.

Section 2: Scripturalist Thought in Depth
2.1 Foundations of the Scripturalist Worldview
Scripturalism acknowledges that everyone has a worldview composed of three pillars: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Gordon Clark argues that the Bible is the central axiom for any true knowledge system. Without this foundation, epistemology becomes unstable and prone to error.

2.2 Scripturalist Epistemology
Scripturalist epistemology starts from the principle that all true knowledge is propositional and must be anchored in biblical revelation. Gordon Haddon Clark contends that the Bible is the supreme axiom supporting any correct understanding of reality. In The Lord God of Truth, Clark emphasizes that without the authority of Scripture, human reason is vulnerable to errors and inconsistencies¹. He rejects empiricism, claiming that human senses, corrupted by sin, are incapable of providing reliable knowledge. Only the Divine Logos can infallibly communicate true propositions².

Vincent Cheung deepens this view in Ultimate Questions and Captive to Reason, advocating for an occasionalist epistemological approach. For Cheung, sensory experiences do not produce knowledge in themselves; they merely serve as occasions for God, through the Logos, to reveal truth to the human mind³. This implies that all understanding is directly caused by God, eliminating the concept of intellectual autonomy⁴. This radical occasionalism underscores the sovereignty of God in all cognitive operations.

2.3 Metaphysics and the Divine Logos
Scripturalist metaphysics, according to Clark, is inseparable from the doctrine of the Logos. In Johannine Logos, Clark describes the Logos as the divine reason that orders and sustains the universe⁵. He critiques the Aristotelian view of autonomous causality, arguing that the world is not an independent mechanistic system but a teleological cosmos entirely dependent on God’s will. Divine sovereignty is the foundation of all reality, making any other metaphysical view insufficient and incoherent⁶.

Vincent Cheung adopts an even stricter stance on causality. In his writings, he argues that God is the direct cause of all events and phenomena, both physical and intellectual. Cheung’s metaphysical occasionalism denies any intrinsic causal power to creatures or nature. Everything results from God’s continuous action⁷. This directly contrasts with Thomas Aquinas’s notion of secondary causes operating under natural law, which Scripturalism views as insufficient to explain creation’s dependence on the Creator⁸.

2.4 Scripturalist Ethics
Scripturalist ethics is objective and grounded in divine revelation. In A Christian View of Men and Things, Clark argues that moral principles cannot be derived from human nature or reason, as proposed by Thomas Aquinas’s natural law theory. Instead, morality is a reflection of God’s immutable character, as revealed in Scripture⁹.

Cheung reinforces this perspective in Captive to Reason, criticizing any ethical approach that relies on human judgment. He asserts that without divine revelation, ethics becomes relative and subjective, compromised by human reason’s flaws. Scripturalist ethics, on the other hand, provides a fixed and unquestionable foundation necessary for Christian moral life¹⁰.

Footnotes:

1. Gordon H. Clark, The Lord God of Truth, where he argues against empiricism and establishes the importance of the Bible as the source of all true knowledge.
2. Clark, Johannine Logos, where he details the role of the Logos in God’s propositional communication.
3. Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, where Cheung expounds on his occasionalist view, explaining that knowledge is directly granted by God.
4. Cheung, Captive to Reason, where he critiques rationalism and advocates for the necessity of divine revelation for meaningful understanding.
5. Clark, Johannine Logos, where he critiques Aristotelian philosophy and defends a Logos-based metaphysics.
6. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, where he highlights the insufficiency of naturalistic explanations of causality.
7. Cheung, Ultimate Questions, where he presents his defense of radical occasionalism, rejecting natural causality.
8. A critical comparison with Thomas Aquinas, explored more thoroughly in the critique section.
9. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, discussing objective ethics based on divine revelation.
10. Cheung, Captive to Reason, emphasizing that ethics must be grounded in God’s sovereignty and revelation.

Section 3: Comparison and Critique — Scripturalism vs. Classical Theories
3.1 Critical Analysis of Avicenna
Avicenna’s philosophy, with its ontological separation between essence and existence and its reliance on the Active Intellect as a mediator of knowledge, raises serious issues when confronted with Scripturalism. Clark criticizes this view in The Lord God of Truth, asserting that propositional knowledge must come directly from God, without the need for abstract intermediaries¹. He argues that Avicenna’s concept of an intermediary entity between God and man is unnecessary and undermines divine sovereignty.

Cheung, in Ultimate Questions, goes further by applying his occasionalist perspective, contending that Avicenna’s epistemology fails to acknowledge the total dependence of the human mind on divine revelation². Instead of an Active Intellect illuminating the mind, Cheung holds that God, through the Logos, is the direct source of all knowledge. Therefore, sensory experiences serve only as occasions for divine intervention, rather than being the foundation for acquiring knowledge³.

3.2 Critique of Averroes’ Unity of the Intellect
Averroes’ thesis of the unity of the intellect, which posits a single intellect shared by all humanity, is a point of intense controversy. In Johannine Logos, Clark criticizes this idea for destroying the individuality of the soul and the concept of personal moral responsibility⁴. For Clark, each person has an individual soul, created by God, and it is this soul that is illuminated by the Logos, ensuring the possibility of individual knowledge and immortality.

Cheung also delivers a strong critique in Captive to Reason. He argues that Averroes’ thesis is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of personal immortality because it denies the existence of separate individual souls. Cheung emphasizes that the human mind is entirely dependent on God for every act of knowledge, and any notion of a universal intellect contradicts the relational nature of human beings with God⁵.

3.3 Thomas Aquinas and Natural Reason
Thomas Aquinas presents a different challenge to Scripturalism, as his attempt to harmonize faith and reason is closer to Christian theology. However, Clark identifies fundamental flaws in Aquinas’s approach, especially his reliance on sensory perception and natural reason as starting points for knowledge⁶. In The Lord God of Truth, Clark asserts that any epistemology not based exclusively on the Bible is prone to error, as human reason is corrupted by sin.

Cheung, in Ultimate Questions, critiques Aquinas’s natural law ethics, arguing that while Aquinas claims moral laws can be known through reason, this overlooks the necessity of divine revelation for true moral understanding. Scripturalist ethics, by contrast, maintains that morality is uncompromising and derives directly from the will of God⁷.

3.4 The Superiority of the Scripturalist Approach
Scripturalism stands out for offering a comprehensive theocentric framework that not only addresses classical philosophical problems but also provides a secure and theologically aligned foundation for knowledge, existence, and morality. Clark and Cheung argue that the authority of Scripture and the sovereignty of God ensure that all human understanding is correct and immutable. By rejecting empiricism and autonomous reason, Scripturalism provides an epistemology that is both secure and theologically sound⁸.

Footnotes:

1. Gordon H. Clark, The Lord God of Truth, discusses the insufficiency of epistemologies that fail to recognize divine sovereignty.
2. Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, emphasizes that all knowledge must be granted by God, without abstract intermediaries.
3. Cheung, Captive to Reason, argues that the human mind has no autonomous capacity to acquire knowledge without divine illumination.
4. Clark, Johannine Logos, where he refutes the idea of a universal intellect and defends the individuality of the soul.
5. Cheung, Captive to Reason, critiques the unity of the intellect as incompatible with the Christian theology of personal responsibility.
6. Clark, The Lord God of Truth, critiques Aquinas’s reliance on sensory perception and natural reason.
7. Cheung, Ultimate Questions, discusses the necessity of divine revelation for true ethical understanding.
8. Clark and Cheung, throughout their works, develop the view that only Scripturalism offers a reliable epistemological and moral foundation.