Epistemology is known as the study or theory of knowledge. Whenever we discuss matters of how we know things, the source of knowledge, our justification of the things we know, etc., then we are engaging in epistemological discussions. There are various forms of epistemology, but the main distinction I will be arguing for is the distinction between Christian epistemology & non-Christian epistemology. Specifically, I will be arguing for the “tri-perspective” model argued by John Frame in his works that talk about multiperspectivalism. While he has written extensively on this in various books, we will only be citing from two of his articles entitled “A Primer on Perspectivalism” (PP) & “Epistemological Perspectives and Evangelical Apologetics” (EPEA). The purpose will be to defend an epistemology that reflects a perfectly triune apologetic of the Christian Faith.
So the question we must ask ourself is this: What is multiperspectivalism? What is tri-perspectivalism? John Frame, the Christian philosopher who helped shape & formulate the tri-perspective view I’m defending, explains perspectivalism as a concept that says “because we are not God, because we are finite, not infinite, we cannot know everything at a glance, and therefore our knowledge is limited to one perspective or another” (PP).
So when we examine things from a certain perspective, that perspective helps shape how we view the world we observe. However, multiperspectivalism affirms multiple perspectives in observing a particular subject or topic. What exactly does this mean though to do such a thing? It essentially is about different plural perspectives being applied to a particular topic or subject of observation & conversation. This brings us to our topic on tri-perspectivalism.
What if I told you that there was an epistemological view of “perspectives” that was rooted in Trinitarian Christian thought? That seems to be what I’ve gathered from the literature of John Frame, specifically in his Systematic Theology book where he uses it to help explain theological truths. The best way to describe, as Frame does so often, is use a triangle to illustrate the truths of this perspectival approach. The triangle itself is the topic or subject, then we are engaged with three perspectives. These are the normative perspective, the situational perspective, and the existential perspective.
The normative perspective refers to the perspective regarding the norms of the topic. Hence “norm” in normative. The next perspective is the situational, which merely refers to the facts or history of the situation. Finally, we have the existential perspective that deals with human experience and subjectivity. This perspective doesn’t mean that it’s trying to argue for subjective standards or subjective truth, but realizes that we humans are finite and that we must observe what we can of the topic through our own experiences. More importantly, this perspective is most certainly exclusive to the believer as Frame says the existential perspective asks “what belief is most satisfying to a believing heart?” (PP).
Thus we have these three perspectives combined to shape our view of a topic. Keep in mind that they aren’t exclusive either. As Frame notes, “Given the above view of knowledge, the answers to these three questions [perspectives] coincide. But it is sometimes useful to distinguish these questions so as to give us multiple angles of inquiry. Each question helps us to answer the others. The normative perspective, therefore, contains all reality, for all reality is God’s general revelation to us. Similarly, the situational contains all reality, our whole environment. And the existential perspective also contains everything, namely all of our experience. In an important sense, then, the normative perspective includes the situational and existential. To think according to God’s norms is to take every fact (situational) and every experience (existential) into account.
It is also true that the situational perspective includes the normative (for norms are facts) and the existential (for experiences are facts). And the existential includes the normative and the situational, for the norms and facts are aspects of our experience” (PP). John Frame first formally established this in his book entitled “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God”. Since the publication of this work, he’s written several books where he would formulated the “triad” of a tri-perspectival view.
The original formulation is helped to be seen in one of the first examples regarding the lordship of God. The three perspectives on the lordship of God are as follows: Authority (normative), Control (situational) & Presence (existential). So if we go with the definitions from earlier, the norm (standard) for the lordship of God is His authority over creation. The authority of YHWH is the standard for what establishes is his Lordship. The facts (situational) of this in history is that God is in complete sovereign control over His creation. The existential is seen in the fact that God’s presence is with the believers in the covenant he establishes with His chosen people and church. Furthermore, these perspectives interact with each other as God’s Authority is supported by the fact he is in control and that he establishes this authority in the presence of his covenant people. God is also in control because of the Authority he has and shows this control to his covenant people, whom his presence is with.
Finally, God’s presence reveals the authority and control he has as Lord to his covenant people. This helps show a demonstration of Trinitarian thought that is grounded in trinitarianism. However, this doesn’t mean we can use it to help describe the trinity. "It is tempting, therefore, for us to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity by saying that the three persons are “perspectives” on the Godhead and on one another. But that would be misleading. “Perspective” does not exhaust the ways in which the three persons are distinct. To say that the three persons are merely perspectives on the Godhead would be a Sabellian position, the idea that the differences of the persons are merely differences in the way we look at the one God. Such an approach would reduce the Trinitarian distinctions to distinctions within our own subjectivity. That certainly is not right. It is correct to say that the three persons are really persons. They interact with one another in ways similar to the ways human beings interact with one another. They talk together, plan together, express love for one another. So their relation is far more than merely perspectival” (PP).
But how does it reflect the trinity? In the same way we observe the perspectives is how we observe the trinity. “So we cannot know any of these adequately without knowing the others. Although the three are distinguishable, our knowledge of each is a perspective on the others and on the whole. To know the Spirit’s work, we must see it as an application of the Son’s work by the Father’s plan. Similarly with knowing the work of the Father and Son” (PP).
This view can be applied to various topics from a Christian perspective and I’ll at least give an example here. In terms of abortion, we can at least formulate a decent argument against it. In fact, this was formulated in a conversation with somebody. The normative perspective would be God’s law which is the high standard. God’s law which states that murder is wrong. Then the situational perspective would be the facts of abortion being the humans robbing of innocent life from the womb (this would fit the Bible’s definition of murder). The existential perspective would be our knowledge & personal experience of death. This is the triperspectival look and response towards abortion. They would interact in this way: God’s Law is the norm as it teaches that the situation of human beings taking innocent life, like the baby’s, is wrong and that our sense of experience reveals this existentially. Likewise, the murder of innocent life is wrong due to God’s law and how our experience/knowledge of death reveals this fact to us. Finally, our experience and knowledge of death leads us to recognize God’s Law (Romans 2:14-15) and that because of this, we can see the fact that murder is wrong when it is done to innocent human life.
So it’s with this system of thought that one can look at reality and make philosophical observations that not only root themselves in a strictly Christian form of thought, but that through this epistemological method, one can demonstrate the theology of the trinity in such a way to show how even certain principles that aren’t material (even though some of them could be material if he example requires this) interact with each other in order to demonstrate their truth and consistency. From Frame we read the following: “In every act of knowledge, we simultaneously come to know God’s law, his world, and ourselves. These are not three separable “parts” of our experience, but three “aspects” of every experience, or (perhaps better) three “perspectives” on experience. Thus I speak of “normative,” “situational” and “existential” perspectives on experience.... The resulting epistemology is complex, but illuminating” (EPEA).
So in the final analysis of this topic, let’s summarize this all up. In light of the idea of “multiperspectivalism”, we should adopt the consistent Trinitarian epistemology of tri-perspectivalism since this will help us brighten our understanding of God’s world and how it operates. It will grant us a biblical understanding of things that will help in our apologetic and witness of the faith to people who need to hear the truth. For indeed, we want to not defend a generic theism faith, but the explicit truths of the triune God and what he has called us to be in today’s day and age.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment