Standard Sacred Text.com

Thomas Watson and the Doctrine of Scripture

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research. The bricks are free but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from Thomas Watson’s A Body of Divinity which was first written in 1692 which is 80 years after the translation of the 1611 King James Version. In the preface, C.H. Spurgeon writes of Watson’s work,

“Thomas Watson’s Body of Practical Divinity is one of the most precious of the peerless works of the Puritans; and those best acquainted with it prize it most.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, vii.

The following is a series of quotes demonstrating the aforesaid peerless work. I hope they are a blessing to you.

“We may know the Scripture to be the Word of God by is miraculous preservation in all ages.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 27.

“God has preserved this blessed Book inviolable to this day.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 27.

“The Book of God has no errata in it; it is a beam of the Sun of Righteousness, a crystal stream flowing from the fountain of life.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 27-28.

“All maxims of divinity are to be brought to the touchstone of Scripture, as all measures are brought to the standard.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 30.

“The Scripture is to be its own interpreter, or rather the Spirit speaking in it. Nothing can cut the diamond but the diamond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 31.

“Thou are inexcusable, O man, for God has given thee a rule to go by, he has written his law with his own finger.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 32.

“Till we are above sin, we shall not be above Scripture.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 33.

“The Spirit of God acts regularly, it works in and by the Word, and he that pretends to a new light, which is either above the Word, or contrary to it, abuses both himself and the Spirit: his light is borrowed from him who transforms himself into an angel of light.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 33.

“It is a saying of Luther, Quos Dues vult perdere, &c., ‘whom God intends to destroy, he gives them leave to play with Scripture.'”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 34.

“Think in every line [of Scripture] you read that God is speaking to you.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 35.

“If the Scripture is of divine inspiration, believe it.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 36.

“Though we should not be of contentious spirits, yet we ought to contend for the Word of God.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 37

“We are not left in doubtful suspense that we should not know what to believe, but we have an infallible rule to go by.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 38

“The Scripture is our pole-star to direct us to heaven, it shows us every step we are to take; when we go wrong, it instructs us; when we go right, it comforts us; and it is a matter of thankfulness, that the Scriptures are made intelligible, by being translated.”
Watson, Body of Divinity, 38.

Again, the King James Version had been in circulation for over 80 years at this time Watson speaks of translations.

From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us? (Part 2)

Beginning again with Turretin,

“But although we do not deny that the testimony of the church has its own weight (as will afterwards be seen), yet we maintain that primarily and principally the Bible is believed by us to be divine on account of itself.”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1 Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 4.

Here Turretin plainly states that it the Scriptures itself which is the source of our knowing that the Scriptures are authoritative. But before you charge this eminent Reformation scholar of circular reasoning or begging the question, remember that the Scriptures are a first principle. Indeed, the first principle of theological knowledge and as such are not demonstrated or proven by some prior more basic authority. Put simply, God’s words cannot be demonstrated, substantiated, or proven by some greater authority than God’s words. In this case it is all too natural that the Scriptures authoritatively testify of themselves. That said, Turretin divides our believing the authority of Scripture on account of the testimony of Scripture into three parts. He writes,

“As a threefold cause can be granted for the manifestation of anything (an objective, efficient and instrumental or organic), so a threefold question can arise about the divinity of the Bible.”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

The three questions regarding belief in the authority and divinity of Scripture are these:

“the first, concerning the argument on account of which I believe; the second, concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am lead to believe; the third, concerning the means and instrument through which I believe.”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the first – the argument on account of which I believe – Turretin writes,

“For the Bible with its own marks is the argument on account of which I believe.”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the second – concerning the principle or efficient cause from which I am lead to believe – he writes,

“The Holy Spirit is the efficient cause and principle from which I am induced to believe.”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

For the third – concerning the means and instrument through which I believe – he writes,

“But the church is the instrument and means through which I believe.”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

Finally, Turretin summarizes these three answers in the following way,

“Hence if the question is why, or on account of what, do I believe the Bible to be divine, I will answer that I do so on account of the Scripture itself which by its marks proves itself to be such. If it is asked whence or from what I believe, I will answer from the Holy Spirit who produces that belief in me. Finally, if I am asked by what means or instrument I believe it, I will answer through the church which God uses in delivering the Scriptures to me.”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. VI, Sec 6.

We here at StandardSacredText.com hold these answer as the paradigmatic answers for how we know the Scripture is authoritative and divine. The interrelation of the word of God, the Spirit of God, and the people God is the primary means whereby the people of God come to know Scripture, to know what is Scripture, and to know its authority and divinity. It is very much the invisible work of the Holy Spirit through His words to His people through faith. And why should this be surprising? This is the same work the Holy Spirit through the word of God does in the life of the believer in sanctification. It is the same invisible work performed by the Spirit through the word in a soul unto salvation.

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”
John 3:8

One final observation, Turretin does not place scholarship or textual criticism within the paradigm when answering the question, How does the saint primarily come to know the authority and divinity of Scripture? Does this mean that the academy has no place in the Christian theological and apologetic enterprise? Certainly not. But what it does mean is that the academy and it fruits are not the primary means whereby the Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of this or that passage of Scripture. The Christian comes to know the authority and divinity of this or that passage by the Spirit of God speaking in the word of God to the people of God received by faith. Such a paradigm include the long ending in Mark and I John 5:7 among others.

Weekly Question – What is the difference between Confessional, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, and Standard Sacred Text?

If you’ve been around the “version debate” long enough and if you have read at least some of the relevant literature or listened to relevant podcasts you most likely have heard of terms like “Confessional Text position,” or “Traditional Text position,” or the “Ecclesiastical Text.” In today’s post I wanted to give a brief summary/definition of each position and then make some comments.

First, it is important to note that each of these terms/positions have the same goal. That goal is to closely adhere to the teaching of Scripture in the things it says about itself and then believe and defend those teachings. So why the different terms?

Second, the reason for the different terms is two fold: 1.) Just as it is currently the minority position in Western thought to believe that homosexuality and homosexual civil unions are immoral so also a desire and a call to believe and defend what the Bible says about itself is a minority position in the Church at large. As such, systematic pre-critical defenses of what the Bible says about itself have cropped up at different times and under different denominations. Dean Burgon was an Anglican. David Otis Fuller was a Baptist. Theodore Letis was a Lutheran. Jeff Riddle is a Reformed Baptist. The Van Kleecks would be Reformed Baptists as well. This diversity of time and denominational disposition has lead to the multiplication of terminology, and for good reason. 2.) The different terms exists because they focus on different aspects of what the Bible says about itself and the Christian’s relation to that Bible.

Traditional Text – The Traditional Text position anchors in the idea that there has been a traditional text and traditional text tradition in the Greek and Hebrew Original of the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek TR as well as an English text/textual tradition for the English-speaking Church found in the King James Version tradition. The focus here is on the tradition that the believing community has handed down to our believing communities from centuries past. To this we ask of our multiple version only brethren, “What tradition do you hand down to us?” “What ecclesiastical Greek tradition, Hebrew tradition, and English tradition?”

Ecclesiastical Text – The Ecclesiastical Text position retains the elements of tradition and the handing down of a Bible across the centuries while at the same time placing a greater emphasis on the notion that the Bible belongs to the Church. The Bible is not a commodity or asset in some publisher’s printing portfolio. The Bible belongs to and is stewarded by God’s people, the bride of Christ, the Church. Nor is the Bible a possession of academia. The Bible does not lie behind gates of a seminary education. The Bible belongs to and is accessible by both the most educated and the least educated Christian. To this we ask our multiple version only brethren, “In what way is the 1972 NASB possessed by and stewarded by the Church seeing it is no longer in print?” “What is the relevant difference between depending on a Roman Catholic priest for the truth of Scripture who reads only the Latin to us and depending on the evangelical textual critic for the truth of Scripture while he speaks in the academese of minuscules, majuscules, P52, internal/external evidence, CBGM, and the like?”

Confessional Text – The Confessional Text position seems to embody both of the above terms in that “Confessional” infers both the traditional and ecclesiastical custody of the Scriptures. Confessional not only speaks of confessing Christian belief in Christian theology and the Christian Scriptures, but in theological parlance, a Confession of Faith is also a distilled body of historical Christian doctrine. For our purposes, the Confessional Text position confesses belief in a distilled body of historical Christian Bibliology. As such, the term Confessional Text embodies the historical/traditional, ecclesiastical, theological, dogmatic, and practical aspects of orthodox Bibliology. Again we ask our multiple version only brethren, “What theological apparatus do you confess in substantiating the claims, oldest is best, hardest is best, and shortest is best?” What is your confessional ground for giving modern textual criticism its privileged position?”

Standard Sacred Text – As the name implies, the emphasis here is to argue for a single sacred text around which the English-speaking believing community can gather. That single text is the standard whereby all other current and subsequent English sacred texts are to be judged. Because it is in English it is a translation and is therefore dependent upon a standard sacred Greek and Hebrew. Here at StandardSacredText.com we regard the Greek and Hebrew to be the first standard from which the English sacred text is derived. The Greek and Hebrew standard are sacred because God providentially preserved every letter of every word of that standard per its own words about itself. The standard sacred English text is sacred in that the substantia doctrinae found in the original standard transfers to the translation – not immediately but derivatively. We hold these original standards to be the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek TR, and the standard sacred text of the English-speaking community is the King James Version of the Bible.

Postscript: Dear Sceptic, I hope you can begin to see that the arguments promulgated here as traditional, ecclesiastical, confessional, and standard sacred are not King James Onlyism or Ruckmanism or Riplingerism in a different dress. Instead, we hope you see it for what it is, an argument for the superiority of historical pre-Enlightenment Bibliology grounded in the self-attesting, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting testimony of Scripture concerning itself.

Inspiration and II Tim. 3:16 (Part 2)

The Prophet Jeremiah and Transmission

Today we return to our short series on Bibliology and the prophet Jeremiah. Taking a look again at chapter 36 we find at least four relevant themes: 1.) inspiration, 2.) transmission, 3.) textual criticism, and 4.) the status of the original. Today we will look at the theme of transmission.

“Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.”
Jeremiah 36:4

First, Jeremiah receives a divine message and he is commanded to write that message in a scroll. But the Scriptures tell us that Jeremiah called an amanuensis, a secretary to write the words for him. Some commentators believe that Jeremiah was in some way hindered from the temple given verse 5. Perhaps he was in prison of some kind or perhaps he was merely forbidden from entering the temple. Perhaps this being “shut up” contributed to Jeremiah’s need for a secretary to take down his words. Whatever the reason, we know that Baruch took the words of the prophet as they were spoken in his ears and wrote them in a scroll as God commanded Jeremiah.

The question now is, “Who carried the inspired word?” Certainly Jeremiah did but did Baruch also? Was Baruch inspired as well? I would contend that the answer is, no. Baruch merely heard and wrote the divinely inspired message. The transmission of the text was so copied that the words of the LORD in vs. 4 are also called the words of the LORD in vs. 8 when Baruch reads them. Jeremiah 36:8 reads,

“And Baruch the son of Neriah did according to all that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading in a book the words of the LORD in the LORD’s house.”
Jeremiah 36:8

So here we have an example of immediately inspired words given to Jeremiah who then commands that they be written at the hand of a non-inspired person on a page not written at the moment of immediate inspiration. Both the writing of Baruch and the written page come after the immediately inspired message given to Jeremiah, and the recorded words remain the “words of the LORD.” In theological terms, God’s words were God breathed and kept by God’s providence through the obedient instrumentality of men. The Scriptures we have today are the result of a series of providential preservations no different in kind than that which transpired between the words of Jeremiah and the words of his scribe.

But you say, “Scribes over time have introduced errors. What is to say that Baruch didn’t do the same, all things being equal?” Fair enough. First, if Baruch introduced errors, the Bible does not indicate as much. So the question is based on conjecture and not evidence. Second, most multiple version only advocates seem to argue that even if there were errors said document would still count as the “words of the LORD,” so why the question?

We here at StandardSacredText.com say the Christian Scriptures are without errors and is the “word of the LORD” and multiple version only advocates argue that their texts have some errors an is still the “words of the LORD.” It is easy to see why we believe our Bible is the words of the LORD, but is is not as easy to see why the multiple version only advocates believe their slightly erroneous Bibles are the words of the LORD. So while we both need to argue for inspiration, preservation, canonicity and the like, the multiple version only position must also explain how A can be A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. I do not envy your position.

The Foundation of Faith

“fundamentum fidei: foundation of faith i.e., Christ, on whom the faith and salvation of humanity rests.
Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholasticism, fundamentum fidei.

The foundation of faith can be divided into three parts:

“(1) the fundamentum substantiale, or substantial foundation, in Christ, the substance and object of faith.”
Muller, Dictionary, fundamentum fidei.

“(2) the fundamentum organicum, the organic or instrumental foundation, is the Word of God, the principium, or principle of faith, and the chief means of faith.”
Muller, Dictionary, fundamentum fidei.

“(3) the fundamentum dogmaticum, or dogmatic foundation, is that basic teaching of the church that comprises the essential articuli fundamentalies fidei and sustains the faith of the individual Christian.”
Muller, Dictionary, fundamentum fidei.

In sum, the foundation of faith is composed of the incarnate Word of God, the written word of God, and the preached word of God.

From What Source Does the Divine Authority of the Scriptures Become Known to Us? (Part 1)

We are now into the sixth question of Francis Turretin’s treatment of Bibliology. In a more everyday kind of way he asks, what source enables the Christian to know the divine authority of Scripture? The question may also be posed as, what source enables the Christian to know the divine authority of one book of Scripture, or one verse, or one word? Turretin, quoting Irenaeus, obesrves,

“Thus what Irenaeus says concerning the heretics of his day is appropriate to them, ‘When they are convicted from Scripture, they turn round and accuse the Scripture, as being corrupt, and having no authority.”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

Note in the example that the heretic is convicted from Scripture. Some verse or passage or series of passages is used to convince the heretic of his wayward theology to which the heretic accuses the Scripture in those places of being corrupt or having no authority. So by what source do we come to know of the divine authority of Scripture in the twenty-first century?

In Turretin’s time it was the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities which served as such a source. He goes on to quote several who testify to that effect. But what is that source today? What source tells the Church that these words are the true words of the New Testament and these words are not? I propose the answer in the twenty-first century is academia’s evaluation and interpretation of the manuscript evidence – a.k.a. textual criticism. Assuming this to be the case let us now commandeer Turretin’s examples but make one relevant change. Where the example reads “church” I will insert “textual criticism”. Turretin writes,

“Eck says that ‘the Scriptures are not authentic, except by authority of [textual criticism].'”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

“Baile says that ‘without the authority of [textual criticism] we should no more believe Matthew than Titus Livy.'”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

“Andradius says, ‘…the power and dignity of [textual criticism] are so great that no one without greatest impiety can resist it.'”
Turretin, Institutes, Second Topic, Q. 6, Sec. I.

Have you not heard these words before? Are they not familiar? What counts as the authentic reading? Why, oldest, shortest, and best of course. The Scriptures are not authentic generally speaking except by authority of these text critical rules. How many times have you heard that the work of textual criticism must be done while excluding theological presuppositions? The NT must be treated like any other text, like Hesiod or Sophocles.

One of the staple evangelical text critical arguments is to tell you that we have an “embarrassment of riches” in the NT textual tradition when compared to other ancient Greek writings. Without the authority of textual criticism we should no more believe Matthew than Hesiod. Have you ever tried to question the power and dignity of evangelical textual criticism? The masters of the craft have explicitly stated in print that such people are intellectually dishonest, dubious, “fundamentalist,” and even cultic. In a word, these are people of greatest impiety.

In sum, these arguments are first old and then boring. What is more, these arguments are funny in a sad kind of way because the very lines used to assault Protestant belief in the Scriptures are now used by Protestants to assault Protestants on the same topic. My how the tables have turned. Or something more like,

Lastly, if you disagree with my comparison in the above quotes, point me to the modern argument defending the words of the NT that does not use textual critical structures, interpretation, and conclusions as its cornerstone. I eagerly await your reply. In short, it seems as Protestants that we have traded the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church for the musings of academia and maybe it’s time for a reformation.

Culture and Scripture

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research. The bricks are free but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from Hans Rookmaaker’s Modern Art and the Death of a Culture published first in 1970. The Scriptures have been and continue to be, though to a lesser degree, a cultural fixture. It is a common cultural artifact in the West and it is certainly the central element in ecclesiastical culture. Rookmaaker observes that culture has changed particularly in the realm of art and music. In terms of poetry, prose, story telling and the majesty of the subject, Scripture is also an example of art, indeed, of some of the finest art the world has ever seen, but it also has changed.

Consider the words of Rookmaaker as he comments on music starting in the seventeenth century up to the end of the nineteenth century. See if you can spot an correlation between the way music has changed and the way we now talk about the Bible. Rookmaaker writes,

“[I]n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, before the deep, dissolving effects of the Enlightenment became apparent, there was a unity in the whole culture.”
Rookmaaker, Death of a Culture, 186.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, did there not seem to be a unity of the whole ecclesiastical culture on the point of which English Bible to read? By the mid-seventeenth century the KJV was the near exclusive text of the English speaking world. Rookmaaker goes on to observe of these same two centuries,

“Ordinary churchgoers in Leipzig would listen to Bach’s cantatas in church. Even if they did not understand the supreme quality and depth of the music, they could enjoy it. The music was not written for an elite.”
Rookmaaker, Death of a Culture, 186.

Imagine everyday churchgoers listening to Bach played in their church. Imagine they did not understand the finer points of the music played but it was still beautiful and pleasant to the ear. Imagine an ecclesiastical community that had such a sense of beauty which counted Bach’s music among other things of beauty. Imagine Bach was not written for the elites. Imagine now everyday churchgoers listening to the KJV read in their church. Imagine they did not understand the finer points of the language read, but it was still beautiful and pleasant to the ear. Imagine an ecclesiastical community that had such a sense of beauty which counted the KJV among other things of beauty. Imagine the KJV was not written for elites but for the common man with less leisure time, less education, less peace, less healthcare than we do now. Rookmaaker continues,

“Nor were the simpler and folksier kinds of music strange to the ears of the cultivated. There was a sense of normality and genuineness about all this music that made it everybody’s music.”
Rookmaaker, Death of a Culture, 186.

So what Bible is everybody’s Bible? What Bible unites the cultivated and the uncultivated? The KJV did in the past, but what Bible does that for us now? It seems we have lost our Bible along with our art and culture.

In part because things shifted in the culture/art world in the nineteenth century. Rookmaaker writes,

“The nineteenth century made music into a kind of refined, cultural, almost pseudo-religious revelation of humanism, composed by the great heroes and prophets of mankind.”
Rookmaaker, Death of a Culture, 186.

And the same goes for the Scripture. In the nineteenth century the Bible became a human endeavor to find what words were indeed the original words of the New Testament. The Bible was treated like any other book. The manuscript tradition was interpreted and served up by the great scholastic heroes and prophets of mankind, and this trend continues to this day. They will find it for us [hero]. They told us they will [prophet]. And what was the result for the people in the pew? Again, something like what happened to music. Rookmaaker concludes,

“Everyday music became vulgar and coarse, low and without true human qualities.”
Rookmaaker, Death of a Culture, 186.

Everyday Scriptures are now vulgar [i.e., common] and coarse, or in common parlance, more wooden or technical. Everyday Scripture is not now the Scripture of our parents or grandparents. We have broken from them. Now the CBGM is going to do the work for the heroes. Talk about an effort lacking “true human qualities.” That is the goal. One of the main arguments against the KJV is that it is not vulgar enough, it is not common enough. The American culture which has more freedom, more time, and more leisure than any culture maybe ever in the history of man now says Kanye West is an great artist, Marvel Comics are great art and film, Steven Furtick is a great preacher, and the King James Bible is too hard to read. It all makes sense now.

Do Real Contradictions Occur in Scripture? We deny. (Part 3)

In Part 1 of this series we discussed the nature and scope of the question, “Do real contradictions occur in Scripture.” In Part 2 we continued the discussion by examining Turretin’s argument in answering the above question. In this third and final part we now look at specific purported contradictions or errors which Turretin dealt with in his time. He addresses 24 specific instances. The full list can be found under the second topic, Q.5, sections XII-XXXVI of volume one in Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Let me give a brief overview of the 24 instances and then make a couple observations.

First consider the predisposition of Turretin as he embarks on answering these supposed contradictions.

“Although we cannot find out immediately a plain reconciliation and one free from all difficulties between passages of Scripture…they must not at once be place among inexplicable things. Of if they are called inexplicable, they will be such only by the inability of the one endeavoring to explain, not in themselves, so that here it will be wiser to acknowledge our own ignorance than to suppose any contradiction.”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Second Topic, Q. 5, Sec. XI.

So to start of the endeavor Turretin professes that the Christian’s inability to harmonize this or that passage defaults to the ignorance of the Christian and not to the letter of the Scriptures. Or as my dad used to say, “We don’t understand because we haven’t done enough archeology, research, and study.” And why? Because Christians already have precommitments regarding the nature of Scripture as inspired, authoritative, preserved, and certain.

Of the 24 supposed contradictions, seven (7) regard genealogies, an additional two (2) regard Christ’s genealogy, one (1) is grammatical, and fourteen (14) are historical. By historical I mean they regard things like number of shekels used for a sale, the beginning of a king’s reign, the time of Abram’s birth, where the patriarchs are buried, whether one can swear oaths, and the like. Turretin also notes other specifically papal accusations which he will deal with under which edition of Scripture is the authentic edition.

All in all, the Reformers were very much aware of the accusations brought up against their Scripture text. We have seen it here and in Part 2 in which Turretin admits to the disagreements between original manuscripts. The point is that the Reformers were not blind to these things nor can it be said that knowledge of textual issues had not yet matured to place where the Reformers had to deal textual issues like we do now.

Not long ago I was on the campus of the University of South Florida and a Muslim student asked me where the patriarchs were buried, the exact argument Turretin dealt with hundreds of years ago. At that point I didn’t have an answer so while he went to class I Googled it and low and behold there was the answer. My point is, for some, if they really wanted to know, all they would have to do is Google it, so you might have to do it for them.

Lastly, just because we can’t answer some perceived contradiction now does not mean it can’t be answered. In the mean time it is not necessary that we throw out our beliefs. Certainly when tragedy strikes we may doubt God’s love or even His existence and such doubts can be powerful. So also when this or that scholar or FB post declares that there are contradictions in the Scriptures or that there are errors in the Scripture that don’t matter, such news may cause us to doubt our Bible. May God give us grace in times of doubt and let us say with the Psalmist,

“In God will I praise his word: in the Lord will I praise his word. In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.”
Psalm 56:10-11

Weekly Question – What is a Category Error/Mistake?

The term “category error” or “category mistake” is a philosophical term that was popularized by Gilbert Ryle in his rhetorical assault on Cartesian Dualism. Ryle’s famous example is that of a man who has never seen the game of cricket. After it is explained to him that certain teammates have the position of bowler, batter, and/or catcher the man then says, “Who on the team plays the position of team spirit.” Of course, there is no special position for performing team spirit. It is a team effort and thus a collective action. Unlike the bowler who performs the act by himself. This counts as a category error.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, there are several ways to commit a category error. The first is like that above.

“the placing of an entity in the wrong category.”
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Term: category mistake.

Now both parties in the discussion need to explain why they believe X belongs or does not belong in the proposed category. In the cricket example, there is a difference in categories when comparing the collective actions of the team (i.e., team spirit) and individual actions of the team (i.e., bowling or catching). Still, while there is a category error in this respect there is not in others. Both [bowling and team spirit] are team activities aimed at success. One is done on the team level and one is done on the individual level but both contribute to the success of the team. Both are done by people. Both are done by people on a given team. Both are done at the same time. Both can be done by the same person. Person A can bowl and present team spirit at the same time. So as you can see, placing an entity in the wrong category is hardly done by the wave of the hand. It is important to explain why said entity is in the wrong category and to confirm with your interlocutor that he/she is attempting to place said entity into that discrete category.

Let me use another more familiar example. It would be a category error to say that an apple and an orange are the same. But it would not be a category error to say they are both fruits, or they both have skin, or they both have seeds, or they both are sweet, or they both are relatively round, or they both grow on trees or they both are sources of juice. So while apples and oranges are not the same they are nevertheless in the same category of relatively round, sweet, juicy fruits having skin and seeds. So when someone says, “Well you’re comparing apples and oranges on this point.” Your answer should be something like, “Well there is a lot to compare.”

On the point of Scripture and God, it is important to note that Scripture is not God. To state otherwise would be a category error. But to say that Scripture and God are principium [i.e., first principles] is not a category error. The former is the first principle of theological knowledge and the latter is the first principle of being. So to relate the two in terms of principium is to consider them properly in the same discrete category of first principles.

“The second use of ‘category mistake’ is to refer to the attribution to an entity of a property which the entity cannot have.”
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Term: category mistake.

The example given to illustrate this kind of category error is to say, “Caesar is a prime number.” It is important to note here that the “property which the entity cannot have” is very different from the “property which the entity does not have.” The latter statement allows for a “could-have” relationship while the former does not. Thusly construed, to claim a category error on this second account, the burden of proof rests with the accuser to prove that it is impossible that some entity X has some property Y; and that entity X lacks a “could-have” relationship with property Y. The Dictionary goes on to explain.

“It is thought that they [i.e., category mistakes] go beyond simple error or ordinary mistakes, as when one attributes a property to a thing which that thing could have but does not have, since category mistakes involve attributions of properties…to things…that those things cannot have.”
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Term: category mistake. [Italics: Mine]

In short, if someone accuses you of a category mistake the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate why the property Y you are attributing to X cannot be attributed to X like in “That apple tastes blue.” If Y could be attributed to X then the attribution can, at worst, simply be an average garden variety mistake. So next time someone claims you have committed a category error/mistake help them to understand that they have a lot of explaining to do before such a claim can be admitted into the conversation.