# Must Clarkians use some Emperical Analysis & Inductive Reasoning?



## Brian Bosse

Hello Civ, Sean and Matthew,

For the sake of discussion, let's assume as our axiom that Scripture is the Word of God. Let's also assume that the teachings of Scripture (i.e., derived theorems from our axiom) provide an accounting for the laws of logic as well as man's innate equipment to reason, and many other things. I believe Matthew's point is that whatever method of reasoning we use to deduce (?) our theorems from our axiom will involve some type of empirical analysis as well as inductive reasoning amongst other things.

Matthew, is this in fact your point? If so, Civ and Sean, how would you answer this? I have my own answer, but will wait to see how Civ and Sean answer.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## MW

I will run with this, but it is only for the sake of the argument. Let it be known that I follow the traditional reformed view of general and special revelation, and so I understand Scripture to build on nature. Grace does not destroy but renews creation.

I will expect a justified account as to how the laws of logic are derived from Scripture. This will mean you will need to not only quote Scripture but show why you believe the particular Scripture you are quoting is (a) canonical, (b) interpreted correctly and systematically. I want to see no borrowing from empiricism at all. If you can manage it, you have won me.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Civ, Sean and Matthew,
> 
> For the sake of discussion, let's assume as our axiom that Scripture is the Word of God. Let's also assume that the teachings of Scripture (i.e., derived theorems from our axiom) provide an accounting for the laws of logic as well as man's innate equipment to reason, and many other things. I believe Matthew's point is that whatever method of reasoning we use to deduce (?) our theorems from our axiom will involve some type of empirical analysis as well as inductive reasoning amongst other things.
> 
> Matthew, is this in fact your point? If so, Civ and Sean, how would you answer this? I have my own answer, but will wait to see how Civ and Sean answer.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



This is my take. Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us _through _verbal revelation. I think this has come up before, but when I speak of the truths and propositions of Scripture, I'm not talking about any particular set of marks on paper or sound vibrations. I'm talking about the very propositional truths that we must have as our axiom in order to have knowledge. 



Regarding Analysis:

The does not try to escape "the inevitability of "analysis"" but presumes analysis. More importantly it assumes the working of the Holy Spirit so that when we hear and read the bible, we are able to understand and believe the Scriptures. As Sean noted twice not, Scripturalism does not discount closed induction for analyzing the Bible to help us understand what Scripture says, but only the working of the Spirit guarantees we may rightly determine God's Word. 



Regarding Logic: 

I know you said "let assume that the teachings of Scripture "provide an accounting for the laws of logic". But I see Rev. Winzer did not accept this. So let me give a quick proof that Scripture accounts for the laws of logic. 

The laws of logic are derived from Scripture by the impossibility of the contrary. 

P1: If Scripture is not logical, then Scripture is unintelligible.
P2: Scripture is intelligible.
C: Therefore Scripture is logical. 




Regarding Empirical Analysis and Reading:

As far as the use of empirical analysis to understand Scripture - this is confusing reading for empiricism (as if reading proved empiricism). Empiricism says that one can take a blank mind without a priori knowledge, and add sensations and images and derive knowledge. Reading the Bible requires a priori knowledge - knowledge that can not be accounted for using empiricism. So reading is not empiricism - in fact, by it self it disproves empiricism. 


Other Comments:

I wanted to point out the Clark was arguing against worldly philosophies that give no place to God in knowledge. He was arguing for a _Christian_ epistemology versus the epistemologies of the world. Those who are opposing Clark's Scripturalism have effectively assumed most of Clark's presuppositions by agreeing that the Scriptures and what can be deduce therefrom are knowledge. They also agree with the necessity of the Spirits role in knowledge. They are effectively agreeing that God and logic are both essential requirements for knowledge. So when the try to counter Clark's arguments, they are in effect defending worldly philosophies - because the object of Clark's arguments are worldly philosophies (empiricism, rationalism, logical positivism, etc). 

I don't think this is intentional, but this is the effect. If Clark's arguments are wrong, then we must accept empiricism and rationalism and other anti-Christian philosophies. Now if it is the case that those who object to Clark's Christian Philosophy are not trying to defend the worldly alternatives, then they are merely splitting hairs. They already agree with 95% of Scripturalism if they are rejecting worldly philosophies. 

It's also my opinion that attempts to blend worldly epistemologies into Christianity undermines the validity of the premise that the Scriptures alone are the Word of God. 

*****

Sorry if I got off track.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Civ, Sean and Matthew,
> 
> For the sake of discussion, let's assume as our axiom that Scripture is the Word of God. Let's also assume that the teachings of Scripture (i.e., derived theorems from our axiom) provide an accounting for the laws of logic as well as man's innate equipment to reason, and many other things. I believe Matthew's point is that whatever method of reasoning we use to deduce (?) our theorems from our axiom will involve some type of empirical analysis as well as inductive reasoning amongst other things.
> 
> Matthew, is this in fact your point? If so, Civ and Sean, how would you answer this? I have my own answer, but will wait to see how Civ and Sean answer.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



To get back on track - we can use closed induction and other means of analysis to try to understand the Bible so we can know the Scriptures (the meaning of the sentences and words in the Bible). We use well understood hermeneutic principles - let the Bible interprets the Bible - and no external sources have precedence over Scripture, the Scriptures do _not _contradict themselves. 

But when we say "knowledge is Scripture and what we can deduce therefrom", this presumes the inerrant and infallible Word of God is in mind. This is why we can only say something is justified true belief if we determine it by "good and necessary consequences" from the Scriptures. We can not use inductions from the known infallible truths of God's Word, less we commit a logical fallacy (i.e. it's not "good and necessary consequences" if it is induction). 

Would all agree with the inerrancy and infallibility of the Word of God?


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Now Sean, your problem is that the other uses of the word "know" are not considered by yourself as falsehood. So why do you conclude that the word "to know" is being used in different senses?



Maybe I'm not following you? I don't consider other senses of the word "all" false either, but I can't deduce from Scripture's use of the word "all" unlimited atonement either. As I demonstrated if "to know" is to be understood in _the same sense_ then the Scriptures contradict themselves and it would follow the Scriptures are not true. One side of the contradiction is necessarily false, even if we can't know which one.


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> I will run with this, but it is only for the sake of the argument. Let it be known that I follow the traditional reformed view of general and special revelation, and so I understand Scripture to build on nature. Grace does not destroy but renews creation.
> 
> I will expect a justified account as to how the laws of logic are derived from Scripture. This will mean you will need to not only quote Scripture but show why you believe the particular Scripture you are quoting is (a) canonical, (b) interpreted correctly and systematically. I want to see no borrowing from empiricism at all. If you can manage it, you have won me.




Please don't take this wrong Rev. Winzer, but are you for real? Above is a demonstration of the laws of logic derived from Scripture (as Clark pointed out in his Logic all other logical laws are implied by lc), no borrowing from empiricism at all. How could it be otherwise since no one observes logic. Logic is part of the a_prori endowment we all have as creatures made in God's image. Further, if the architecture of God's mind is logic (John 1:1), then the laws of logic are not a product of empirical observation. Consequently, the underlying notion of your objection is absurd on the face of it. Further, per the above proof 1 John 2:21 is canonical and the above interpretation is correct and systematic. 

If you can find a flaw in his argument why don't you point it out so I can pass it along to George Macleod for his edification? Instead you cite tradition and insinuate the above demonstration somehow failed to accomplish its task. What kind of argument is this? For what it's worth you should have been won long ago. 

The Scriptures do not "build on nature," as if the truths of Scripture are somehow a derivation of nature, they explain nature. The Scriptures are by definition supernatural. I have to say I am amazed by those who contend inductive and probabilistic arguments derived from empirical observations (or, would that be _imposed upon_ since you can’t get propositions from non-propositions) somehow yield true propositions simply because they are Christians or hold to the "Reformed Tradition." 

I don't think too many would disagree that the apex of empiricism is found in the sciences, physics being the most logical and rigorous. Science is the crowning jewel of empiricism (even though empiricism as a philosophic pursuit ended not in knowledge but skepticism). The methods of science, which, if nothing else, are meticulous, raises the art of observation to its most exacting expression. In spite of all this, anyone who has spent any time studying the philosophy of science will see that science is not a cognitive enterprise at all. The pretense of scientists and non-scientists over a century ago is long gone. Karl Popper and other great minds, both believers and unbelievers alike, demonstrated long ago science never arrives at final truths. Science - _at its best_ - provides only conjectures; educated guesses and refutations of these same guesses. Nothing more. 

Science provides the perfect example of those who are always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. So why is it that only Christians are foolish enough to confuse the probabilistic and fallible conclusions of empirical investigations with infallible eternal truths? I confess this is baffling. 

Rant over.


----------



## Magma2

> According to the Scripture I can (and must) “know that (I) know him” and “know that (I) am in him” (1 John 2:3, 5), and this beyond mere assurance (as you are using the word), which subjective sense may wax and wane, to an epistemic awareness of His life as my life (Col 3:3, 4; Gal 2:20), which union shall never be severed.



 Steve, have you read WCF XXVIII Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation?


----------



## MW

Magma2 said:


> Further, per the above proof 1 John 2:21 is canonical and the above interpretation is correct and systematic.



(1.) How do you know the Greek words mean "truth" and "falsehood?" There is no inspired and infallible lexicon. (2.) How do you know 1 John 2:21 is not an interpolation by some well meaning orthodox Christian? There is no inspired and infallible list of original texts. (3.) How do you know 1 John itself is an original part of the Bible? There is no inspired and infallible list of canonical books. Your knowledge of the law of non contradiction is naively built upon the work of faithful men who have received, preserved and translated the Scriptures for you.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> This is my take. Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us _through _verbal revelation. I think this has come up before, but when I speak of the truths and propositions of Scripture, I'm not talking about any particular set of marks on paper or sound vibrations. I'm talking about the very propositional truths that we must have as our axiom in order to have knowledge.



This is as bold an attack on traditional Bible-belief as any theological liberal attempted. It amounts to this -- the Bible is not the Word of God; the Bible contains the Word of God; the Bible is the vehicle through which the Word of God comes to us. Sir, the more you defend your unbiblical definition of knowledge the more you stray from the reformed faith. I hope better things of you.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Assurance/know is what we have when we are assured of our standing before God as one of the elect. It is not infallible knowledge, but a sense of being right with God by faith. It does wax and wane when one sins and is driven to his knees before a gracious and loving God.



WCF 18:2, "This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but *an infallible assurance of faith* founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

How many more truths are you going to deny, Civbert? I find it hard to believe the moderators have not stepped in and called you to account for your equivocating subscription to the doctrinal standards of this board.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> WCF 18:2, "This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded* upon a fallible hope*; but *an infallible assurance of faith* ...




Yes. An assurance. Not knowledge (justified true belief) which requires epistemic certainty.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Yes. An assurance. Not knowledge (justified true belief) which requires epistemic certainty.



Infallible! You can't get more certain or justified than that.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> This is as bold an attack on traditional Bible-belief as any theological liberal attempted. It amounts to this -- the Bible is not the Word of God.....



Nonsense. That does not follow. It amonts to exactly what I said, the Scriptures are not the ink and paper. Please read what I wrote and interact with it . Which part do you not disagree with? The ink and paper are the medium, not the message. Is that so difficult?


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Infallible! You can't get more certain or justified than that.



Assurance. Infallible _assurance_. Not infallible _knowledge_. There's a reason the did not use the word knowledge. The WCF is very carefully worded.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Assurance. Infallible _assurance_. Not infallible _knowledge_. There's a reason the did not use the word knowledge. The WCF is very carefully worded.



Yes it is, and you don't seem to understand the precision of its language. In fact, as much as it may hurt you to hear this, you seem deficient on the very basics of theology. Puritan theology speak of assurance as a reflexive act of faith. The assurance is knowledge. Read some theological books, please, and stop twisting the Christian faith to suit your perverse philosophy.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Nonsense. That does not follow. It amonts to exactly what I said, the Scriptures are not the ink and paper. Please read what I wrote and interact with it . Which part do you not disagree with? The ink and paper are the medium, not the message. Is that so difficult?



You mean which part do I not agree with? All of it. I could quote WCF 1:5 and a host of reformed writers, but what would be the point? I'm sure you would have some ingenious way of making them fit your mould.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I know this got a bit confusing but the Poll took on a very distinct debate that needed to be moved to provide some clarity. This is the problem with an epistemic discussion because it changed from "What are _all_ of your thoughts about epistemology?" to "Defend Clarkian's use of empericism and inductive reasoning..."


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> (1.) How do you know the Greek words mean "truth" and "falsehood?" There is no inspired and infallible lexicon. (2.) How do you know 1 John 2:21 is not an interpolation by some well meaning orthodox Christian? There is no inspired and infallible list of original texts. (3.) How do you know 1 John itself is an original part of the Bible? There is no inspired and infallible list of canonical books. Your knowledge of the law of non contradiction is naively built upon the work of faithful men who have received, preserved and translated the Scriptures for you.



Per silly point #1 please see the thread Rich started "What is this" (http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=20654) and scroll down to the citation I provided by J.P. Moreland who is not a "Clarkian" by any stretch of the imagination. Assuming you just don't want to continue playing your pointless games, perhaps you will see that meaning is not tied to any culturally determined linguistic tokens, including those used by the Greeks.

Per silly point #2: for the same reason Abraham knew it was God talking and not Satan when he was told to sacrifice his son.

Per silly point #3: To ask someone to prove an axiom, in this case the axiom of the Christian system, is even sillier than your points 1 & 2. 

Seeing you forgot. Your challenge was:



> I will expect a justified account as to how the laws of logic are derived from Scripture. This will mean you will need to not only quote Scripture but show why you believe the particular Scripture you are quoting is (a) canonical, (b) interpreted correctly and systematically. I want to see no borrowing from empiricism at all. If you can manage it, you have won me.



Your objection was answered directly and in accordance with every one of your *conditions.* When you're done playing games, let me know. Maybe you'll even win me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This is a good discussion but to all sides - let's moderate the sarcasm and scoff.

A soft answer turns away wrath. (Is that an axiom )


----------



## MW

Civbert, I just read again what I wrote to you, and I perceive it is not up to par with what a patient and meek spirit ought to write. Please accept my apologies. Until I see a greater commitment to reformed confessionalism I refuse to discuss these points any further. You cannot maintain discussion of the Bible where there is no unified commitment as to the fundamental doctrines it teaches. People hop, skip, and jump all over the place to avoid inevitable conclusions.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Yes it is, and you don't seem to understand the precision of its language. In fact, as much as it may hurt you to hear this, you seem deficient on the very basics of theology. Puritan theology speak of assurance as a reflexive act of faith. The assurance is knowledge. Read some theological books, please, and stop twisting the Christian faith to suit your perverse philosophy.



Nice try. 

The word "knowledge" is used at least 5 times in the WCF (not including the Catechisms). But never once in Chapter 18 "Of Assurance of Grace
and Salvation". The word "know" is used one time. I agree they were very precise with language. Which is why they did not use the term "knowledge". The meaning is to be sure, or certain. The is not epistemic certainty any way you cut it.


----------



## MW

And as a final response to Sean, you provided no account for your belief that the Scripture you quoted is Scripture. You can't. Now that you have said as much, the only possible conclusion is that you cannot give a justified account of any belief you hold to. Goodbye!


----------



## Magma2

armourbearer said:


> Yes it is, and you don't seem to understand the precision of its language. In fact, as much as it may hurt you to hear this, you seem deficient on the very basics of theology. Puritan theology speak of assurance as a reflexive act of faith. The assurance is knowledge. Read some theological books, please, and stop twisting the Christian faith to suit your perverse philosophy.



I just want to say for the record and to the mods that these type of attacks which Rev. Winzer has continued to launch with uncontrolled abandoned are completely uncalled for and without warrant. Even his so-called apology to Anthony provides another opportunity to vent his spleen. 

Besides that, he is simply wrong. Edwards called assurance a consequence of belief and not a necessary inference from Scripture or a matter of private revelation. In addition, the WCF which Rev. Winzer clearly does not understand at this point (in spite of all his appeals to the Reformed faith and tradition) states; "this infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith . . . ." Once again, and his bravado aside, it is Rev. Winzer who twists the Christian faith to suit his sensate philosophy (notice I refrained from calling his indefensible nonsense "perverse").


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sean,

I just put the little  thingy as a reminder.

I appreciate where the passion comes from and believe it could be stated more gently. I am concerned about the same things. I think there are elements of Scripturalism that run completely contrary to Puritan thought.

That said, I state again that all parties need to state their cases and temper their language.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, I just saw Rev. Winzer's apology.


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> I appreciate where the passion comes from and believe it could be stated more gently. I am concerned about the same things. I think there are elements of Scripturalism that run completely contrary to Puritan thought.



Despite the evident heat being generated, this is a very good point. Of course Scripturalism runs contrary to much Puritan thought (not all of course). Puritans by and large had other fish to fry, and, at least in my reading, were not particularly concerned with the question of epistemology (of course their works weren't devoid of it either, just not developed in any systematic way). A truly systematic and biblical epistemology had to wait until the Twentieth Century and the work of Gordon Clark. 

Of course, and in many ways, Clark's Scripturalism finds it roots well before the Puritans in the work of Augustine. I would recommend Clark's small treatise _The Lord God of Truth_ which comes complete with Augustine's dialog _Concerning the Teacher_ for anyone wanting to examine the connection between these two great men of God.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Civ, Sean and Matthew,
> 
> For the sake of discussion, let's assume as our axiom that Scripture is the Word of God. Let's also assume that the teachings of Scripture (i.e., derived theorems from our axiom) provide an accounting for the laws of logic as well as man's innate equipment to reason, and many other things. I believe Matthew's point is that whatever method of reasoning we use to deduce (?) our theorems from our axiom will involve some type of empirical analysis as well as inductive reasoning amongst other things.
> 
> Matthew, is this in fact your point? If so, Civ and Sean, how would you answer this? I have my own answer, but will wait to see how Civ and Sean answer.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



Hey! We split again?! 

Well this is as good a topic for a split as any. 

I take it that Rich spit this thread off. The original was getting a little long and I worried that I was discouraging participation by being such a thread hog. But the discussion is stimulating and maybe I can stay on topic this time. (Hey Rich, could we get a blushing smiley? :blush: or :sheepish

Brain, I'm looking forward to your answer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Despite the evident heat being generated, this is a very good point. Of course Scripturalism runs contrary to much Puritan thought (not all of course). Puritans by and large had other fish to fry, and, at least in my reading, were not particularly concerned with the question of epistemology (of course their works weren't devoid of it either, just not developed in any systematic way). A truly systematic and biblical epistemology had to wait until the Twentieth Century and the work of Gordon Clark.
> 
> Of course, and in many ways, Clark's Scripturalism finds it roots well before the Puritans in the work of Augustine. I would recommend Clark's small treatise _The Lord God of Truth_ which comes complete with Augustine's dialog _Concerning the Teacher_ for anyone wanting to examine the connection between these two great men of God.



Well, I'm quite exhausted on recent philosophical discussions and actually literally exhausted from moving in this week but I'd really love to see an eventual discussion of how much Scripturalism fits with the Reformed notion of Sola Scriptura and the role that tradition plays. I don't want this can of worms opened up again right now but I think Rev. Winzer's objection could be summarized pretty well by this:


armourbearer said:


> ...I keep calling you back to confessionalism, but you think your private interpretations are better. If you had ears to hear you would hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. Which is as much to say that all knowledge is built on relation and prior commitment, not on rational deduction as you so vainly imagine.



Sean, please don't respond to this but just read what I'm about to write because it's off-topic.

I've had it out with Rev. Winzer on other topics where this same theme came up. I don't know that I agree with him on the points I disputed with him yet but, at the same time, I'm still trying to get my arms around what it means to be confessional and for the Church to be the witness of God's Word. I've become more cautious over the months.

I'm trying not to just be Confessional when it is convenient because I've gone after some FV guys who are disingenuous about what the Confession states and there are Church men that refuse to discipline when it should be very clear.

I'm not comparing your views with heresy. My only point is that Rev. Winzer is extremely consistent in his Confessional subscription in a way that I've seen in few other men and I have incredible respect for that. In many ways he has helped me realize where I tend toward private interpretation and has given me a greater respect for the Church in which the goal of unity is supposed to be worked out.

In the summer of 2002, I invited Mike Horton to have lunch with a fellow officer who I had a hand in joining the OPC after being in Calvary Chapel. We had a great lunch and talked about theology and a number of other things. We're friendly to this day and I look forward to seeing him again when I return to CA some day. He remarked that he was going to be meeting with Doug Wilson soon to talk to him about some problems that were developing. At the time, I didn't know that he was talking about the Federal Vision. He said something that always stuck with me and I can only paraphrase: Reformed theology has always been about having a dialogue with the Church and the saints of the past. Some people learn ancient languages and logic and they think they are in a position to re-write everything." That was the gist of it.

Again, I'm not saying your views are heresy but maybe there is something to this that ought to be considered.

Perhaps some of these philsopical discussions might be more useful if they did not merely prove themselves axiomatically and logically but also showed where they do/do not comport with the historic testimony of the Church. I think that when these discussions are conducted among the cloud of witnesses then it tends to cause us all to be a bit more humble and reflect upon those that went before us. It's not that they're infallible but the Church is in a position of authority even as it testifies of God's truth.

That's my 

Please, let's get back to the actual discussion but I did want to follow up on your comment because I was glad you recognized why a tension existed.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Civbert,



> Brain, I'm looking forward to your answer.



Can I ask you to clarify some things first? You say the following…



> Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation.



I realize that there are philosophical distinctions between typographical marks on a page and what these marks point to. For instance, you might hear a philosopher say that the abstract entity “the number one” is not the typographical symbol ‘1’. Rather, the symbol represented typographically as ‘1’ only points to that which is the number one. Is this the point you are making? 

Would you comment on the following words of Dr. Clark?



> Since secular philosophy had failed to solve its problems, _the alternate hypothesis of revelation, verbal communication, the Bible_ was proposed…First of all, Scripture, _the written words of the Bible_, is the mind of God.



Would you also comment on the following quote, once again stated by Dr. Clark, and explain how this fits in with your understanding of Scripturalism? 



> Axiomatization, deduction, systemization are therefore to be considered desirable. _Complete deduction, however, is unattainable; nor can it properly be demanded_.



Thank you, Anthony. I appreciate your thoughts. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> I realize that there are philosophical distinctions between typographical marks on a page and what these marks point to. For instance, you might hear a philosopher say that the abstract entity “the number one” is not the typographical symbol ‘1’. Rather, the symbol represented typographically as ‘1’ only points to that which is the number one. Is this the point you are making?


Yes, essentially. The axiom of Scripturalism starts with the truths of Scripture - this is the logical order. This is why we can have knowledge from the Scriptures and what can be deduced therefrom. Now, how we determine what is Scripture is a different issue. 

I was trying to clear up a misunderstanding - that the idea was that Scripturalism starts with a copy of the Bible, say ESV, and then calls that knowledge. 

A Scripturalist can use whatever is acceptable hermeneutics to understand what Scripture says. Clark wrote several commentaries. He did not pull Scripture out of thin air. But he also supposed that we can actually and univocally understand and believe the truths God is conveying through verbal and written mediums. And this is the axiomatic knowledge called Scripture. 

Now we might use the term Bible and Scripture interchangeable, but lets not confuse our bible for a book on our shelf. There is _one _Word of God, so one revelation and one axiom of knowledge. 



Brian Bosse said:


> Would you comment on the following words of Dr. Clark?
> 
> 
> 
> Since secular philosophy had failed to solve its problems, the alternate hypothesis of revelation, verbal communication, the Bible was proposed…First of all, Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God.
Click to expand...

I think Clark's is showing that the Bible (not the individual copies and translations) is the Word of God. His point is to introduce God's revelation as the solution to the problems that secular philosophies have failed to address. However, I don't have the context and that might help me understand what he means.



Brian Bosse said:


> Would you also comment on the following quote, once again stated by Dr. Clark, and explain how this fits in with your understanding of Scripturalism?
> 
> 
> 
> Axiomatization, deduction, systemization are therefore to be considered desirable. Complete deduction, however, is unattainable; nor can it properly be demanded.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my question of the definition of incomprehensible. The modern definition is to be beyond understanding. But the original definition, the one I think the church father's meant was "unlimited". So complete deduction is impossible because all possible knowledge (that is all God knows) is not deducible from Scripture. 

Now I'm not certain because I don't know what object Clark had in mind here when he says "complete deduction". I'm guessing he means total knowledge or all of God's thoughts. If he means all that can be deduced from Scripture - this is also true. We still have finite minds, only capable of dealing with limited knowledge. And with so many truths to work with in Scripture, the number and complexity of the deductions is practically limitless. So even there, it is impractical to say that any man can know each and every proposition deducible from Scripture.

A third option is he is speaking of hermeneutics itself. A way to test your understand the propositions in the Bible is to consider them systematically. Systematic Theology does this. We look at the different doctrines and examine them as part of a cohesive system - to see if by deduction, any particular doctrine leads to a contradiction. We know the Scriptures contain no contradictions (God can not lie) so if we find any contrary or contradictory points in the system, we know we have failed to understand true Scripture. And if two propositions are contradictory - one must be false and the other true (by definition). 



Brian Bosse said:


> Thank you, Anthony. I appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



Welcome. 

If you have to references, I'd like to look up the quotes and see if I understood Clark properly.


----------



## Magma2

Civbert said:


> If you have to references, I'd like to look up the quotes and see if I understood Clark properly.



That is arguably where you should have started. Context is everything.


----------



## Civbert

Magma2 said:


> That is arguably where you should have started. Context is everything.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> The axiom of Scripturalism starts with the truths of Scripture - this is the logical order.



According to my understanding of Clark, this is slightly inaccurate. On page 63 of _An Introduction to Christian Philosophy_ under the section “4. Does This Beg all Questions” we read… 



> This first principle will give us all the teaching of Scripture; whereas if some particular teaching of Scripture were made an axiom, a teaching that did not swallow everything in one gulp, much would be irrevocable.



Clark’s point here is that the one axiom is that the Scriptures are the word of God. The truths found therein would be _next_ in the logical order – theorems of the one axiom, if you will. So, the start of Scripturalism is not with the truths of Scripture, but rather the assumption that Scripture is the word of God. However, there seems to be some confusion as to what is referred to in the axiom. Clearly, there is one axiom in Clark’s system. On page 59 under the section “1. A Suggested Axiom” we read…



> …revelation should be accepted as our axiom…



On page 61 under the section “3. Definition of Revelation” Clark makes the point that there are two ways to understand ‘revelation’ – one of them being in terms of ‘natural revelation.’ He makes the point that this is _not_ what he is referring to when he speaks of revelation being the suggested axiom. He states that the second meaning refers to “verbal communication.” He says…



> In this case knowledge does not come by analysis of things in nature, but through words which God spoke to man.



This is still vague, but Clark continues to clarify. He states…



> Hence the postulate here proposed is not revelation as natural theology, not revelation as ineffable mysticism, not an inexpressible confrontation, but a verbal and rational communication of truths, the revelation of Scripture.



Again, this is still vague, but Clark does make it more explicit. In the very next paragraph on page 63 under the section “5. Is the Principle Broad Enough?” he says…



> Admitedly, the Bible gives us some theology…but how from the Bible can one get the rest of history…



It seems when Clark is speaking of revelation and Scripture he is referring to the Bible. In section “8. Logic and Scripture” on page 69 is where Clark really begins to sharpen his definition of revelation in terms of the axiom. 



> Someone with a lively historical sense might wonder why Scripture and revelation are equated, when God’s direct speech to Moses, Samuel, and the prophets is even more clealy revelation.
> 
> This observation becomes possible simply because of previous brevity. Of course God’s speech to Moses was revelation, in fact, revelation par excellence, if you wish. But we are not Moses. Therefore, if the problem is to explain how we know in this age, one cannot use the personal experience of Moses. Today we have the Scripture…What God said to Moses is written in the Bible; the words are identical; the revelation the same.
> 
> In this may be anticipated the relation of logic to the Scripture. First of all, Scripture, the written words of the Bible, is the mind of God. What is said in Scripture is God’s thought.



Anthony, it seems clear to me that the first axiom refers to the written words of the Bible. The first axiom asks us to accept these written words as “the mind of God”. The truths that can be deduced _via an analysis of these written words_ would be the theorems of the system. 

I will stop here at this point. The other quote regarding deduction can be found in section “13. Trivial Technicalities” on page 89. The context is that Clark has just gone through arguing how his axiom solves problems and notes how certain technical philosophers will claim that his argument is sloppy and not as tight as one would find theorems derived from a truly formal system. He essentially is acknowledging that the truths derived from the Scriptures by us are not derivable _via_ deduction only. 

I will be out of town until the end of the week. This previous paragraph is not the one I want to focus on for the moment. Rather, I want to focus on what was said prior. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> According to my understanding of Clark, this is slightly inaccurate. On page 63 of _An Introduction to Christian Philosophy_ under the section “4. Does This Beg all Questions” we read…
> 
> 
> Clark’s point here is that the one axiom is that the Scriptures are the word of God.



Sorry if I was not quite accurate about "axiom". Clark's system does start with a single axiom, that the Scriptures are the Word of God. This is the starting point and contains all that is necessary to understand doctrine and the Bible. 

I think Clark used Scripture and Bible interchangeable at times. And sometimes he meant the specific verses, and sometimes he meant the meaning of the verses (the theorems). When specifically speaking of knowledge and truth, we are dealing with the propositional meaning of Scriptures, not any specific word and sentence. But Clark did not always go to that level of precision when he spoke of the Scriptures. It would have been tedious to keep making that distinction.



Brian Bosse said:


> Anthony, it seems clear to me that the first axiom refers to the written words of the Bible. The first axiom asks us to accept these written words as “the mind of God”. The truths that can be deduced via an analysis of these written words would be the theorems of the system.


 I disagree to the extent that the Bible is not a particular text, and can be written in any number of languages and with words that are not always translatable one a "one to one" bases. The words (and sentences) of the Bible do not stand alone, and can not be understood alone, but together as part of a whole system of thought. 

I agree that "The truths that can be deduced via an analysis of these written words would be the theorems of the system." But I think it is these truths are what Clark had in mind as the implication of the Axiom - the Bible alone is the Word of God. 

Either way, one still must go through the processes of analyzing the words and texts to deduce the theorems of the Axiom. It's not a direct implication to the theorems specific, by the theorems in general. 

Does that make sense? I'm not satisfied with my explanation. But it's the implication from a A proposition to an I proposition. 

If I said all that "All pages in this book are green", then the direct implication is "Some pages in this book are green". Now the sentence "some pages in this book are green" does not contain the words "12" or "13". But we can still say that the meaning behind the sentence implies also implies the more specific statement: "pages 12 and 13 are green". So the "A" proposition implies the "I proposition", and both propositions imply specific examples of pages. Does that help?



Brian Bosse said:


> I will stop here at this point. The other quote regarding deduction can be found in section “13. Trivial Technicalities” on page 89. The context is that Clark has just gone through arguing how his axiom solves problems and notes how certain technical philosophers will claim that his argument is sloppy and not as tight as one would find theorems derived from a truly formal system. He essentially is acknowledging that the truths derived from the Scriptures by us are not derivable via deduction only.



It all depends on how you define "Scripture".  The REPLY TO GEORGE I. MAVRODES may help explain some of this. I'm not saying your wrong, just that I'm not using the same definition of Scripture that you are. You are exactly write if Scripture referrers to the words and sentences of the Bible, and I am right when Scripture is defined as the theorems themselves (the propositional truths of Scripture). We still need to use analysis to get to the theorems. 



Brian Bosse said:


> I will be out of town until the end of the week. This previous paragraph is not the one I want to focus on for the moment. Rather, I want to focus on what was said prior. Thanks.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



Looking forward to it.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I disagree (that the first axiom refers to the written words of the Bible. The first axiom asks us to accept these written words as “the mind of God”) to the extent that the Bible is not a particular text, and can be written in any number of languages and with words that are not always translatable one a "one to one" bases.



I am quoting Clark directly. Now, I do not think he is referring to the marks on the page as the mind of God, but rather to what the marks on the page refer to. However, it seems according to Clark that our knowledge of these propositions comes from an analysis of the marks on the pages of the Bible in whatever language it is in. 



> But I think it is these truths are what Clark had in mind as the implication of the Axiom - the Bible alone is the Word of God.



I think this point is captured in the phrase “implication of the Axiom.” Clark realizes that there are significant implications from the axiom that “the Bible Alone is the Word of God.” This is why he picked this proposition as his axiom. From this axiom flows the complete system.



> Either way, one still must go through the processes of analyzing the words and texts to deduce the theorems of the Axiom.



I agree. In a formal system one, typically, but not necessarily, starts with a set of axioms and a set of rules of inference that allows one to deduce theorems from the axioms. (There are some systems that have axioms only, but they are rather bland.) In Scripturalism, there is one axiom. However, it is not clear if there are any rules of inference allowing one to take the axiom and deduce other theorems from it. In other words, if all we have is one axiom and nothing more, then there is no way to deduce consequences from the axiom. Rather, I submit that there is more than just the one axiom in Scripturalism. Also assumed are all the necessary noetic tools that allows one to draw conclusions from the axiom such as the laws of logic, rules of hermeneutics, etc…. What are your thoughts on this?

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> .... What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian


----------



## Civbert

Seriously though. I think Clark said that the laws and rules of logic are implied by the Scriptures since they must be true for Scripture to be intelligible. Logical reasoning is demonstrated by Scripture in the arguments made by Christ himself and in the fact that the words used had meaning. So he did not make them additional axioms. However, I think this is a minor point.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I think Clark said that the laws and rules of logic are implied by the Scriptures since they must be true for Scripture to be intelligible.



Yes, he does argue this. In fact, he argues very effectively that the one Axiom provides justification for the laws of logic. Because of the ontological reality that Scripture teaches us about, the Christian worldview has the ontological basis to account for the laws of logic, history, ethics, etc... In essence, God is the foundation for all reality, and we have learned this from the one Axiom _via_ analysis. 



> So he did not make them additional axioms. However, I think this is a minor point.



The possible issue I am perceiving at this point is that just asserting that Scripture is true (i.e., that the Bible is the Word of God) is not enough to come up with the system called the Christian worldview. There must be something in addition to this. Namely, we must have rules of deduction that allow us to go from our axiom to the theorems of Scripture. I agree that these rules are justified by Scripture (all "all encompassing" axioms will have this sort of circular justification), but nonetheless, they are assumed _prior_ to our understanding the justification. This is where the rub is for some people on this board. For us to draw conclusions from our one axiom we must use induction and empirical analysis to come to these conclusions. I think this is the point some people are making. What do you think of this?

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. This does not take away in the least from Clark's very devistating criticisms of empiricism as a means of justification. When we get further along I will explain what my understanding is on this.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> ... This is where the rub is for some people on this board. For us to draw conclusions from our one axiom we must use induction and empirical analysis to come to these conclusions. I think this is the point some people are making. What do you think of this?


 If they had actually said this much but I don't think anyone got that far. 

I almost agree, but I hesitate to say we are using induction to draw conclusions from the "axiom" per say as much as we use induction and empirical analysis (not to be confused with empiricism) to develop the set of theorems that comprise our axiom. From the theorem's which comprise the axiom, we can only use deduction to justify additional knowledge. 


> WCF 1:6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (Gal_1:8, Gal_1:9; 2Th_2:2; 2Ti_3:15-17).




Some of the theorems are easily understood from the Bible, and some are more difficult. And deduction is also the main means of testing theorems, based on the assumptions the Scripture does not contradict itself. You can not test a contradiction using induction. You can use induction to produce tentative theorem's and deduction to test them for consistency. I think that is essentially what systematic theology entails. Systematizing the knowledge of Scripture into a comprehensive and consistent whole. 


> WCF 1:9 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (Act_15:15; 2Pe_1:20, 2Pe_1:21).


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

Thank you for taking the time to clarify things for me. I am finding our discussion very enjoyable.



> I almost agree, but I hesitate to say we are using induction to draw conclusions from the "axiom" per say as much as we use induction and empirical analysis (not to be confused with empiricism) to develop the set of theorems that comprise our axiom. From the theorem's which comprise the axiom, we can only use deduction to justify additional knowledge.



I am not sure I understand what you mean by “the set of theorems that comprise our axiom.” Our axiom is not made up of a set of theorems. Our axiom is simply the proposition “the Bible alone is the Word of God.” No more, no less. We assume this proposition as being true. Based on this assumption we deduce other propositions. These other propositions are not the axiom, and they do not make up the axiom. Consider a formal system that uses the following axioms:

*Axiom 1:* (P→(Q→P))
*Axiom 2:* (P→(Q→R))→((P→Q)→(Q→R))
*Axiom 3:* ((¬Q→¬P)→(P→Q))
*Rule of Deduction:* _Modus Ponens_

This is one possible formal system that represents propositional calculus. From this I can deduce (P→P) in five steps. However, no one would say this theorem along with an infinite number of other possible theorems "comprise" our axioms and rule of inference.

Now, it seems you are also saying that it is ok to deduce theorems _via_ induction and empirical analysis, but in order to justify “additional knowledge” deduction is the only form of reasoning allowed. Am I understanding you properly?

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> I am not sure I understand what you mean by “the set of theorems that comprise our axiom.”



Let me put it this way.

Let us say: All dogs have four legs. This statement itself implies a universal set of things called dogs and predicates that each and every one has four legs. The implication of the statement is that my dog, and your dog, and the puppy in the window has four legs.

So now when I say: All Scripture is True, this immediately implies that if P1 and P2 and P3 are statements of Scripture, then they are true.

(We're not going to debate existential import now are we?!?)

When Clark says the Scripture is True, I think he is saying the truths which comprise the Scriptures are all true. The "all" in "All Scripture is true" means "each and every" propositional truth of Scripture. Scripture is not just a symbol that stands alone, it is a word with a definition.

I guess you could define Scripture as the set (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) to be more formal. 

Let S = Scripture.

All S is True.
All (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) is S.
:.
All (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) is True.​
and 

(P1 & P2) -> X
:.
X is True.​
Now substitute "Knowledge" for "True" and you have
1) All Scripture is Knowledge
2) All things deducible from Scripture is Knowledge.


All that being said, I did not say how we find (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) which define S. And that is were hermeneutics and the Holy Spirit come in.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

I think you and I are in agreement. 



> When Clark says the Scripture is True, I think he is saying the truths which comprise the Scriptures are all true.



I think we need to be more precise in this discussion. So, let's stay with what Clark actually says is the axiom. He states it this way: Scripture is the Word of God. Since this is our axiom, we start with it as our foundation and it is assumed to be true. At this point, we know nothing more. We do not know any inferences that follow from this axiom...yet. It seems you are wanting to conflate the inferences that follow from our axiom into our axiom. This is not proper. Clark even makes this point when he says that he does not make the theorems of the system axioms. He realizes that there is a distinction between the two. We may be in agreement here, and this is merely semantics. 

I agree that Clark believes that all theorems following from our axiom are true. However, I think it is important in our discussion to make the distinction between theorems and axioms clear, and to be consistent in our discussion regarding the distinction. Again, Clark goes to some length to discuss the nature of axioms versus theorems, and is critical of those who confuse the two. I can provide quotes and references if necessary.

At this point, I believe we are in agreement regarding how the theorems are derived. Now I want to go back and look at the question "How do we know?" I think the question is too vague. Is it speaking about how someone can build a system from axioms and rules of inference? Is it asking how someone's system can account for human experience? Is it asking how we know if anything is true? 

Here is my take on Clark's philosophy at this point. Clark asks us to "try on" or to "try out" his system being that all other systems somehow fail to provide a grounding for our ability to know what really is true. He argues that his system provides a much better basis, and overcomes many of the problems found in secular philosophies. Based on these pragmatic results this in some sense provides rational justification for the system constructed on his axiom. What do you think of this take and how does it weigh on the question of "how do we know?"

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> I think you and I are in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we need to be more precise in this discussion. So, let's stay with what Clark actually says is the axiom. He states it this way: Scripture is the Word of God. Since this is our axiom, we start with it as our foundation and it is assumed to be true. At this point, we know nothing more. We do not know any inferences that follow from this axiom...yet. It seems you are wanting to conflate the inferences that follow from our axiom into our axiom. This is not proper. Clark even makes this point when he says that he does not make the theorems of the system axioms. He realizes that there is a distinction between the two. We may be in agreement here, and this is merely semantics.


I'm probably not using the terms correctly (that is using the standard technical definitions). 



Brian Bosse said:


> I agree that Clark believes that all theorems following from our axiom are true. However, I think it is important in our discussion to make the distinction between theorems and axioms clear, and to be consistent in our discussion regarding the distinction. Again, Clark goes to some length to discuss the nature of axioms versus theorems, and is critical of those who confuse the two. I can provide quotes and references if necessary.
> 
> At this point, I believe we are in agreement regarding how the theorems are derived. Now I want to go back and look at the question "How do we know?" I think the question is too vague. Is it speaking about how someone can build a system from axioms and rules of inference? Is it asking how someone's system can account for human experience? Is it asking how we know if anything is true?
> 
> Here is my take on Clark's philosophy at this point. Clark asks us to "try on" or to "try out" his system being that all other systems somehow fail to provide a grounding for our ability to know what really is true. He argues that his system provides a much better basis, and overcomes many of the problems found in secular philosophies. Based on these pragmatic results this in some sense provides rational justification for the system constructed on his axiom. What do you think of this take and how does it weigh on the question of "how do we know?"


 That works for me. I think Clark was showing that the Christian worldview (as he understood it) provided all the essential desiderata of a coherent and rational and intelligible worldview system.

And it's beneficial to keep in mind that Clark's arguments were mainly directed at secular philosophies.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

At this point, I want to understand what you mean when you say that Scripturalism makes knowledge possible. I am assuming this is what was meant by Sean's thread "How do we know?" 

Thanks,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> At this point, I want to understand what you mean when you say that Scripturalism makes knowledge possible. I am assuming this is what was meant by Sean's thread "How do we know?"
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian



I think in order for there to be a justification of a claim to knowledge (justified true belief), there needs to be some means of justifying knowing universal propositions (in contrast to particulars). One must justify that a proposition is not just true for you, but true for all time, places, and people.

And for that to be the case, one needs to have a ground or foundation for the knowledge one claims. I don't think secular epistemologies can provide that ground. I think at minimum one must posit an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally. It can not occur based on individual mans capacity for reason alone, and it can not be based on subjective observation. The first does not have an infallible ground, and the second can not point to objective truths. Scripturalism not only provides the foundation (Scripture), but presumes a perfect Mind has revealed those truths to man.


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> At this point, I want to understand what you mean when you say that Scripturalism makes knowledge possible. I am assuming this is what was meant by Sean's thread "How do we know?"



Just to add a little to Anthony's reply, Clark writes in AITCP:



> A systematic philosophy must take care of epistemology. Knowledge must be accounted for. It may be that the _a priori forms cannot be listed; it may be that botany or some other subject remains obscure; but knowledge of some sort must be provided. Hence the postulate here proposed is not revelation as natural theology, not revelation as ineffable mysticism, not an inexpressible confrontation, but a verbal rational communications of truths, the revelation of Scripture. [62]_


_

In addition:




. . . it may be pointed out that if God is supreme, as we claim, there can be no higher source than self-disclosure. God cannot be deduced from any superior principle. Therefor the same conclusion follows: either revelation must be accepted as an axiom or there is no knowledge of God at all . . . As has been shown, secular epistemological cannot provide for any knowledge at all, therefore whatever revelations gives us, however restricted, is to be received with thanksgiving. [60-61]

Click to expand...


It should also be clear from the above that Clark rejects general revelation or natural theology because "This understand of revelation simply returns us to empiricism, beset as it is with all the difficulties listed in the first lecture [which I'm not going to retype here  ]."_


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I think in order for there to be a justification of a claim to knowledge (justified true belief)…



This response was given in response to the question “How do we know?” So, when you ask the question “How do we know” are you really asking the question “What is your basis for being able to claim to know anything?” 

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> 
> 
> This response was given in response to the question “How do we know?” So, when you ask the question “How do we know” are you really asking the question “What is your basis for being able to claim to know anything?”
> 
> Brian



Yes: what are the presuppositions or axioms or first principles that you are assuming in order to justify a claim to have knowledge. I think that question can include what methods of reasoning are involved (deduction, induction, etc).


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



Brian said:


> So, when you ask the question “How do we know” are you really asking the question “What is your basis for being able to claim to know anything?”
> 
> 
> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes: what are the presuppositions or axioms or first principles that you are assuming in order to justify a claim to have knowledge...I think at minimum one must posit an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.
Click to expand...


This is good. However, let me make sure I understand before moving forward. The question being asked really amounts to asking what is the metaphysical basis (ontological basis) for epistemology. Your answer is that God ("the omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally") provides the necessary ontological underpinning for man to be able to know something. Is this a fair representation of your position?

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> This is good. However, let me make sure I understand before moving forward. The question being asked really amounts to asking what is the metaphysical basis (ontological basis) for epistemology. Your answer is that God ("the omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally") provides the necessary ontological underpinning for man to be able to know something. Is this a fair representation of your position?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



I think my position is more practical than metaphysical. 

I don't think Clark worried to much about metaphysical issues. He focused on epistemic issues. When you start getting into metaphysical questions, things get very speculative. 

Issues of existence are really questions of what can be correctly predicated of something. Everything exists epistemically, and it's only a matter of what we can know about it. Mickey Mouse exists ... as a fictional cartoon character. The number 4 exists as a pure abstraction. When we start asking is 4 real then we are conflating metaphysics with epistemology. I'm more concerned about knowing what 4 means then if it is an abstraction or a concrete thing. 

So when I ask "how do you know" it's just a question of epistemology, not metaphysics. I'll let Scripture (my epistemic foundation) answer questions of metaphysics so I don't have to speculate or make any assumptions about ontology. God is the creator and sustainer of all things - ergo my ontology is based on my epistemology, and not the other way around.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I think my position is more practical than metaphysical.



When you say there must be “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally” you are making a metaphysical claim to answer an epistemological question. Essentially, you are making the claim that there must be some ontological underpinning for man to be able to know anything. This underpinning is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” No matter what you think of metaphysics you cannot get away from it. So, when you ask the question, “how do you know,” you will _necessarily_ end up with some type of ontological answer when pushed far enough. What say you?

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> 
> 
> When you say there must be “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally” you are making a metaphysical claim to answer an epistemological question. Essentially, you are making the claim that there must be some ontological underpinning for man to be able to know anything. This underpinning is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” No matter what you think of metaphysics you cannot get away from it. So, when you ask the question, “how do you know,” you will _necessarily_ end up with some type of ontological answer when pushed far enough. What say you?
> 
> Brian



We'll have to disagree then. I don't think the claim that an omniscient Mind is required for man to have univocal knowledge is an ontological claim. It's not about the existence of the Mind, but the need for an omniscient as a predication for God. If God is not omniscient, knowledge is not possible. I'm predicating the characteristic of omniscience to God because only in doing so can there be a mind capable of knowing universal truths. And the act of revelation from God so that man can know universal truths. 

I think the ontological answers follow, but they do not "underpin" epistemology. In a sense, any knowledge implies an ontological position, but I think the ontology is a result of empirical presuppositions, not a basis for them. We can not put ontology before epistemology because nothing follows from ontology. That's how I see the logical order of things. Epistemology necessarily leads to ontology. Ontology presupposes epistemology. 

Is this a key point for where you are going?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> We'll have to disagree then.



Awww…just at time when there was so much love! 



> I don't think the claim that an omniscient Mind is required for man to have univocal knowledge is an ontological claim.



Let’s go back to our original question, “How do you know?” You have said that what is really being asked here is, “What is the basis (justification) for your being able to know anything?” You stated that for anyone to have a basis what is required is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” Anthony, I do not see how this is not an ontological claim. If you are not asserting the existence of this omniscient Mind (an ontological claim) as the basis for us to know anything, then what are you asserting? 



> It's not about the existence of the Mind, but the need for an omniscient as a predication for God.



I get the argument that omniscience must be a predication for the being referred to as a Mind. The capital ‘M’ is yours and not mine. Clearly, you are using it to refer to God. But beyond this, you said that this being must exist when you said “an omniscient Mind is required.” If this “omniscient Mind” does not exist, then knowledge is not possible. Ultimately, this is about an _ontological_ necessity for knowledge to be possible. 



> If God is not omniscient, knowledge is not possible.



You stop too soon. If God does not exist, then knowledge is not possible. Here we see that ontology is foundational. In fact, I do not understand how you can say otherwise. I think Scripture clearly teaches that ontology is the underpinning of all existence. In Him we live and move and have our being. God upholds all things, makes all things possible, and makes all things intelligible. It is God who makes all the difference. No God, then nothing. This is an ontological claim. 



> I'm predicating the characteristic of omniscience to God because only in doing so can there be a mind capable of knowing universal truths. And the act of revelation from God so that man can know universal truths.



I get this. But what you are talking about is the ontological nature of God. The being of God – if you will. You are talking about Theology Proper. These are ontological issues. God being omniscient is a statement about God’s being. God’s being is such that He is omniscient. 



> I think the ontological answers follow, but they do not "underpin" epistemology.



It is vague to say that “ontological answers follow.” This could be taken to mean that if we assume we have knowledge (the antecedent), then there are certain ontological requirements (the consequence). However, what this is really saying is that the consequence is a precondition for the antecedent. In fact, the proper logical representation of “A is a precondition for B” is B→A. So, ontological requirements (A) are a precondition for us to have knowledge (B).



> We can not put ontology before epistemology because nothing follows from ontology.



I think this is wrong as explained above. The existence of God is the basis for everything. This means ontology comes before anything else. 



> Is this a key point for where you are going?



Yes, this is a key point. I am going to argue that Clark agrees with my position, and that the Van Tillian does so as well, thereby establishing some common ground. When I say that Clark agrees with my position, what he is essentially doing is providing us with an Axiom by which we can deduce the “essential desiderata,” that is to say, those propositions asserting the necessary ontological reality that grounds our knowledge. The conclusion that I will draw from this is not that Scripture makes knowledge possible, but rather that entity which Scripture points to, i.e., God makes knoweldge possible. This is where the buck stops. If God does not exist, then there is no knowledge. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> ... The conclusion that I will draw from this is not that Scripture makes knowledge possible, but rather that entity which Scripture points to, i.e., God makes knoweldge possible. This is where the buck stops. If God does not exist, then there is no knowledge.



OK. I'll go along. God is prior to man's knowlege ontolgically and temporally. But in the the logical/epistemic sense, I think Scripture must have priority. I don't think man's knowledge can follows logically from the proposition "God exists". I think revelation must be the starting point of man's knowledge. Revelation is how we know "God exists" and revelation is how we know universal propositions. This is why Scripture, and not "God exists", is the epistemic axiom of Scripturalism. And since the question regards knowledge, the is what we must start with. And I was remined by Sean that Clark did say that since "existence" can be predicated of anything, the it in itself doesn't covey anything. 

But now I'm interested in what comes next.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> But now I'm interested in what comes next.



Hang on buddy. I think this post may be a little provocative.



> But in the the logical/epistemic sense, I think Scripture must have priority. I don't think man's knowledge can follows logically from the proposition "God exists".



The claim is not that “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists.’” The claim is that the justification for knowledge consists of there being an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us. Knowledge is not justified by a proposition. Knowledge is justified by having the proper ontological basis. Because there is an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us, then we have a basis to claim to know stuff – namely, the stuff revealed to us by this omniscient, truthful God.



> I think revelation must be the starting point of man's knowledge.



This may not be the question being asked by Sean. He asked, “How do we know?” By this, he was meaning, “What is the justification for knowing anything?” There could be at least two possible answers to the question “What is the starting point for man’s knowledge?” Here is a breakdown…

*1.* Man starts with certain physical and rational faculties – reason and senses that allow man to interact and draw conclusions concerning the world around him. 
*2.* Man chooses as axiomatic the proposition that “Scripture is the Word of God.” 
*3.* Man, using the faculties in *(1)*, deduces that because the Scriptures are the Word of God, then everything taught in the Scriptures is truth because it comes from an omniscient God who does not lie. 
*4.* Because of this ontological underpinning (an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us), man has a basis to claim he has justified true belief - namely, those propositions deduced from Scripture. 

I think this breakdown provides an answer to Sean’s original question. Regarding the question of “starting point,” in one sense it could be answered by my number one above. In another sense, one could answer that the staring point must be God who provides the ontological basis for knowledge in the first place. Now, if by starting point you meant something else, then please clarify.



> Revelation is how we know "God exists" and revelation is how we know universal propositions.



Revelation is the Scriptures. If you are using it differently, then you have changed the way Clark used it. So, you are saying that the Scriptures are how we know God exists. The problem with this is that _prior_ to this there must already be some knowledge of God or you could not draw any conclusions from Scripture. For instance, if you did not _already_ know that God was omniscient and truthful, then you could not conclude that the propositions of Scripture are true. Allow me to illustrate: 

The book called **** is the word of ####. 

If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.) The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent. There is nothing that tells me otherwise. However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true. Notice, this requires _prior_ knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must _already_ know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge. I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

> .. The conclusion that I will draw from this is not that Scripture makes knowledge possible, but rather that entity which Scripture points to, i.e., God makes knoweldge possible. This is where the buck stops. If God does not exist, then there is no knowledge.



Then it would seem the conclusion you draw will make God and not Scripture the axiomatic starting point of the Christian system. This raises the question of how do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> The claim is not that “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists.’”




Then if this is your axiomatic starting point then you're really not saying anything at all. As Clark pointed out long ago any word like "existence" that can be predicated on everything logically means nothing. Talking about an omniscient "entity" who does not lie or any such thing outside of God's self-revelation is to beg the question. 



> This may not be the question being asked by Sean. He asked, “How do we know?” By this, he was meaning, “What is the justification for knowing anything?” There could be at least two possible answers to the question “What is the starting point for man’s knowledge?” Here is a breakdown…
> 
> *1.* Man starts with certain physical and rational faculties – reason and senses that allow man to interact and draw conclusions concerning the world around him.



Some deny men have sensations as did Clark. As already mentioned, no account yet has been give that man even has sensations, much less that they're cognitive. Frankly, no one yet on these boards has even taken a stab at defining what a sensation is? Consequently, your point #3 is just another assertion of the very thing that needs to be demonstrated in order for "reason and senses" to be considered "faculties" by which deductions from Scripture are made. 



> I think this breakdown provides an answer to Sean’s original question. Regarding the question of “starting point,” in one sense it could be answered by my number one above.



Well, it could be, but then I think you'd be guilty of begging the question which pretty collides headlong with the idea of knowledge as JTB. I think you're mistaken in a number of places, particularly per point #1 from which all else seems to flow. That's why your point #3 merely compounds the problem. See Clark's response to Robert Reymond in Clark Speaks from the Grave and see the discussion of Moreland and propositions per another thread started by Rich - I think it was called "what is this."


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,

Before I begin, let me assert that I find Gordon Clark to be a brilliant man, and I have been blessed by studying his work. 



Brian said:


> The conclusion that I will draw from this is not that Scripture makes knowledge possible, but rather that entity which Scripture points to, i.e., God makes knoweldge possible. This is where the buck stops. If God does not exist, then there is no knowledge.
> 
> 
> Sean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it would seem the conclusion you draw will make God and not Scripture the axiomatic starting point of the Christian system.
Click to expand...


God is the ontological basis for knowledge to be possible…period. However, God has given us the Scriptures as a means for us to gain knowledge. As such, I can take as axiomatic the starting point of “the Scriptures are the Word of God” and use it as a means to gain knowledge. However, this is only possible because there is an omniscient God who always tells the truth and has revealed stuff to us. Apart from the ontological reality of God, the Scriptures are incapable of giving us knowledge. The Scriptures depend upon God and not the other way around. 



> This raises the question of how do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?



Forgive me for repeating an earlier argument, but you did not reference it in your two posts, and it is one of my mains points and bears directly on your question. Consider the following…

*Axiom:* The book called #### is the Word of ****.

Since this is our axiom, we accept the proposition as being true. Whatever ‘####’ points to is asserted to be the Word of whatever ‘****’ points to. At this point, am I able to draw any truth-value conclusions about the propositions contained within the book called ####? The answer is no. I need more information about the nature of this book and the nature of the entity referred to by ‘****’. For instance, if this entity is omniscient, infallible and always lies, then I can conclude the propositions contained in the book called #### are all false. (Interestingly enough, this would give us a basis for knowledge because when we know something is false, then there is something we know that it true.) Now, let’s go back to your question…

You ask, “How do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?” The argument above makes the case that unless there is some _prior_ knowledge concerning the nature of Scripture and God, then the axiom that “Scripture alone is the Word of God” is incapable of giving us knowledge. We have no rational basis to draw any truth-value conclusions concerning the propositions contained in the Scriptures from simply the assumption that our axiom is true. Therefore, if you believe that we can draw correct truth-value conclusions from Scripture (and you have maintained that we can), then you must assert that there is some _prior_ knowledge concerning God and the nature of Scripture. I will answer the question more fully below. 



Brian said:


> The claim is not that “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists.’”
> 
> 
> Sean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then if this is your axiomatic starting point then you're really not saying anything at all.
Click to expand...


I am not sure I follow you. I _denied_ that the claim is “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists’” in the above quote. I did not affirm this. My position is that for man to be able to gain knowledge from the Scriptures, then there must exist a God who is omniscient and always truthful. As such, the ontological reality of God is the foundation upon which we can have justified true beliefs. My axiomatic starting point(s) would be as follows…

*Axiom 1:* There exists an omniscient God who always tells the truth.
*Axiom 2:* The Bible is the very Word of God.
*Axiom 3 (our deductive apparatus):* Man has been given certain cognitive faculties that when functioning properly are designed to produce true beliefs. 

From these three axioms I can derive truth from the Scriptures. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with having more than one axiom in a formal system. It should also be noted that of the three axioms, axiom 1 is the foundation, but by itself it is not enough for us to be able to have knowledge. There must be revelation and an agent able to receive and process that revelation. That is why I have proposed three axioms. 



> Talking about an omniscient "entity" who does not lie or any such thing outside of God's self-revelation is to beg the question.



Not if you make it your axiom. Go back and read Clark’s argument in his _An Introduction to Christian Philosophy_ concerning the nature of axioms in light of the very objection you raised. If I remember correctly, he deals with it in a couple of places. One is given a complete section titled something like “Does this beg all questions?” I would also like to point out that my three axioms are completely consistent with each other, and as such the system derived from this is internally consistent. It should also be noted that the system derived from my three axioms would be the very system Clark subscribed to. 



> Consequently, your point #3 is just another assertion of the very thing that needs to be demonstrated in order for "reason and senses" to be considered "faculties" by which deductions from Scripture are made.



If man does not have cognitive faculties by which to process sensory inputs like the symbols on a page and is not able to properly draw conclusions from these sensory stimuli, then the Scriptures fail to be a source of knowledge for man.



> Well, it could be, but then I think you'd be guilty of begging the question which pretty collides headlong with the idea of knowledge as JTB.



See my response above, and Clark’s own answer to your objection. I would also like to point out again the argument that I repeated in this post. Essentially, if you deny my axioms 1 and 3, then you undermine your ability to know anything. I look forward to your response, and hope that Anthony chimes in as well. 

Let me ask you a question, how do you think I would be perceived by those on the Scripturalist list? Do you think they would perceive me to be a friend or an enemy of Scripturalism?

Thanks,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hang on buddy. I think this post may be a little provocative.


  



Brian Bosse said:


> The claim is not that “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists.’” The claim is that the justification for knowledge consists of there being an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us. Knowledge is not justified by a proposition. ...


 Yes and no. If you mean "knowledge" in general, you are correct. But if you mean any particular proposition, then it is justified by being deducible from prior true propositions.


Brian Bosse said:


> ... Knowledge is justified by having the proper ontological basis. Because there is an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us, then we have a basis to claim to know stuff – namely, the stuff revealed to us by this omniscient, truthful God.


 I agree, God is the ontological priority. But the epistemic priority is Scripture. 



Brian Bosse said:


> This may not be the question being asked by Sean. He asked, “How do we know?” By this, he was meaning, “What is the justification for knowing anything?” There could be at least two possible answers to the question “What is the starting point for man’s knowledge?” Here is a breakdown…
> 
> *1.* Man starts with certain physical and rational faculties – reason and senses that allow man to interact and draw conclusions concerning the world around him.
> *2.* Man chooses as axiomatic the proposition that “Scripture is the Word of God.”
> *3.* Man, using the faculties in *(1)*, deduces that because the Scriptures are the Word of God, then everything taught in the Scriptures is truth because it comes from an omniscient God who does not lie.
> *4.* Because of this ontological underpinning (an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us), man has a basis to claim he has justified true belief - namely, those propositions deduced from Scripture.
> 
> I think this breakdown provides an answer to Sean’s original question. Regarding the question of “starting point,” in one sense it could be answered by my number one above. ...


 Yes, but that is a temporal order of things. And one can take that all the way back to God and creation.


Brian Bosse said:


> ... In another sense, one could answer that the staring point must be God who provides the ontological basis for knowledge in the first place. Now, if by starting point you meant something else, then please clarify.



I'll try.

I think you can take God as the temporal and ontological priority to man's knowledge. This is true. But I don't think that was point of the question. Sean was asking about epistemology and that is looking at the logical order of knowledge.

Temporal/ontological order is 1) God, then 2) revelation (Scripture), then 3) man's knowledge.

Epistemic order is 1) Scripture, then 2) man's knowledge.

We justify (logically) the knowledge of God from Scripture, we justify our ontology (God is the creator and sustainer of all things) from Scripture. There is no knowledge of God for man logically prior to God's revelation.



Brian Bosse said:


> Revelation is the Scriptures. If you are using it differently, then you have changed the way Clark used it. ...


 Revelation also includes direct auditory/spoken revelation, but that is not available to us now.


Brian Bosse said:


> ... So, you are saying that the Scriptures are how we know God exists. The problem with this is that _prior_ to this there must already be some knowledge of God or you could not draw any conclusions from Scripture. For instance, if you did not _already_ know that God was omniscient and truthful, then you could not conclude that the propositions of Scripture are true. Allow me to illustrate:
> 
> The book called **** is the word of ####.
> 
> If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.) The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent. There is nothing that tells me otherwise. However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true. Notice, this requires _prior_ knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must _already_ know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge.


 Temporally this is true. But we can not logically justify any knowledge of God prior to Scripture, because Scripture is the means through which God has given us knowledge of Himself, and the gospel, and man's duty. Scripture also tells us the Scripture is true. So when ask how do you know, I'm not asking about the temporal order, but the logical order. 

I'll take your book example and add comments in <_brackets_>.
If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.) < _OK._> The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent. < _Poor choice of an axiom._> There is nothing that tells me otherwise. <_If this is your epistemic axiom, and it doesn't say it is true and consistent, then you are correct_.> However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true. <_But you can't know this if your axiom does not say so. You have no knowledge prior to the axiom._> Notice, this requires _prior_ knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must _already_ know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge. <_Like I said, if ***** is your epistemic axiom, you can not have knowledge that is logically prior to it by definition. _>​
Epistemically, you can not justify any knowledge logically prior to you epistemic axiom. All justified knowledge most follow from the axiom, or it is not an axiom. I think what's going on in your example is a case of temporal priority. But even that would put Scripture first. You can't know God is omniscient prior in time to hearing the Word. You can't know that Scripture is inerrant and infallible prior in time to knowing what the Bible says about itself. You can't know God is the creator of all things prior in time to hearing that from God. So as far as our knowledge is concerned, Scripture is still prior. 

The temporal order for me is:
Anthony is born.
Anthony is exposed to the Scripture.
Anthony is regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
From that moment on, Anthony has justified knowledge of God and man and all things necessary for life.

Notice that even temporally, I can not logically justify any knowledge prior to believing that Scripture is God's Word. 

So the logical order of my knowledge is:
Scripture
All things that by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture

The ontological and temporal priority is ultimately God since God existed before me and created all things.. But when we want to justify a proposition is a justified true belief, we do so by showing it is deducible from a priori true propositions, and those from a priori true propositions, until we get to our axiom, which is Scripture.


So can we agree that God has ontological/temporal priority, and Scripture has epistemic/logical priority?


(P.S. to avoid confusion, I want to say the when I say "temporal" here, I'm not saying temporary, but that it has to do with time. Temporal order is the order something happens over time. Logical priority has to do with that truths are justified by other truths. I'm sure most people understand what I mean by "temporal" but I want to be sure. )


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> ...Let me ask you a question, how do you think I would be perceived by those on the Scripturalist list? Do you think they would perceive me to be a friend or an enemy of Scripturalism?



Well that depends on who you're asking about.  I myself am perceived by _some_ on that list as an enemy of Scripturalism. I don't think there is a unity of thought on that particular list - at least that is the impression one gets from the vocal minority. I think almost anyone could be considered an enemy of Scripturalism buy some of the more vocal people on that list.


----------



## Magma2

> God is the ontological basis for knowledge to be possible…period. However, God has given us the Scriptures as a means for us to gain knowledge. As such, I can take as axiomatic the starting point of “the Scriptures are the Word of God” and use it as a means to gain knowledge. However, this is only possible because there is an omniscient God who always tells the truth and has revealed stuff to us. Apart from the ontological reality of God, the Scriptures are incapable of giving us knowledge. The Scriptures depend upon God and not the other way around.



Couple of small points. If what you mean by “God is the ontological basis for knowledge to be possible” the same thing as what the WCF asserts and that “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts” we have no disagreement. One could not have a true belief unless God first caused one to believe. However, you seem to be suggesting metaphysics as necessarily prior to epistemology and I simply do not agree. Knowledge is belief in the truth with an account of its truthfulness. Consequently, it is Scripture alone, the mind of Christ revealed, which gives us both the content and account for knowledge. There is no “God” apart from the God as He has revealed himself in Scripture, this is why Scripture and not God would be the chosen axiom. 




> Axiom: The book called #### is the Word of ****.
> 
> Since this is our axiom, we accept the proposition as being true. Whatever ‘####’ points to is asserted to be the Word of whatever ‘****’ points to. At this point, am I able to draw any truth-value conclusions about the propositions contained within the book called ####? The answer is no. I need more information about the nature of this book and the nature of the entity referred to by ‘****’. For instance, if this entity is omniscient, infallible and always lies, then I can conclude the propositions contained in the book called #### are all false. (Interestingly enough, this would give us a basis for knowledge because when we know something is false, then there is something we know that it true.) Now, let’s go back to your question…



I think some of the confusion here is that the book called the bible isn’t a pointer to something else. When I refer to Scripture I do not mean ink marks in a black book. 



> You ask, “How do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?” The argument above makes the case that unless there is some prior knowledge concerning the nature of Scripture and God, then the axiom that “Scripture alone is the Word of God” is incapable of giving us knowledge.



And I would say that unless you accept the axiom that the Scripture alone is the Word of God you would be able to arrive at no knowledge of God whatsoever or anything else for that matter (see Clark’s quote). If there was some prior knowledge concerning the nature of Scripture and God than that knowledge, whatever it might be, would be the axiom of the Christian system and not Scripture. Further, while the truth of Scripture cannot be proven there are certain evidences that attest to the fact that the Scripture is the Word of God. One such bit of evidence is the consent of the parts and the logical coherence of all Scripture teaches. 



> We have no rational basis to draw any truth-value conclusions concerning the propositions contained in the Scriptures from simply the assumption that our axiom is true.



If you mean by this we have no prior proof that the Scriptures are true, then you are exactly right. The axiom of Scripture is accepted as true without prior proof. If not “Scripture alone is the word of God” would be a theorem and not an axiom. You correctly pointed out that Clark was very concerned with not confusing axioms with theorems, but I’m afraid you’ve done exactly that. 



> I am not sure I follow you. I denied that the claim is “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists’” in the above quote. I did not affirm this. My position is that for man to be able to gain knowledge from the Scriptures, then there must exist a God who is omniscient and always truthful. As such, the ontological reality of God is the foundation upon which we can have justified true beliefs. My axiomatic starting point(s) would be as follows…
> 
> Axiom 1: There exists an omniscient God who always tells the truth.
> Axiom 2: The Bible is the very Word of God.
> Axiom 3 (our deductive apparatus): Man has been given certain cognitive faculties that when functioning properly are designed to produce true beliefs.



I would refer you to Clark’s discussion again on axioms in his Intro and also his piece God and Logic where he states:



> God as distinct from Scripture is not made the axiom of this argument [as it is in your arrangement above]. Undoubtedly this twist will seem strange to many theologians. It will seem particularly strange after the previous emphasis on the mind of God as the origin of all truth. Must not God be the axiom? For example, the first article of the Augsburg Confession gives the doctrine of God, and the doctrine of the Scripture hardly appears anywhere in the whole document. In the French Confession of 1559, the first article is on God; the Scripture is discussed in the next five. The Belgic Confession has the same order. The Scotch Confession of 1560 begins with God and gets to the Scripture only in article nineteen. The Thirty-Nine Articles begin with the Trinity, and Scripture comes in articles six and following. If God is sovereign, it seems very reasonable to put him first in the system.
> 
> But several other creeds, and especially the Westminster Confession, state the doctrine of Scripture at the very start. The explanation is quite simple: our knowledge of God comes from the Bible. We may assert that every proposition is true because God thinks it so, and we may follow Charnock in all his great detail, but the whole is based on Scripture. Suppose this were not so. Then “God” as an axiom, apart from Scripture, is just a name. We must specify which God. The best known system in which “God” was made the axiom is Spinoza’s. For him all theorems are deduced from Deus sive Natura. But it is the Natura that identifies Spinoza’s God. Different gods might be made axioms of other systems. Hence the important thing is not to presuppose God, but to define the mind of the God presupposed. Therefore the Scripture is offered here as the axiom. This gives definiteness and content, without which axioms are useless.
> 
> Thus it is that God, Scripture, and logic are tied together. The Pietists should not complain that emphasis on logic is a deification of an abstraction, or of human reason divorced from God. Emphasis on logic is strictly in accord with John’s Prologue and is nothing other than a recognition of the nature of God. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16



I think Clark’s solution is much more elegant as that it combines all three (or at least two) of your axioms into one and is considerably more defensible for some of the reasons he mentions above. Regardless, you’re free to choose your own axioms and if you would prefer to have three what do I care even if the first seems to me to be a redundancy and I’m not sure what 3 gets you? I would think it would contradict 2 since proper function isn’t exactly a biblical truth. Total depravity is. 



> Talking about an omniscient "entity" who does not lie or any such thing outside of God's self-revelation is to beg the question.
> Not if you make it your axiom. Go back and read Clark’s argument in his An Introduction to Christian Philosophy concerning the nature of axioms in light of the very objection you raised. If I remember correctly, he deals with it in a couple of places. One is given a complete section titled something like “Does this beg all questions?” I would also like to point out that my three axioms are completely consistent with each other, and as such the system derived from this is internally consistent. It should also be noted that the system derived from my three axioms would be the very system Clark subscribed to.



Like I said, you’re free to choose whatever you want. I’m not sure what or how much is deducible from 1 & 3, but since 3 seems to contradict 2 and 1 is already asserted within 2, I really don’t see what your 3 axioms gets you next to Clark’s humble one? 




> Quote:
> Consequently, your point #3 is just another assertion of the very thing that needs to be demonstrated in order for "reason and senses" to be considered "faculties" by which deductions from Scripture are made.
> If man does not have cognitive faculties by which to process sensory inputs like the symbols on a page and is not able to properly draw conclusions from these sensory stimuli, then the Scriptures fail to be a source of knowledge for man.



This doesn’t follow. Again, Scripture is not ink marks in a black book. See Moreland’s discussion on propositions mentioned above. It’s quite good.  



> Essentially, if you deny my axioms 1 and 3, then you undermine your ability to know anything. I look forward to your response, and hope that Anthony chimes in as well.



Again, I think 1 & 3 are already including in Clark’s single axiom and 3 with some qualification and modification. 



> Let me ask you a question, how do you think I would be perceived by those on the Scripturalist list? Do you think they would perceive me to be a friend or an enemy of Scripturalism?



You would be not viewed as a Scripturalist. That’s OK, I have lots of friends that aren’t Scripturalists. Some are even Van Tilians.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony and Sean,

I am going to cut to what I think is the heart of the matter. If there is something you said that is important and that I did not deal with, please do not hesitate to bring it back up.



Brian said:


> If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.)
> 
> 
> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
Click to expand...


I am assuming by your answer that you agree. Allow me to clarify my point. 

*Axiom:* The book called **** is the word of ####. 

By taking the axiom as an axiom we are saying that the proposition ‘the book called **** is the word of ####’ is true. It is possible that those propositions asserted in the book called **** are all false, or are all true, or are a combination of true and false statements. This is the case even if our axiom is true. So, if we do not have any other information, then we cannot know the truth-state of any proposition in the book of ****. I submit that this is fatal for your position. 



Brian said:


> The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent.
> 
> 
> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor choice of an axiom.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but you are missing the point. You do not have an epistemic basis to know whether it is consitent or not in the first place. If all you have is the initial axiom and nothing more, then you cannot know the truth-state of any proposition, and as such you cannot know whether the axiom is indeed a “good choice” or a “poor choice.” 



Brian said:


> There is nothing that tells me otherwise.
> 
> 
> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your epistemic axiom, and it doesn't say it is true and consistent, then you are correct.
Click to expand...


You are missing the point. We are asserting that our axiom is true. My point is that even when we assert this, if we do not have other information, then we cannot conclude the truth-state of any proposition in the book of ****. The axiom is not sufficient to go there. 



Brian said:


> However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true.
> 
> 
> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you can't know this if your axiom does not say so. You have no knowledge prior to the axiom.
Click to expand...


I agree! Here is the point, the axiom: 'The book called **** is the word of ####' could be interpreted as a statement with two free variables. The observations I am making about this axiom equally apply to the resulting proposition when I instantiate these variables. Consider this instantiation: The book called the Bible (****) is the word of God (####). In and of itself, this proposition is not able to conclude the truth-state of any proposition in the Bible. To do this, one would need additional information. 



Brian said:


> Notice, this requires prior knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must already know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge.
> 
> 
> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, if ***** is your epistemic axiom, you can not have knowledge that is logically prior to it by definition.
Click to expand...


Anthony, this is inaccurate. ‘****’ is not the axiom. Look at the beginning of this post. The axiom is “The book called **** is the word of ####.” If there is no other knowledge available to me, then I am unable to go further than the mere assertion of this axiom. 

Here is my challenge to you and Sean. I want you to start with your axiom alone, and derive a particular proposition found in Scripture that you would count as justified true belief. Please only use valid deductions. No sloppy thinking or informal arguments. Good Luck!

Brian
P.S. If Clark presented such a deduction, please feel free to reproduce it here. This would be best. I just don't know of one.


----------



## Davidius

Brian Bosse said:


> I agree! Here is the point, the axiom: 'The book called **** is the word of ####' could be interpreted as a statement with two free variables. The observations I am making about this axiom equally apply to the resulting proposition when I instantiate these variables. Consider this instantiation: The book called the Bible (****) is the word of God (####). In and of itself, this proposition is not able to conclude the truth-state of any proposition in the Bible. To do this, one would need additional information.
> ...
> The axiom is “The book called **** is the word of ####.” If there is no other knowledge available to me, then I am unable to go further than the mere assertion of this axiom.



I understand that you guys are light years ahead of me here, but I just thought I would throw out what's on my mind because, along with reading, it is sometimes helpful to just join-in with the more experienced ones and have my meager contributions evaluated and corrected so I can get better.

What if, instead of asserting the axiom "The book called **** is the word of ####" you just assert "The book called **** is true"? That way, there's only one variable and you don't have to have extra knowledge that #### isn't lying when ####'s word says that he doesn't lie. This way, the only variable is the book. It is asserted that the book called **** is true, and **** tells us about a God who created the universe, doesn't lie, and also happens to be the author of the book.

If the answer is too complicated and I'm in over my head I'll just come back to the thread in a few months after I've studied more.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello CC,



> What if, instead of asserting the axiom "The book called **** is the word of ####" you just assert "The book called **** is true"...It is asserted that the book called **** is true, and **** tells us about a God who created the universe, doesn't lie, and also happens to be the author of the book.



This is a good observation. (It needs to be stated that we are dealing with Gordon H. Clark's Scripturalism which posits an axiom in the form of "The book called **** is the word of ####." Even with your suggestion, the challenge remains to go from the statement that "The Book called **** is true" to the proposition "Proposition P in **** is true." How does one go from the intial proposition to this conclusion without additional information? Let me make the issue more explicit...

*Premise 1:* All the propositions in the book **** are true.
*Conclusion:* Proposition P is true. 

To make this a valid deduction we need the premise...

*Premise 2:* Proposition P is a proposition in the book ****.

Where does premise 2 come from? 

Brian


----------



## JohnV

But is it not the case, Brian, that the author of the book, or of proposition P, is implied anyways, whether you mention it or not?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello JohnV.



> But is it not the case, Brian, that the author of the book, or of proposition P, is implied anyways, whether you mention it or not?



Sure. Since Scripturalism claims to be an axiomatic system, this unstated premise must be accounted for. My point is that Clarkians have not accounted for this. As such, their system fails to ground (justify) knowledge by the one axiom alone. It will be interesting to see Sean and Anthony deduce a proposition from the Bible using the lone axiom.

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello CC,
> 
> This is a good observation. (It needs to be stated that we are dealing with Gordon H. Clark's Scripturalism which posits an axiom in the form of "The book called **** is the word of ####." Even with your suggestion, the challenge remains to go from the statement that "The Book called **** is true" to the proposition "Proposition P in **** is true." How does one go from the intial proposition to this conclusion without additional information? Let me make the issue more explicit...
> 
> *Premise 1:* All the propositions in the book **** are true.
> *Conclusion:* Proposition P is true.
> 
> To make this a valid deduction we need the premise...
> 
> *Premise 2:* Proposition P is a proposition in the book ****.
> 
> Where does premise 2 come from?



I admit you're starting to lose me with all these ###[email protected]^%#@Q$&^ . I'm begging to think you're cursing at me. 

I noticed that you did not interact with virtually anything I posted in response to your earlier post or with what I posted from Clark. How about a little give and take? I'm hesitant to continue since it is not clear to me that you have yet grasped what the axiom of Clark Scripturalism is, but I'll play along:


1: All the propositions in the book **** are true.

2: A man is justified by faith alone is a proposition in the book ***

:. A man is justified by faith alone is true.


----------



## JohnV

A man is justified by faith alone

I have faith that all wheels are round

:. I am justified.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,



> I noticed that you did not interact with virtually anything I posted in response to your earlier post or with what I posted from Clark. How about a little give and take?



As I said, if there is anything you really need me to deal with, please bring it up again. I was just trying to expidite things by "cutting to the chase" if you will. Thanks for playing along.



> 1: All the propositions in the book **** are true.
> 
> 2: A man is justified by faith alone is a proposition in the book ***
> 
> :. A man is justified by faith alone is true.



This is a valid argument. The question remains if this is truly a theorem of the one axiom. I say it is not. Premise *(2)* is not derivable from the one axiom. So, where does it come from? Here is it put in more expcit terms...

*Premise 1:* All the propositions in the Bible are true. (By the way, I would like to note that this is not the axiom. Ultimately, I am hoping you can present an argument from the axiom.)
*Premise 2:* 'A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible. (Note the quote marks. These are significant.)
*Conclusion:* 'A man is justified by faith alone' is true.

My question at this point would be where does premise 2 come from? Premise 2 is the proposition '''A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible.' Again, note the quotes. Premise 2 is itself not a proposition in the Bible. So, where did it come from? If you cannot ground this statement, then the conclusion is not grounded either.

Brian


----------



## Davidius

Brian Bosse said:


> My question at this point would be where does premise 2 come from? Premise 2 is the proposition '''A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible.' Again, note the quotes. Premise 2 is itself not a proposition in the Bible. So, where did it come from? If you cannot ground this statement, then the conclusion is not grounded either.



Premise 2 was created in my mind after I read the bible.


----------



## Magma2

> This is a valid argument. The question remains if this is truly a theorem of the one axiom. I say it is not. Premise (2) is not derivable from the one axiom. So, where does it come from? Here is it put in more expcit terms...
> 
> Premise 1: All the propositions in the Bible are true. (By the way, I would like to note that this is not the axiom.



Actually, you’re wrong Brian - that is the axiom and is simply another way of stating the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God.



> Premise 2 is the proposition '''A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible.' Again, note the quotes. Premise 2 is itself not a proposition in the Bible. So, where did it come from?



Romans 3:28. 


Thanks for playing.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,

Axiomatic formal systems are quite strict, and your response demonstrates a loosness that just won't fly. 



> Actually, you’re wrong Brian - that (All the propositions in the Bible are true) is the axiom and is simply another way of stating the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God.



In an axiomatic formal system, this is too loose. Here are the propositions...

*P(1):* The Bible alone is the Word of God.
*P(2):* All the propositions in the Bible are true.

To go from P(1) to P(2) _requires_ some deductive argument. To assert they mean the same thing is simply to give up a formal axiomatization.



Brian said:


> So, where did it ('A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible) come from?
> 
> 
> Sean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:28.
Click to expand...


Just a cursory look at my Bible is enough to see that the proposition "'A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible" is not what Romans 3:28 says. Again, your thinking is too sloppy here. Let's say Romans 3:28 says P. P is not the same things as the proposition "P is a proposition in the Bible". We could label this proposition Q. Q and P are _different_ propositions. Again, an axiomatic system demands more precise thinking here. 



> Thanks for playing.



You bet bud. 

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> In an axiomatic formal system, this is too loose. Here are the propositions...
> 
> *P(1):* The Bible alone is the Word of God.
> *P(2):* All the propositions in the Bible are true.



You are just restating the axiom. The axiom the Bible alone is the Word of God entails all 66 books of the bible and all of the thousands of propositions found therein. They are all presumed true and all subsumed in the axiom. P1&P2 are synonyms. It is not 2 axioms or your redundant and contradictory trilogy of axioms. Shall I name the 66 books for you? Or are we going to keep playing the game "Prove Your Axiom" over and over? 




> Just a cursory look at my Bible is enough to see that the proposition "'A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible" is not what Romans 3:28 says.



Thanks for pointing that out.

2. A man is justified by faith is a proposition in the book in the book ** 

Still a valid argument and soundly deduced from the axiom -- and is exactly what Romans 3:28 states bud. "Alone" will take a bit more work, but if you want to play that game too, let me know.


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> *P(1):* The Bible alone is the Word of God.
> *P(2):* All the propositions in the Bible are true.
> 
> To go from P(1) to P(2) _requires_ some deductive argument. To assert they mean the same thing is simply to give up a formal axiomatization.



I want to hammer this home a bit more before I'm off to Church to worship the invisible, immutable and true God and not some pieces of paper in a black book.  Clark said in _Intro to Christian Phil_:



> A geometer, an analytic philosopher [which is probably where Brian might be classified], or a Spinozist will doubtless consider the preceding construction [the construction of the axiom of Scripture] to be disturbingly sloppy. Euclid and Spinoza carefully enumerated their axioms and as carefully deduced their theorems. But theology books as not written _ordine geometrico demonstrata_; nor has the axiom or set of axioms been clearly formulated. If the set of axioms is the aggreate of all the sentences in the Bible, the number is far too great for any neat Euclidian system.
> 
> . . . Yet the difficulty with theology is not precisely the number of axioms. The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms. The peculiarity is in the opposite direction. What annoys Euclid and Spinoza [and evidently Brian] is that this theology can operate on a single axiom. The single axiom is: The Bible is the Word of God. But though single, it is fruitful because there is embedded in it the law of contradiction, plus the nature of God . . . plus thousands of propositions thus declared true.
> 
> On this latter point the form of deduction can be maintained. From the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the word of God.
> 
> In the next place, as would not be the case if each Biblical proposition were singly and strictly regarded itself as an axiom, the truths of Scripture can be arranged in patterns of logical subordination. The doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints are far from being an illogical and disjointed aggregation. The opponents of this theology have never charged it with being illogical; the standard objection is that it is too logical. [87,88]



For Clark, when someone says (1) The Bible alone is the Word of God and (2) All the propositions in the Bible are true, they are saying the same thing. As Clark argued (and perhaps Brian hasn't gotten that far in Clark's discussion since he quoted earlier passages of _Intro_ previously) though his chosen axiom is "single, it is fruitful because there is embedded in it the law of contradiction, plus the nature of God . . . plus thousands of propositions thus declared true."

Consequently, when Brian asks for some deductive argument to get from 1 to 2 it should be clear that he has failed to grasp Clark's argument. Further when Brian writes things like; "it seems according to Clark that our knowledge of these propositions comes from an analysis of the marks on the pages of the Bible in whatever language it is in" he really missed much of the preceding arguments in Clark's _Intro_ as well (which I have to assume he has read). Clark explains when he says the Bible is the Word of God he is not constructing some paper pope. The Bible contains the thoughts of God, or more accurately some of the thoughts of God, which is why Paul could say we have "the mind of Christ." So, Brian simply could not be more incorrect when the says that for Clark "our knowledge . . . comes from an analysis of marks on the pages of the Bible." For Clark, and hopefully for all Christians, belief in truth is not the result of analyzing marks on a page in a black book called the Bible, it is the gift of God.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony and Sean,
> 
> I am going to cut to what I think is the heart of the matter. If there is something you said that is important and that I did not deal with, please do not hesitate to bring it back up.
> 
> 
> 
> I am assuming by your answer that you agree. Allow me to clarify my point.
> 
> *Axiom:* The book called **** is the word of ####.
> 
> By taking the axiom as an axiom we are saying that the proposition ‘the book called **** is the word of ####’ is true. It is possible that those propositions asserted in the book called **** are all false, or are all true, or are a combination of true and false statements. This is the case even if our axiom is true. So, if we do not have any other information, then we cannot know the truth-state of any proposition in the book of ****. I submit that this is fatal for your position.



I see the confusion now. When I (and I think Clark) say the axiom is "the Bible alone is the Word of God", he is not saying that that sentence is the strict formal axiom of the system. He is saying that all the propositional truths in the book are God's Word, and therefore infallible and inerrant. It is not a possibility that any proposition of book is false. 

Clark could have simple said: "all Scripture is true" since that is what he meant in a nutshell. He used the phrase "the Bible alone is the Word of God" to emphasis the connection to basic Christian dogma. 

Sola Scriptura.

Now the logic flows: 
All Scripture is true;
Jesus is the Messiah is Scripture.
Therefore "Jesus is the Messiah" is true.



> It will be interesting to see Sean and Anthony deduce a proposition from the Bible using the lone axiom.


Mission accomplished.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> In an axiomatic formal system, this is too loose. Here are the propositions...
> 
> *P(1):* The Bible alone is the Word of God.
> *P(2):* All the propositions in the Bible are true.



I agree, but that's because "The Bible alone is the Word of God" is not the strict propositional axiom of Clark's epistemology. It an informal sentence that Clark assumed most Christians would understand to mean more formally:

*P(1):* All Scripture is true.

Now by direct implication (the A form to the I form), then all propositional truths of Scripture are themselves true. Thus we go from the single axiom to justify knowledge. This is nothing new. All Clark is saying is saying is the revealed Word of God is the whole counsel of God. 

To put it even less formally - if es in d' Good Book, den ya know its da troot.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> ... Just a cursory look at my Bible is enough to see that the proposition "'A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible" is not what Romans 3:28 says. Again, your thinking is too sloppy here. Let's say Romans 3:28 says P. P is not the same things as the proposition "P is a proposition in the Bible". We could label this proposition Q. Q and P are _different_ propositions. Again, an axiomatic system demands more precise thinking here.



Will get there - but remember what I said earlier. The Scripture can not be axiomatized to the explicit sentences printed in the King James version and maybe even less in the NIV. The Scriptures are the propositional truths of God's revealed Word. We haven't yet filled this gap, but I think you are putting the "axiom" on the wrong side of it. 

The Word of God isn't "Romans 3:28" - even the original manuscripts lacked the verse numbers and chapter and book headings. And you won't find the words "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." in the original either. Or: "arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis" since Latin is not the original tongue. But does that mean that the answer is: "λογιζομεθα ουν πιστει δικαιουσθαι ανθρωπον χωρις εργων νομου"??

No, Sean is correct that "man is justified by faith" is a proposition of Scripture since this is the meaning of Rom 3:28. And strickly speaking, we are interestestrictlyd in what the meaning of a sentence is, not duplicating the text of a particular translation, and that meaning can be conveyed in any language. 

So Scripture is not going back to the originals since we still get Scripture from our NKJV and out new NIV. But need to understand the meaning of the text to know Scripture. While one might substitute the word Bible and Scripture, we need to know this is like saying "there's Brian" when we see a photograph of you, or a post you made. The statement is true in a sense, but it's not the whole truth and can be misunderstood. And I dare saying I'm getting in deep here - but I think I'm understanding Clark's axiom.

That being said, I think you're driving to the same issue: how do we fill in the gap. That is the point of this thread I think. May Clarkians use some empirical analysis and inductive reasoning?


----------



## Civbert

Just to help along the Bible/Scripture issue:

Does everyone agree with the _both_ the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture? How do you understand it? If James and Paul explicitly contradict each other, how can the Scriptures be inerrant and infallible?

Does that help everyone understand the "axiom" of Scripturalism? It's the same as asserting the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. It doesn't solve problems of interpretation and translation. It doesn't give us instant rules of hermeneutics, but that it does give us the correct meaning of the Scripturalist axiom.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

Up to this point Scripturalism seems to fall short of what you and Sean claim. I assume you read Sean’s last two responses to me. He essentially wants to abandon deductive processes altogether, and he simply wants to assert that two different propositions are in fact the same. With Clark’s and your understanding of logic, I cannot imagine either of you agreeing with Sean on this point. If this is what it takes to defend Scripturalism, then Scripturalism is lost. 



> He is saying that all the propositional truths in the book are God's Word, and therefore infallible and inerrant.



Notice everything after the conjunction. You are drawing a conclusion from the proposition “All propositional truths in the Bible are God’s Word.” However, you know very well that to get to your desired conclusion you must have another premise. Where does that premise come from?



> Clark could have simple said: "all Scripture is true" since that is what he meant in a nutshell.



Even with this slight adjustment on your part, the very objection I raised still holds. Let’s look at the argument you presented:



> All Scripture is true;
> Jesus is the Messiah is Scripture.
> Therefore "Jesus is the Messiah" is true.



This is valid. However, where does your premise 2 come from? It is not the axiom or even a proposition of the Bible. So, what possible justification do you have for it? My main point has been that for Clark’s axiom to work there must be additional information. The axiom cannot do the job by itself. I am hoping this is becoming clear to you. I do not know how to make the point more explicit. 



Brian said:


> It will be interesting to see Sean and Anthony deduce a proposition from the Bible using the lone axiom.
> 
> 
> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...


Mission Impossible. 



> Now by direct implication (the A form to the I form), then all propositional truths of Scripture are themselves true.



As I demonstrated above, when you actually try to present the argument you fail. This is where formalizing arguments is such a great tool. If you disagree, then please provide me a deductive argument beginning with your universal affirmative axiom and draw a conclusion from Scripture using only premises that you can justify. 



> Sean is correct that "man is justified by faith" is a proposition of Scripture since this is the meaning of Rom 3:28.



I agree that "man is justified by faith" is a proposition of Scripture. There are two major points here that illustrate just what a difficult position you are in: 

*(1)* You cannot justify the assertion that “‘man is justified by faith’ is a proposition of Scripture” from the axiom alone. Let P=“man is justified by faith”. You are asserting: P is a proposition of Scripture. Where does this come from? It does not come from Scripture and it does not come from your axiom. You need more information to draw the conclusions you want to draw.

*(2)* Notice the word ‘since’ in the above quote. You now are presenting an argument to justify the proposition “P is a proposition of Scripture.” You said, “…since this is the meaning of Rom 3:28.” This asserts another proposition. Namely, "P is the meaning of Rom 3:28". Where do you get this from? You do not get this from the axiom, nor is it a proposition of the Bible. Anthony, you are on a fool’s errand here. No matter what you do, I do not believe you can overcome this objection.



> That being said, I think you're driving to the same issue: how do we fill in the gap. That is the point of this thread I think. May Clarkians use some empirical analysis and inductive reasoning?



My objection has become something even more fundamental. The axiom alone is not enough. There must be some other knowledge to go with the axiom in order to be able to draw conclusions from the Bible. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> ... Even with this slight adjustment on your part, the very objection I raised still holds. Let’s look at the argument you presented:
> 
> 
> 
> All Scripture is true;
> Jesus is the Messiah is Scripture.
> Therefore "Jesus is the Messiah" is true.
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> This is valid. However, where does your premise 2 come from?
> 
> ...
> I agree that "man is justified by faith" is a proposition of Scripture.
Click to expand...


OK Brian, 

I think we should try a little role reversal so I can understand your objection.  

You agree the following is a valid argument:
let S = *S*cripture
let T = *T*rue
let P = a *P*roposition of Scripture

P1: All(ST)
P2: All(PS)
.: C: All(PT)​
Your objection is I can not deduce P2 from P1.

Is that it?


----------



## Civbert

To those following this thread, I apologize if some of this is difficult to follow. Brian and I have had a many discussions on logic on the Christian Logic Forum. Brian's taught me a great deal on the subject of logic there to which I am ever grateful. But given that history, we might skip some of the explanations and details knowing that the other will understand the categories and basics of formal logic. So if you don't understand a particular point, feel free to ask for an explanation. And feel free to post question to the Christian Logic Forum. That's what it's there for.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

Let's look at the argument you originally presented. I think it makes the issue more explicit.

*Premise 1:* All Scripture is true.
*Premise 2:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture. 
*Conclusion:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is true.

Premise 1 is the axiom, and this in itself justifies its use as a premise. The argument is valid. However, the Scripturalist is unable to justify the assertion of premise 2. Where does it come from? (By the way, I have an answer for this, but it seems to contradict the answer you and Sean give to the question "How do we know?") At this point, the axiom _by itself_ has been unable to give us even the simplist of propositional truths derivable from the Bible. 

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Anthony, you have taught me just as much as I have taught you. I value your friendship very much.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> Let's look at the argument you originally presented. I think it makes the issue more explicit.
> 
> *Premise 1:* All Scripture is true.
> *Premise 2:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture.
> *Conclusion:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is true.
> 
> Premise 1 is the axiom, and this in itself justifies its use as a premise. The argument is valid. However, the Scripturalist is unable to justify the assertion of premise 2. Where does it come from? (By the way, I have an answer for this, but it seems to contradict the answer you and Sean give to the question "How do we know?") At this point, the axiom _by itself_ has been unable to give us even the simplist of propositional truths derivable from the Bible.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian
> P.S. Anthony, you have taught me just as much as I have taught you. I value your friendship very much.


Glad to hear it - because when I virtually kick your logic butt, I'd hate to lose your friendship. 

However, I'm writing this in bed with my wireless PDA on a tiny screen. And I've taken a sleeping pill. So your virtual butt kick'n will have to wait until I get a full nights rest.

Later friend.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> Glad to hear it - because when I virtually kick your logic butt, I'd hate to lose your friendship.



Everyone needs a good butt-kicking from time to time. I would count it as a means of grace towards me.  

As I have thought further on this issue, I find that it is even more accute than I am representing it as above. I also have found some interesting quotes by Clark that may indicate that his view of things was a little different than what has been said by you and Sean. First off, let me illustrate just how accute this problem is. Let's say for the sake of argument that you were able to figure out a way to justify premise 2 above. We are still not there. Why? Because for your argument to follow there is even a more fundamental hidden assumption being made. The form of argumentation we are using is as follows:

All M is P.
All S is M.
Therefore, All S is P.

Why is this considered proper argumentation? To justify this as a valid deduction one must go further. Here is one possible argument:

*Premise 1:* If (All M is P) and (All S is M), then (All S is P). 
*Premise 2:* (All M is P) and (All S is M).
*Conclusion:* (All S is P).

In the argument in the previous post you establish (All M is P) on the basis that it is an axiom. In this post, for the sake of the argument we are saying that you can justify (All S is M). At this point you have established premise 2 in the argument immediately above. However, you have not established premise 1. Where does this come from? Also, the argument form above is _Modus Ponens_. What is the justification for this? My point is simple, all of this must be assumed _prior_ to you and I being able to use the axiom to draw any conclusions from Scripture. 

Now, on to Clark quotes. These come from _Religion, Reason and Revelation_. On page 134 under the heading "Theistic Linguistics" we find the following...



> We shall suppose that God omnipotent has created rational beings, beings who are not merely physical but who are essentially spiritual and intellectual, begins therefiore who have the innate ability to think and speak.



This seems to imply a _prior_ supposition before we can begin to learn anything from Scripture. Regarding this very thing, Clark says on page 135...



> But it (Theism) must assert that man's endowment with rationality, his innate ideas and a priori categories, his ability to think and speak were given to him by God for the essential purpose of receiving a verbal revelation...



Anthony, you may have remembered earlier when I proposed three axioms. Sean was quite critical of my third axiom, and there may be issues with it because it is not an axiom in any proper sense. (More on this later.) However, it essentially does what Clark says above. In order for us to even receive verbal revelation there must already be _prior_ knowledge - the innate ideas and _a priori_ catagories Clark mentions above. 

I think Clark was brilliant, and understood these things. I think he has not been properly represented. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> Anthony, you may have remembered earlier when I proposed three axioms. Sean was quite critical of my third axiom, and there may be issues with it because it is not an axiom in any proper sense. (More on this later.) However, it essentially does what Clark says above. In order for us to even receive verbal revelation there must already be _prior_ knowledge - the innate ideas and _a priori_ catagories Clark mentions above.
> 
> I think Clark was brilliant, and understood these things. I think he has not been properly represented.



Clark also pointed out that no knowledge whatsoever of the a_priori in man is possible apart from Scripture. Further, I fail to see how your proposal of three axioms is in any way a proper representation of Clark, since his proposal was one axiomatic starting point and your other two (or at least one and a half) were already subsumed in his one. 

I think if anyone has not properly represented Clark here it has been you Brian. I'm just sorry you have taken such apparent umbrage at this being pointed out to you.


----------



## MW

Brian, If you ever have the opportunity to read Dabney's Sensualistic Philosophy, I would appreciate seeing your evaluation of his chapters on the Validity and Origin of A-Priori Notions. He says, "When we proceed to details, we find that the attempt to construct a system of cognitions, on any plan whatsoever, without a priori notions and judgments, is, in every instance, a self-contradiction." P. 185. It seems Clark and yourself are driving that point home. Dabney proceeds to examine the value of deductive reasoning, and shows how it is of no use without the presupposition of already formed judgments. Hence our cognitive ability should itself be regarded as knowledge -- which brings us to foundationalism.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,



> Clark also pointed out that no knowledge whatsoever of the a_priori in man is possible apart from Scripture.



This is vauge. First off, we are not speaking of "knowledge of the _a priori_" in the sense the we know what is _a priori_ knowledge. We are speaking of knowledge that is _a priori_ whether we know it is _a priori_ or not. The point I am making is that there must be other knowledge _prior to_ Scripture in order for you to be able to deduce any proposition from Scripture using the axiom. In the Clark quote I presented Anthony, Clark acknowledges this type of knowledge as being the means of receiving revelation knowledge. Notice, this knowledge is the means to gain further knowledge from Scripture. It is prior. Secondly, if Clark really said that all _a priori_ knowledge is impossible apart from Scripture, then either *(1)* he means something different than the kind of priority we are speaking about in this thread, or *(2)* Clark is being inconsistent. At this point, it would be nice of you to present the reference for the Clark quote where he says that Scripture is a necessary precondition for the _a priori_. I own most of Clark's books. I would like to read it in context. Lastly, I find it interesting that you have yet to meet my challenge of presenting one deduction of a proposition of Scripture from the axiom using only justified propositions. If my argument is vacuous, it would seem to me that it would easy for you to produce the argument. 



> Further, I fail to see how your proposal of three axioms is in any way a proper representation of Clark, since his proposal was one axiomatic starting point and your other two (or at least one and a half) were already subsumed in his one.



I never said it was a representation of Clark. Although I do think it captures Clark's intentions. I do not think he ever intended the axiom to act on its own. His own writings make it clear that he combined the axiom with other things such as the understood nature of God (being omniscient, truthful, etc...) and man's given innate cognitive faculties. He just failed to make those things explicit when proposing the one axiom, but they are there in his writings. 



> I think if anyone has not properly represented Clark here it has been you Brian.



This is certainly possible.



> I'm just sorry you have taken such apparent umbrage at this being pointed out to you.



I am curious how you came to the conclusion that I have "taken such apparent umbrage" from my simple observation that "Sean was quite critical of my third axiom." Maybe it is the same kind of reasoning that allows you to go from the axiom alone to a propositional truth in the Bible? 

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Matthew,



> Hence our cognitive ability should itself be regarded as knowledge...



If our cognitive abilities are not designed to produce true beliefs, then nothing we deduce from Scripture can be called knowledge. I agree with Dabney concerning the necessity of _a priori_ knowledge. 

Sincerely,

Brian (the one whose salvation you have been praying for )


----------



## MW

Brian Bosse said:


> Brian (the one whose salvation you have been praying for )



See, God answers prayer.  Glad to meet up with another Dabneyite.


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> This is vauge. First off, we are not speaking of "knowledge of the _a priori_" in the sense the we know what is _a priori_ knowledge. We are speaking of knowledge that is _a priori_ whether we know it is _a priori_ or not.



It seems to me unless you can account for men having anything that can be called an apriori, you're merely begging the question. 

Kant had his categories, you can always resurrect those. Others argue that man's mind is a blank slate without any apriori knowledge or anything else for that matter. 



> The point I am making is that there must be other knowledge _prior to_ Scripture in order for you to be able to deduce any proposition from Scripture using the axiom.



I don't see that this follows at all. Again, I think without Scripture, and, say, the biblical doctrine of man, you would have no way to even account for even the forms of logic as being something innate in man. Most unbelievers I've met, at least the thoughtful ones, have a view that logic is an arbitrary and evolutionary tool for survival. Not fixed at all, much anything worthy of being an axiom. So I don't see how you can say anything at all about what this prior knowledge might consist of apart from Scripture? If you'd like to venture a shot at it I'm open to argument? 



> In the Clark quote I presented Anthony, Clark acknowledges this type of knowledge as being the means of receiving revelation knowledge. Notice, this knowledge is the means to gain further knowledge from Scripture. It is prior.



First, do you mean this quote: 

"But it (Theism) must assert that man's endowment with rationality, his innate ideas and a priori categories, his ability to think and speak were given to him by God for the essential purpose of receiving a verbal revelation..."

Would you mind providing a citation? If this is the quote, you might notice no mention of prior knowledge, but rather an endowment of innate ideas and a priori categories. Also, if theism must assert this, it does so on the basis of Scripture alone, at least Clark does, for without it I fail to see how we could possibly know anything about an apriori or even that men possess such a thing? 



> Secondly, if Clark really said that all _a priori_ knowledge is impossible apart from Scripture, then either *(1)* he means something different than the kind of priority we are speaking about in this thread, or *(2)* Clark is being inconsistent. At this point, it would be nice of you to present the reference for the Clark quote where he says that Scripture is a necessary precondition for the _a priori_. I own most of Clark's books.



I'll try and track it down when I get the chance God willing. Maybe it's even in Intro? For what it's worth I am very confident that is his position however.  



> Lastly, I find it interesting that you have yet to meet my challenge of presenting one deduction of a proposition of Scripture from the axiom using only justified propositions.



Well, I think I did provide not only a valid argument but a sound one as well (especially when I eliminated "alone" from the minor premise since that wasn't an immediate deliverance from the verse I had in mind). I think Anthony did too. I confess I honestly do not know what you're driving at? Maybe Anthony has a better handle on it so I'll see how that plays out. 

For what it's worth I shared your comments in reply to Anthony's little Jesus is Messiah syllogism and he seemed unimpressed. His actually response was "unbelievable." Now maybe he didn't get what profound insight you are bringing to the discussion either (and maybe it really is profound), but it sounded to me that he thought you just didn't get it. Again, I have to wonder if the analytical philosopher in you has simply missed the forest for the trees? 



> I never said it was a representation of Clark. Although I do think it captures Clark's intentions.



How could it capture his intentions when I provided a rather lengthy quote explaining exactly what his intentions were and they were not yours? 



> I do not think he ever intended the axiom to act on its own.
> His own writings make it clear that he combined the axiom with other things such as the understood nature of God (being omniscient, truthful, etc...) and man's given innate cognitive faculties. He just failed to make those things explicit when proposing the one axiom, but they are there in his writings.



Again, rather than making, say, logic in man, without which all knowledge about God or anything else would be impossible, another axiom, Clark inferred the apriori from his single axiom of Scripture:



> The Christian view is that God created Adam as a rational mind. The structure of Adam’s mind was the same as God’s. God thinks that asserting the consequent is a fallacy; and Adam’s mind was formed on the principles of identity and contradiction. This Christian view of God, man, and language does not fit into any empirical philosophy. It is rather a type of a priori rationalism. Man’s mind is not initially a blank. It is structured. In fact, an unstructured blank is no mind at all. Nor could any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced from sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori.
> 
> This is not to say that all truth can be deduced from logic alone. The seventeenth-century rationalists gave themselves an impossible task. Even if the ontological argument be valid, it is impossible to deduce Cur Deus Homo, the Trinity, or the final resurrection. The axioms to which the apriori forms of logic must be applied are the propositions God revealed to Adam and the later prophets. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16






> I am curious how you came to the conclusion that I have "taken such apparent umbrage" from my simple observation that "Sean was quite critical of my third axiom."



I think it was more a matter of you calling me "Bud." It could have also been your tone, but tone is tough to glean especially on internet boards. 



> Maybe it is the same kind of reasoning that allows you to go from the axiom alone to a propositional truth in the Bible?



No, it wasn't the result of repeating the same thing twice, it was just my opinion.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,

I enjoyed your response - especially the spirit of it. I will not be able to get back to you until tomorrow. Maybe Anthony will get a chance to chime in before then. Have a great evening, _bud_.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian, 

I refer you back to my earlier post where I asked if I was understanding your objection. 

I will repeat it here:

You agree the following is a valid argument:
let S = Scripture
let T = True
let P = a Proposition of Scripture

P1: All(ST)
P2: All(PS)
.: C: All(PT)
Your objection is I can not deduce P2 from P1.

_*Is that it?*_​
I could say that your objection is that P2 (the proposition) is not justified by P1 (the Axiom). Do I understand your objection at that point?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

My objection is that you cannot justify any proposition that necessarily must be assumed in order to draw doctrinal conclusions from the axiom. The example you are asking me to clarify my objection with is not a good example. Your premise 2 strictly speaking from what you gave is...

*Premise 2:* All 'a proposition of Scripture' is Scripture.

This is sloppy. If what you are trying to say is "All propositions of Scripture are Scripture," then that that is what you should say. If this is what you meant to say, then this is not representative of the objection I am raising. In order to draw a conclusion regarding the truth of a particular proposition in Scripture from the one axiom you need to be able to justify a premise in the form of "X is Scripture" where 'X' represents some proposition of Scripture. If this what you meant to say, then your premise 2 is patently false. You are saying that "A proposition of Scriptrue" is Scripture. In this case the 'X' is instantiated as "A proposition of Scripture" much like it looks in your premise above. However, "A proposition of Scripture" is not a proposition of Scripture. In fact, it is not even a proposition. In the example I provided, the 'X' is instantiated with a proposition. Here it is again...

*Premise 1:* All Scripture is true.
*Premise 2:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture. 
*Conclusion:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is true. 

How do you justify premise 2? 

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Looks like you answered my question with this post. Just ignore my post. 



Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> Let's look at the argument you originally presented. I think it makes the issue more explicit.
> 
> *Premise 1:* All Scripture is true.
> *Premise 2:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture.
> *Conclusion:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is true.
> 
> Premise 1 is the axiom, and this in itself justifies its use as a premise. The argument is valid. However, the Scripturalist is unable to justify the assertion of premise 2. Where does it come from? (By the way, I have an answer for this, but it seems to contradict the answer you and Sean give to the question "How do we know?") At this point, the axiom _by itself_ has been unable to give us even the simplist of propositional truths derivable from the Bible.



OK. So the objection is the Scripturalist is "unable to justify the assertion of premise 2". I think this is the one of the problems we are running in to.

I mentioned the inference from A to I propositions. I think this is critical to my contention that P2 is justified by P1. 

Let all S(ripture) = (p1, p2, p3,...pn-1, pn), where p1 through pn are all the propositions of Scripture.

If px is a member of S, then px is some S. 



A (Scripture is True) -> I (Scripture is True)

and

px = I (Scripture)

:. A (Scripture is True) -> px is True​
P2 is justified by direct implication from the Axiom because the Axiom is defined by p1 through pn. 

Clark define Scripture as the WCF does using a denotative definition: WCF 1:2 - the 66 books of the Bible. So when Clark uses Scripture as his Axiom, you can substitute each and every proposition of Scripture. And so what is predicated of Scripture, is predicated to each and every member of Scripture. 

Again, I have not said how we learn what P2 is, but that P2 is _logically _justified true by the Axiom since P2 is a member of the Axiom by definition. And therefore the Axiom is logically sufficient for justifying epistemically. And it is logically (not temporally) prior to all knowledge.

You mention innate forms and man's ability to reason as a precondition of knowledge. This is true temporally. We can not think unless we have the equipment in place - but this does not disqualify the Axiom since we are no longer talking about logical priority, but temporal. Much of the reasons you gave that show we must have a prior knowledge before we can use Scripture as our axiom is true only in the temporal sense. Logically, we can only justify knowledge if we can deduce it from our Axiom, and nothing can be deduced from the empty forms of mans "innate abilities". I think this is an import point, that there is a clear difference between temporal and logical priority. And when we mix them, we confuse the issues involved. You can't invalidate a logical priority with a temporal priority because they follow or belong to different categories and paradigms. (not sure if that's the best word.) Logical priority deals with order by necessary implication and the "states of things". A justified proposition is true regardless of time and place and person. Temporal order deals with "cause and effect". God causes knowledge, or innate ability to think allows us to know, the "light of nature" is our innate capacity for reasoning and abstract thinking. Certain elements are conditions for knowing, but they do not provide the logical priorities for knowledge. A logical priority for knowledge provides the prior true propositions that logically produce knowledge by _logical _necessity. 

(That last paragraph could have been broken into steps and a bit more organized, so if you want to focus on the first, that's fine. We can get to the second part as it logically results from the first part.)


----------



## Civbert

Cross posting.  My prior post may answer your questions.


Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> *Premise 2:* All 'a proposition of Scripture' is Scripture.
> 
> This is sloppy. If what you are trying to say is "All propositions of Scripture are Scripture," then that that is what you should say.


 That's the definition of Scripture in Clark's axiom. I don't consider that "sloppy", rather is is precise thinking. 


....


Brian Bosse said:


> *Premise 1:* All Scripture is true.
> *Premise 2:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture.
> *Conclusion:* 'Jesus is Messiah' is true.
> 
> How do you justify premise 2?


 Logically, it ('Jesus is Messiah') is justified by being a member of the subject in P1 (Scripture).

So I think the issue we are really moving towards is, how do we determine that 'Jesus is Messiah' is a member of "Scripture". And Scripturalism follows the WCF chapter 1 on that issue too.


----------



## Civbert

'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture

can be rewritten:

Scripture -> "Jesus is Messiah"

it is a direct implication. 

Maybe I should have put it that way instead of making it into a syllogism. 

For the Clarkian Axiom, to _assume_ Scripture is to _assume _'Jesus is Messiah' among other things. 

But Clark used the same rules of hermeneutics that the WCF used for learning that "Jesus is Messiah" is a member of "Scripture". And he insisted on the role of the Holy Sprite in making us understand and believe it.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I mentioned the inference from A to I propositions. I think this is critical to my contention that P2 is justified by P1.



The inference from universal affirmative statements to particular affirmative statements is very precise. “All S is P” implies “Some S is P”. I am not trying to be pedantic, but you are playing with your logic fast and loose. Is the following a valid argument?

*Premise 1*: All men are mortal.
*Conclusion*: Socrates is mortal.

I hope you of all people say that the argument is invalid. (If you don’t, I may need to revoke your membership to the Christian Logic Board. ) One rule of multiple rules broken is that the middle term is not distributed. Let’s make this invalid argument more general…

*Premise 1*: All M is P.
*Conclusion*: All S is P.

The required proposition to make the conclusion follow is “All S is M”. However, this proposition is _not_ an immediate inference from “All M is P”. In fact, if we use your argument of “inferences from A to I propositions,” then given “All S is M” we can only validly conclude “Some S is M.” Yet, my wildest mightmare is coming true in that my good friend is actually arguing that “All M is P” is a valid conclusion from "All S is M." Please say it ain't so. Repent my friend and return from the dark side.  

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> 
> 
> The inference from universal affirmative statements to particular affirmative statements is very precise. “All S is P” implies “Some S is P”. I am not trying to be pedantic, but you are playing with your logic fast and loose. Is the following a valid argument?
> 
> *Premise 1*: All men are mortal.
> *Conclusion*: Socrates is mortal.
> 
> I hope you of all people say that the argument is invalid. (If you don’t, I may need to revoke your membership to the Christian Logic Board. ) One rule of multiple rules broken is that the middle term is not distributed. Let’s make this invalid argument more general…
> 
> *Premise 1*: All M is P.
> *Conclusion*: All S is P.
> 
> The required proposition to make the conclusion follow is “All S is M”. However, this proposition is _not_ an immediate inference from “All M is P”. In fact, if we use your argument of “inferences from A to I propositions,” then given “All S is M” we can only validly conclude “Some S is M.” Yet, my wildest mightmare is coming true in that my good friend is actually arguing that “All M is P” is a valid conclusion from "All S is M." Please say it ain't so. Repent my friend and return from the dark side.
> 
> Brian



Can you give a denotative (extensional) definition of 'men'?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Anthony,

This is a formal matter. This is not a material matter. You are asking me to accept the implication that "All M is P" implies "All S is M." In a strictly formal sense, it does not matter what the referents are for these terms. If this is what Scripturalism leads to, then it is irrational. 

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Anthony,
> 
> This is a formal matter. This is not a material matter. You are asking me to accept the implication that "All M is P" implies "All S is M." In a strictly formal sense, it does not matter what the referents are for these terms. If this is what Scripturalism leads to, then it is irrational.
> 
> Brian



Brian, 

If Scripture is defined denotatively to include "Jesus is Messiah", then the terms of the conclusion are present in the premise. 

You are _not_ denying the direct implication from the A to the I proposition, and I don't think you want to deny that each term implies it's definition. I have defined Scripture as the propositions of the Bible. Therefore, anything predicated of Scripture, is predicated to it's members by the rule of direct implication of the A(all) to the I(some). 

The middle term "Jesus is Messiah" is implied by the definition of the subject term of P1 (Scripture). It's an enthymeme (1 Co 15:27). No formal violation has occurred.

P.S. You could say a forrest is defined by it's trees.

P.P.S. I still want to go on from here to how we learn what the trees are.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> If Scripture is defined denotatively to include "Jesus is Messiah", then the terms of the conclusion are present in the premise.



Clark purposefully avoided making the set of all propositions derivable from Scripture _via_ deductive argumentation his axiom. Rather, he claimed to be able to _deduce_ this set of propositions from the axiom. In fact, he called these propositions theorems of the system – a term you and I already have agreed upon. This indicates that he thought he could deduce true propositions from the Bible from his axiom alone. My point is that the axiom alone is not sufficient to derive any of these theorems from Scripture. You are now saying that we do not need to be able to deduce these propositions. 



> You are not denying the direct implication from the A to the I proposition, and I don't think you want to deny that each term implies it's definition.



Determining the scope and meaning of terms is a material matter. Deducing propositions from other propositions is a formal matter. You are asking me to accept that “All M is P” implies “All S is M.” This is a formal matter and is invalid. Now, you want to say that when we use our cognitive faculties to determine the scope and meaning of the term M, we can get to “All S is M.” This is a material argument that presupposes certain _a priori_ knowledge, which contradicts your epistemological claim.



> I have defined Scripture as the propositions of the Bible.



This still does not get you there. 

*Premise 1:* All the propositions of the Bible are true. 
*Premise 2:* ‘Jesus is Messiah’ is a proposition of the Bible.
*Conclusion:* ‘Jesus is Messiah’ is true.

Where does premise 2 come from? Formally, it is not entailed by premise 1. In fact, premise 2 is only determined by an investigation utilizing our fallible cognitive faculties, and it requires prior knowledge. Again, red flags should be going up Anthony that you are not able to present me with a valid deduction from the axiom to one proposition of Scripture. 



> Therefore, anything predicated of Scripture, is predicated to it's members by the rule of direct implication of the A(all) to the I(some).



Anthony, this is _not_ the rule of subalterns. Logic is very formal and precise. The rule of subalterns is a formal rule. It goes as follows: “All S is P” implies “Some S is P.” Your “All S is P” is “All of the propositions of the Bible are true.” The rule of subalterns would give us “Some of the propositions of the Bible are true.” Exactly what these propositions are is still to be determined. This determination is what you cannot justify. It may be that you are referring to some other logical law called "the rule of direct implication." If so, I have never heard of it, and would like a reference." 



> The middle term "Jesus is Messiah" is implied by the definition of the subject term of P1 (Scripture).



According to your own answer to the question “How do we know?” you do not know that “Jesus is Messiah” is “implied by the definition of the subject term of P1.” According to you, you must be able to deduce this logically from the axiom, but you cannot. You give me an argument, but it is not a formal deduction. In fact, your knowledge (and mine too) of the set of propositions of the Bible is flawed. In short, you really do not _know_ what is entailed by the proposition “All Scripture is the Word of God.” 



> It's an enthymeme (1 Co 15:27). No formal violation has occurred.



I have pointed out explicitly the formal violation. For you to say that there is no formal violation you should be able to deduce your conclusion using the laws of logic. So far, you cannot do so without introducing other propositions not justified by your axiom. At this point, I think Scripturalism as you and Sean have portrayed it has been refuted. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> Clark purposefully avoided making the set of all propositions derivable from Scripture _via_ deductive argumentation his axiom.



All the propositions entailed in Scripture IS his AXIOM! He chose a the single axiom of Scripture for the reasons he gave and which I posted. He also warned that people like you would think it "sloppy." Why don't you try and interact with what he actually wrote Brian?

The rest of your post is pointless. Unless you first deal with what Clark said and at least give some indication that you actually understood what Clark was saying, your "refutations" are merely blowing wind. 

I am convinced by a number of things you've put froward in this thread that you haven't understood even the basics of what Clark was arguing. Which is amazing to me because I think Clark is plain to a fault. Why you even have Clark asserting that analyzing writing on a page leads to knowledge! I frankly can't think of anything more completely off the mark. Consequently, rather than spinning your wheels and wasting time, why don't you try and state Clark position so at least Anthony and I can at least have some confidence that you have understood it? That way your claim that you have "refuted" Scripturalism as Anthony and I have portrayed it might carry some weight.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> 
> Clark purposefully avoided making the set of all propositions derivable from Scripture _via_ deductive argumentation his axiom. Rather, he claimed to be able to _deduce_ this set of propositions from the axiom. In fact, he called these propositions theorems of the system – a term you and I already have agreed upon. This indicates that he thought he could deduce true propositions from the Bible from his axiom alone. My point is that the axiom alone is not sufficient to derive any of these theorems from Scripture. You are now saying that we do not need to be able to deduce these propositions.



Your making the same argument Mavrodes made, and which Clark refuted. 


> This criticism, so it seems to me, proceeds on the assumption that the "Bible" is just a word - a sound in the air, to use a nominalistic phrase. Apparently Mavrodes thinks that I would be better off technically if I made every verse a separate axiom. To me this seems like more machinery, which can be obviated by referring to them all under one name, the Bible.
> 
> REPLY TO GEORGE I. MAVRODES



The Bible refers the the verse of the Bible, not "just a word". Words have meaning as Clark says in the very next paragraph.



> Similarly, the proposition "Everything God says is true," need be a separate axiom, only if "God" too is just a word. But if the word has a meaning, the Biblical meaning, then it is analytically certain that everything God says is true. Indeed Mavrodes acknowledges this in his immediate discussion; and that is why these initial criticisms cannot be taken seriously.



The deductive proof is by direct implication. Direct implication does not require a syllogism. There is only the premise and the conclusion. 

A(ab) -> I(ab). This is formally valid.


----------



## Magma2

Anthony. Good post.



Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> Clark purposefully avoided making the set of all propositions derivable from Scripture _via_ deductive argumentation his axiom. Rather, he claimed to be able to _deduce_ this set of propositions from the axiom.



I really think this is the heart of the confusion. Propositions derivable from Scripture and the Scriptures themselves are two different things. That is Clark's point, but the Scriptures themselves -- the sum total of all the propositions and commands from Genesis to Revelation and the 64 books in between -- IS the axiom. This is what the entire system of Christianity is derived from and rests. I think his example of logical subornation of the doctrines of TULIP is important because if each and every proposition of Scripture were considered _individually_ as axioms, this kind of logical systemization would be virtually impossible.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Gentlemen, 

I have started another thread found hear. I hope you do not mind carrying on our discussion over there. The reason for this is that my objection has become a little more refined as this thread has developed, and I want to deal with this objection from a clean slate if you will. 

I am enjoyng the discussion. Thank you both.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> I have started another thread found hear. I hope you do not mind carrying on our discussion over there.



Lock 'er down Rich. We're done here.


----------

