# Scripturalism Refuted



## Brian Bosse

I am beginning a new thread with quite a provocative title, and as such I feel the need to qualify this. I am going to argue that Scripturalism as put forth by Sean (Magma2) and Anthony (Civbert) fails to provide an answer to the question “How do we know?” The thread where much of my thought was developed, and where I am taking Sean’s and Anthony’s conception of Scripturalism can be found here. 

*Introductory Comments*

The question that must be kept central to the discussion is “How do we know?” By this, Anthony has clarified that what is really being asked is “How can we justify anything we say we know.” In other words, “What is the basis for being able to claim to have any knowledge whatsoever?” The answer given by Sean and Anthony is that Scripture alone is the foundation for knowledge. They point to the axiomatic system of Gordon Clark as the practical development of this. Gordon Clark says that his axiomatic system has one axiom, and that from this one axiom propositions can be derived that are rightly called knowledge. It is my position that Clark’s system as put forth by Anthony and Sean (from now on simply referred to as Scripturalism) fails to do this.

*My Refutation*

Clark’s axiom (the Axiom) is as follows – *Axiom:* The Bible alone is the Word of God.

From this argument, Clark means to be able to draw such conclusions as ‘Jesus is Messiah’ from this one axiom alone. I claim that this is a fool’s errand, and that there is needed additional knowledge to be able to derive any propositional truth from the Bible. To illustrate this I present one possible argument chain that gets us from the one axiom to our desired conclusion…

*Premise 1A:* All propositions of the Word of God are true.
*Premise 2A (the axiom):* All propositions of the Bible are propositions of the Word of God.
*Conclusion A:* All propositions of the Bible are true.

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

These are valid arguments and lead us to the desired conclusion B. However, there are serious problems with this.

*Problem 1:* Where does premise 1A come from? If this cannot be justified, then conclusion A is not justified. Now, someone may argue as follows…

*Premise 1C:* If God is a being such that He is omniscient, infallible and never lies, then all propositions of the Word of God are true.
*Premise 2C:* God is a being such that He is omniscient, infallible and never lies.
*Conclusion C (our premise 1A):* All propositions of the Word of God are true.

Again, this is a valid argument of the form _Modus Ponens_. However, for this argument to follow both premises 1C and 2C need to be justified, and _Modus Ponens_ must be justified as well. Where does this knowledge come from? If the Scripturalist answers from Scripture, then he is arguing in a vicious circle. You see, he still has not justified how he knows anything from Scripture (this is what he is attempting to do), and in order to justify how he knows anything from Scripture any appeal to Scripture as knowledge is to simply beg the question. 

*Problem 2:* Where does premise 2B come from? I would like to point out for whatever it is worth that premise 2B is not even Scripture. There is no proposition in Scripture that says, “‘Jesus is Messiah’ is a proposition of the Bible.” Again, the Scripturalist does not have an answer. 

*Problem 3:* This is related to one of the issues mentioned in problem 1. For us to draw any of these conclusions in the two syllogisms above we have to be able to justify our thinking. Why is a syllogism of this form a valid deduction? One might try to justify it as follows…

*Premise 1D:* If a syllogism has two premises in the form of “All M is P” and “All S is M,” then the conclusion “All S is P” is a valid deduction.
*Premise 2D:* Syllogism A has two premises in the form of “All M is P” and “All S is M.”
*Conclusion D:* The conclusion “All S is P” is valid. 

Where do the premises 1D and 2D come from? Again, if Scripturalist answers from Scripture, then he is arguing in a vicious circle. You see, he still has not justified how he knows anything from Scripture (this is what he is attempting to do), and in order to justify how he knows anything from Scripture any appeal to Scripture as knowledge is to simply beg the question. Also, this argument presupposes the logical law of _Modus Ponens_. Again, where does this come from?

*Conclusion*

The Scripturalist will not be able to overcome these objections even though they will try. You will see that in some cases Scripturalists will go to such lengths to justify their position that they will embrace irrationalism. I will do my best to point this out as they respond in this thread. Here is the sad thing in all of this. If they would simply acknowledge that there necessarily is needed some _a priori_ knowledge to go along with the one axiom, then I believe the answer they provide would provide a rational justification to the question of “How do we know?” Their stubborn refusal to do this ultimately leads them to arbitrariness and irrationality. Parenthetically, I do think Clark acknowledged the need of _a prior_ knowledge apart from Scripture. He referred to it as man’s innate ability. Here is where Clark most clearly says this…



> 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...(page 135, _Religion, Reason and Revelation_).



Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must _already_ be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and _a priori_ categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and _a priori_ categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge. This is Clark and not me. If one grants these things, then every objection I made above goes away. It is my hope that Anthony and Sean will have ears to hear Clark on this point. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## A5pointer

Excuse me as I don't mean to be rude but in light of what follows from Paul why do we even have this conversation? One can only know full truth about God by being granted understanding from the Spirit. This statement if true rules all other conversations out. 

1 Corinthians 3:
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. *7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it,* for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written: 
"No eye has seen, 
no ear has heard, 
no mind has conceived 
what God has prepared for those who love him"*— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. 
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord 
that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.*


----------



## Civbert

Brian,

I'll refute your arguments again if you wish, but I think we've covered these points in the other thread. It is evident that you don't understand what Clark meant by his Axiom, and you are imposing your own "machinery" onto Clark's system - despite clear statements of Clark that the Axiom's meaning includes "the Word of God is true" and the Bible is the 66 books of the Bible and the verses therein. Clark returns to the Westminster Confession of Faith as the basis for his epistemology, so to understand Clark, look to the WCF. And to dispute Clark, you will have to dispute the WCF.

You have also failed to acknowledge the difference between temporal and logical order. I have agreed there is an a prior knowledge required to derive knowledge with Scripturalism, but this is not the logical priority of knowledge. To justify knowledge, the Axiom is the axiom. Logical and temporal priority are not the same thing. 

Scripturalism is very simple and easy to understand. The only way to one can really undermine it is by misunderstanding the fundamental meaning of Clark's Axiom and views of knowledge.

So if you want to rehash this again Brian, we can do that. But I think you will find that the refutation is just the same, and it's the same one Clark gave to Mavrodes, and that he easily demolished. 

I was hoping we'd get past your misunderstanding, at least for the sake of argument, so we could get to more fundamental issues regarding Scripturalism and Christian epistemology.


----------



## Civbert

Brian,

It has occurred to me that, while you believe you have refuted Sean and my understanding of Scripturalism, you have not provided a solution. Is you goal simply to refute Scripturalism, or do you have a solution? What's your answer? What should Clark have done? How could Clark have fixed the problem you see? Or is there another answer all together?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I'll refute your arguments again if you wish, but I think we've covered these points in the other thread.



I do wish you to do so. That should have been apparent from my intial post in that I only repeated what was said in the other thread, and that I made claims that whatever arguments you present will fail. In fact, it is too bad that this thread has already been poluted by these extraneous posts. I guess it can't be helped. It is the nature of this type of meduim.



> It has occurred to me that, while you believe you have refuted Sean and my understanding of Scripturalism, you have not provided a solution.



The purpose of the thread is to refute your view of Scripturalism. I refer you to the last paragraph in the opening post of this thread for a positive account. It provides an answer. I hope you will interact with my post. If my post is wrong, please point to the propositions in the post that are false. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert

Will you be presenting a solution?


----------



## panta dokimazete

A5pointer said:


> Excuse me as I don't mean to be rude but in light of what follows from Paul why do we even have this conversation? One can only know full truth about God by being granted understanding from the Spirit. This statement if true rules all other conversations out.



I agree:

The *foundation* of our (Christian) knowledge is through the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit allows us to understand and surrender to Christ's claim "I am the way, the truth and the life - no man comes to the Father except through me."

Scripture, then, is the instrument and locus of God's revealed knowledge and truth concerning our faith and practice.

*All other knowledge* is interesting, but secondary.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> Will you be presenting a solution?



Are you reading what I am writing? In my previous post I noted...



> I refer you to the last paragraph in the opening post of this thread for a positive account. It provides an answer.



Do you plan to interact with the opening post in this thread?

Brian


----------



## Davidius

A5pointer said:


> Excuse me as I don't mean to be rude but in light of what follows from Paul why do we even have this conversation? One can only know full truth about God by being granted understanding from the Spirit. This statement if true rules all other conversations out.



Scripturalists and non-Scripturalists agree that the revelation of the Spirit is necessary to know God savingly. Non-scripturalists believe that certain things can be ascertained empirically. Scripturalists also believe that _only_ the knowledge given in Scripture is epistemically valid. That is, anything except the propositions in the bible and propositions deduced therefrom is merely belief/opinion.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony,
> 
> Are you reading what I am writing? In my previous post I noted...



Mea culpa.



Brian Bosse said:


> Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must _already_ be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and _a priori_ categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and _a priori_ categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge. This is Clark and not me. If one grants these things, then every objection I made above goes away. It is my hope that Anthony and Sean will have ears to hear Clark on this point.



So your solution is that if one accepts a priori knowledge in the form of innate forms and ideas, that allow man to interact with Scripture, then the problem is solved. 

I agree that Clark said the man is created with innate forms and ideas. Man is created in God's image. Man is created immediately with the capacity for language and abstract thinking. Man and God spoke together from the beginning. 

I think I agreed to this "solution" in-so-far as this is a _temporal_ priority. It fails as a logical priority because (as I said) the purpose of Scripturalist epistemology is _not_ to produce knowledge, but to _justify_ knowledge. You affirmed this in your first post:


Brian Bosse said:


> By this, Anthony has clarified that what is really being asked is “How can we justify anything we say we know.”



An knowledge of any forms man has, any innate propositions man holds, can not be justified apart from revelation. How do we "know" man has innate ideas and forms (or call it the "light of nature" if you wish)? We know this is the case only because Scripture says so. The logical priority still remains Scripture. 

So I can agree with your solution, with the understanding that this is not a logical priority. Your solution not necessarily contrary to _my_ Scripturalism as I have presented it. Your solution is coherent with my solution, once we understand the difference between logical and temporal priority. Can we agree to that?


----------



## Davidius

Civbert said:


> I think I agreed to this "solution" in-so-far as this is a _temporal_ priority. It fails as a logical priority because (as I said) the purpose of Scripturalist epistemology is _not_ to produce knowledge, but to _justify_ knowledge. You affirmed this in your first post:
> 
> An knowledge of any forms man has, any innate propositions man holds, can not be justified apart from revelation. How do we "know" man has innate ideas and forms (or call it the "light of nature" if you wish)? We know this is the case only because Scripture says so. The logical priority still remains Scripture.



This seems important. How would anyone know with certainty that man has any _a priori_ knowledge of God without the Scriptures to prove it? He would have to do some kind of empirical study and 1) since many would claim not to believe in God and 2) we would not be able to survey every single individual we wouldn't be able to prove it. Therefore the Scriptures justify what we know about humans' _a priori_ knowledge as it concerns God, do they not?


----------



## Magma2

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This seems important. How would anyone know with certainty that man has any _a priori_ knowledge of God without the Scriptures to prove it? He would have to do some kind of empirical study and 1) since many would claim not to believe in God and 2) we would not be able to survey every single individual we wouldn't be able to prove it. Therefore the Scriptures justify what we know about humans' _a priori_ knowledge as it concerns God, do they not?



 Great observation and very insightful! Interestingly enough, this is precisely Clark's point. See below.


----------



## Magma2

> The Scripturalist will not be able to overcome these objections even though they will try. You will see that in some cases Scripturalists will go to such lengths to justify their position that they will embrace irrationalism. I will do my best to point this out as they respond in this thread. Here is the sad thing in all of this. If they would simply acknowledge that there necessarily is needed some a priori knowledge to go along with the one axiom, then I believe the answer they provide would provide a rational justification to the question of “How do we know?” Their stubborn refusal to do this ultimately leads them to arbitrariness and irrationality. Parenthetically, I do think Clark acknowledged the need of a prior knowledge apart from Scripture. He referred to it as man’s innate ability. Here is where Clark most clearly says this…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...(page 135, Religion, Reason and Revelation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must already be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and a priori categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and a priori categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge. This is Clark and not me. If one grants these things, then every objection I made above goes away. It is my hope that Anthony and Sean will have ears to hear Clark on this point.
Click to expand...


Brian, it is clear to me, and despite of your bravado, that you have failed to grasp so many critical and fundamental ideas in Clark that I’m frankly amazed. Missing the forest for the trees or visa versa is an understatement. I honestly didn’t think it was possible, particularly given your obvious intellectual gifts. Perhaps it is just a matter of seeing what you want to see and not taking care to what is being said.

The above is a great example. You cite a passage from 3R’s which is a discussion on inspiration and language and has nothing whatsoever to do with a second source of knowledge, or positing another axiom, or asserting an a_priori, or anything of the sort. In context Clark’s point is that theism must assert man’s endowment because that’s what Christian theism teaches! It doesn’t just assert an a_priori like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Immediately following your citation Clark writes; “As a hymn says, “Thou didst ears and hands and voices, For thy praise design.’ For this reason a theistic theory of language would not labor under the burden of giving a precarious derivation or development of spiritual meaning from primitive physical reference.” 

That is not to say that innate ideas are not central to his epistemology, they are, but not for the reason you think. As Anthony and I have been trying to explain your so-called “refutation” is a straw man argument and you have distorted Clark for really no purpose. Consider this from _Intro to Christian Phil_:



> If the Christian had to avoid the _a priori_ because Kant put it to a non-Christian use, and for the same reason had to deny a blank mind because of Aristotle and Hume, he would have no alternative left. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the image of God in man, *a doctrine learned from Scripture*, is an assertion of an _a priori_ or innate equipment [notice, it is an assertion “learned from Scripture”]. As such it will receive emphasis. But only as such, for *so precarious are arguments otherwise based that there would be little confidence in the existence of an a priori and no possibility of identifying its forms, were it not asserted in verbal revelation.*



Like I said, and evidently it wasn’t heeded which is why you started this new thread, your refutation is just so much blowing wind. You need to really slow down a bit and take more care with what is being said and particularly with what Clark has been saying since it is Clark who already provided the very solution you rightly identified as necessary for knowledge. He just arrived at the same solution as the one you proposed from a different direction. But that different direction is absolutely fundamental. I think the difference between us is minuscule, but you’ve (hopefully unintentionally) made it into a mountain.


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This seems important. How would anyone know with certainty that man has any _a priori_ knowledge of God without the Scriptures to prove it? He would have to do some kind of empirical study and 1) since many would claim not to believe in God and 2) we would not be able to survey every single individual we wouldn't be able to prove it. Therefore the Scriptures justify what we know about humans' _a priori_ knowledge as it concerns God, do they not?



Every predication of man is a claim to know, and that knowledge requires pre-conditions. These pre-conditions are the a priori forms. Hence, before Scripture is brought into the picture a priori forms are established. Scripture addresses men on the basis that men can understand what Scripture teaches.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> Every predication of man is a claim to know, and that knowledge requires pre-conditions. These pre-conditions are the a priori forms. Hence, before Scripture is brought into the picture a priori forms are established. Scripture addresses men on the basis that men can understand what Scripture teaches.




Certainly. But forms without content can not produce or justify knowledge. And a priori beliefs, no matter how true, can not be justified as knowledge in the absence of revelation. Therefor these temporal priorities do not amount to knowledge unless one bases them on Scripture. Scripture is still the logical priority for any justification of knowledge. 

However, a mere predication is insufficient to justify knowledge. I can say all cows are pink. Is this justified knowledge simply because I have predicated pink to cows? Does my innate ability to reason justify this as knowledge? What if I said all men are sinners. Is that knowledge simple by predication? How do I know this is true? Scripture. How do I know men are created with innate abilities to reason (a pre-condition for knowledge)? Scripture. Any pre-condition for knowledge, is not known unless it is revealed to me in Scripture. I can not deduce truth of the "preconditions" of knowledge from sensation, or by empty forms, or from evidence.


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Certainly. But forms without content can not produce or justify knowledge. And a priori beliefs, no matter how true, can not be justified as knowledge in the absence of revelation. Therefor these temporal priorities do not amount to knowledge unless one bases them on Scripture. Scripture is still the logical priority for any justification of knowledge.



This just assumes the conclusion in order to reach the conclusion.


----------



## Davidius

armourbearer said:


> Every predication of man is a claim to know, and that knowledge requires pre-conditions. These pre-conditions are the a priori forms. Hence, before Scripture is brought into the picture a priori forms are established. Scripture addresses men on the basis that men can understand what Scripture teaches.



I think I see what you're saying. But I didn't mean that _a priori_ knowledge wouldn't exist without the bible, only that there would be no way to justify its existence and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. We would have no way of saying what the _a priori_ knowledge is without the bible (if so you could tell me how). Even with the bible in the world, men "don't know" that they have _a priori_ knowledge of God. And I think that's what Anthony was trying to say earlier. The issue here isn't exactly discovering knowledge as much as it is justifying knowledge. 

My mom might tell me that she's going to call me tomorrow at noon and I believe that she will but I can't fully justify that belief since she might not. Something might happen which would keep her from calling me. She might just forget. She might have been lying when she told me she was going to call me; she's lied before, so how can I positively justify the idea that she hasn't lied this time? God is the only one who never lies, which is why having the Scripture as an axiomatic principle seems to work. 

Furthermore, and I know this example was not well-received in the other thread, but I can't even really have 100% justification for what I consider to be the knowledge that my mother is my biological mother. As I said in the situation above, she may be lying. Perhaps I was adopted and no one ever told me about it. She has lied before, so it's not impossible that she lied when she told me she's my mother. Stranger things have happened, right? Now, it may _actually_ be true that my mother is my biological mother. But it seems, to me at least, like there's a difference between something actually being true and me having the means to fully justify saying that it is true.

By the way, I'm still working this out for myself so this is just me doing so publicly. 

And I've noticed that I feel somewhat Cartesian.


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I think I see what you're saying. But I didn't mean that _a priori_ knowledge wouldn't exist without the bible, only that there would be no way to justify its existence and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. We would have no way of saying what the _a priori_ knowledge is without the bible (if so you could tell me how). Even with the bible in the world, men "don't know" that they have _a priori_ knowledge of God. And I think that's what Anthony was trying to say earlier. The issue here isn't exactly discovering knowledge as much as it is justifying knowledge.



I notice the Cartesian comment at the bottom. Actually this whole exercise is inspired by his dumb idea that a man must first doubt before he can believe. This is what gives rise to modern pre-occupation with method. Well, if we have to be reduced to method (which everyone knows is always devised after the system has been formulated) then we should do so properly.

The issue is justifying knowledge. But there is no way in the world that knowledge can be justified without the use of knowledge. Anyway you look at it the pre-conditions for knowledge must be fulfilled -- whether Scripture is the final authority or not. Hence the pre-conditions or a priori forms require recognition first. Whatever one learns from Scripture it must be shown to be coherent with the pre-conditions for knowledge. This is the thing Brian Bosse is getting at. You cannot argue from Scripture to proposition to conclusion without first clarifying how you get from Scripture to proposition to conclusion.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

CarolinaCalvinist, the criterion you are setting up for justification will get you nowhere. After all, It’s logically possible that I could be a brain-in-a-vat. 

This might be in some interest to you: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/CertaintyandIrrevisability.htm

If 100% epistemic certainty is your criteria for achieving justification, you should become a skeptic, because that’s the only option available.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> I notice the Cartesian comment at the bottom. Actually this whole exercise is inspired by his dumb idea that a man must first doubt before he can believe.



Concur - Reasonable doubt is the opposite of reasonable faith. 

John 20
29Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."


----------



## Peter

I have problems understanding Clark's idea of an axiom. What I regard as axioms are self evidencing truths. Clarkians seem to believe an axiom is arbitrary. The veracity of the bible is not a necessary, self-evident truth. Examples of axioms would be laws of logic such as the law of identity and non-contradiction and Euclid's postulates.


----------



## Magma2

Peter said:


> I have problems understanding Clark's idea of an axiom. What I regard as axioms are self evidencing truths. Clarkians seem to believe an axiom is arbitrary. The veracity of the bible is not a necessary, self-evident truth. Examples of axioms would be laws of logic such as the law of identity and non-contradiction and Euclid's postulates.



Not exactly sure with what you mean by self evidencing truths, but the Scriptures do evidence truth and the primary evidence is the consent of the parts; the logical coherence of biblical doctrines. Also, axioms are arbitrary in the sense they they are chosen and not deduced from anything prior. As Clark pointed out long ago all systems if they're going to start they need to start somewhere and that starting point is that system's unprovable axiom. So axiomatization is not something unique to Clark, although it may be a foreign to most Christians. 

Finally, arguably the failure of all non-Christian philosophy has been its failure to provide any account for the laws of logic. This is something that the Christian system has a definite advantage. See John 1 for starters.


----------



## Davidius

caleb_woodrow said:


> CarolinaCalvinist, the criterion you are setting up for justification will get you nowhere. After all, It’s logically possible that I could be a brain-in-a-vat.
> 
> This might be in some interest to you: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/CertaintyandIrrevisability.htm
> 
> If 100% epistemic certainty is your criteria for achieving justification, you should become a skeptic, because that’s the only option available.



Thanks for the link, Caleb. Hopefully I'll have some time today to look over it. 



jdlongmire said:


> Concur - Reasonable doubt is the opposite of reasonable faith.
> 
> John 20
> 29Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."



I'm not sure what you mean by the first statement so I'll go on to your quote. 

Notice that Jesus is not making an indicative statement. He does not say "Because you have seen Me, you have believed." Are you saying that Thomas's seeing somehow aided his believing? He still had to assent to a certain understanding of Jesus was. Lots of people saw Jesus and didn't believe.


----------



## Civbert

caleb_woodrow said:


> CarolinaCalvinist, the criterion you are setting up for justification will get you nowhere. After all, It’s logically possible that I could be a brain-in-a-vat.
> 
> This might be in some interest to you: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/CertaintyandIrrevisability.htm
> 
> If 100% epistemic certainty is your criteria for achieving justification, you should become a skeptic, because that’s the only option available.



What's the alternative? Psychological certainty?


----------



## Magma2

caleb_woodrow said:


> CarolinaCalvinist, the criterion you are setting up for justification will get you nowhere. After all, It’s logically possible that I could be a brain-in-a-vat.
> 
> This might be in some interest to you: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/CertaintyandIrrevisability.htm
> 
> If 100% epistemic certainty is your criteria for achieving justification, you should become a skeptic, because that’s the only option available.



It was interesting. I think Sudduth is for the most part spot on and is why I don't much care about certainty either way. I'll have to find Clark's discussion certainty somewhere. I don't recall if he makes a distinction between different kinds of certainty, but it seems for Sudduth both end up in the same place. Sudduth of course is interested in warrant which seems to me to be merely a lowering of the epistemic bar, but that really didn't detract from his other points. His example about rain was quite good.

I think it is more important to provide an account for the things you believe are true. If your account is a conclusion derived from a fallacious argument then I would think your account fails and so does your claims to know this or that along with it. For what it's worth this was Clark's concern and he went to great lengths demonstrating how starting with sensation, for example, knowledge is impossible. He used the same approach when confronting questions of science, behaviorism, logical positivism, rationalism, evidentialism, and down the list. 

Anyone who has read his _Thales to Dewey_ will see his method in action even though it is never even hinted out in the book. System after system falls of its own weight. While men have created brilliant and often beautiful edifices, non Christian philosophy has been a complete failure. Not to give away the ending, but I would encourage anyone with the book to skip to the final paragraphs to see what I mean. Simply great stuff.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I think I agreed to this "solution" in-so-far as this is a temporal priority. It fails as a logical priority because (as I said) the purpose of Scripturalist epistemology is not to produce knowledge, but to justify knowledge.



What do you mean by ‘logical priority’? Here are a couple of ways you might answer…

*(A)* The Antecedent of an Implication. 

You claim that Scripture is the necessary precondition for man to be able to have a justified claim to knowledge. However, this is represented logically as “If man has a justified claim to knowledge, then Scripture is his necessary precondition.” Of course, this makes the axiom a consequent rather than an antecedent.

*(B)* The Necessary Premise of Any Argument Justifying Knowledge.

This fits more in line with Clark’s axiomatic approach. The problem here is that it is not a sufficient premise to justify knowledge. I posted this elsewhere, but I think it helps illuminate the point: You ask, "What is the foundation for anyone to be able say that they know something?" Here is one possible answer:

(1) There exists a God who is omniscient,
infallible and always tells the truth.
(2) The Bible is the Word of God.
(3) Man has the requisite abilities to receive this
revelation in such a manner that it can be called knowledge.

If these three items are true, then this would provide rational justification for my claim to have real knowledge. The argument would be that the Bible gives us true universals because of its' ontological foundation, and we are able to know these universals because we have been endowed with the innate abilities required. Therefore, we have the basis (foundation) to be able to claim to know something. All three points are necessary to make this argument work. If what I have argued above is sound, then the consequences of this is that (2) is not sufficient by itself for me to justify knowing any proposition in Scripture. 

With all of this said, there may be other ways to understand logical priority. It sure would help to have you explain what you mean by this, and then based on this justify how you can claim to know something. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> You ask, "What is the foundation for anyone to be able say that they know something?" Here is one possible answer:
> 
> (1) There exists a God who is omniscient,
> infallible and always tells the truth.
> (2) The Bible is the Word of God.
> (3) Man has the requisite abilities to receive this
> revelation in such a manner that it can be called knowledge.
> 
> If these three items are true, then this would provide rational justification for my claim to have real knowledge.



"If these three items are true" is a pretty tall order. Why don't we start with (1) & (3)? How about an answer Brian?

I already grant that I can't provide an account for (2), that's why it's called the axiom. Yet per (2) I _can_ account for (1) an omniscient, infallible God who always tells the truth and (3) that man has the requisite abilities to receive this revelation. 

So why 3 axioms when 2 of them are already subsumed and accounted for by 1? 

It seems positively stupid to posit 3 unprovable axioms when 2 of yours can be demonstrated from the one axiom of Scripture. 

The great advantage of just the one axiom is that while axioms can't be proved they can be disproved. That's why we can provide evidences (see WCF 1:5 ) that the bible is the Word of God. Chief among those evidences is the consent of the parts, for if the Scriptures were to contradict themselves we could know they were not true (at least one half of any contradiction must be false even if we couldn't know which one). Truth is evidenced by a harmonious relationship of propositions. Of course, the WCF acknowledges that evidences are not proofs which is why, "notwithstanding, 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."

Is there any evidence even to support your first axiom? You can't appeal to axiom (2) or else you'd be giving up this charade and joining me. How about axiom (3)? Do you think Kant will be any help to you here? I hope so, because you can't appeal to axiom (2) for help or, again, you'd be declaring a truce and calling up Anthony and I to meet you for lunch.  

Also, your first axiom (if that's what you want to call it) aside from being an unnecessary redundancy seems quite random and useless on the face of it.

Why begin with:

(1) There exists a God who is omniscient,
infallible and always tells the truth.

Why not:

(1) There exists three gods all of whom are omniscient,
infallible and always tell the truth.

Or, 

(1) There exists a God who is infallible and 
always tells the truth. 

Why must this god be omniscient to fulfill your requirements for knowledge? Wouldn't a god who doesn't know everything but is just as trustworthy work as well?

I'm sure there are more variations on the same theme, but I think you get the point.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,



> Yet per (2) I can account for (1) an omniscient, infallible God who always tells the truth and (3) that man has the requisite abilities to receive this revelation… It seems positively stupid to posit 3 unprovable axioms when 2 of yours can be demonstrated from the one axiom of Scripture.



You say you can. So, prove it. Please make explicit your accounting of (1) and (3) from (2). To make it easier on you, just account for (1). 



> … and calling up Anthony and I to meet you for lunch.



I would enjoy having lunch with you and Anthony. 

Brian


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Notice that Jesus is not making an indicative statement. He does not say "Because you have seen Me, you have believed."



Actually that is what He says. Modern versions alter the sentence and make it an interrogative, but they thereby cast doubt on Thomas' confession of Jesus as his Lord and God. The sentence has traditionally been taken as a statement which acknowledges Thomas' faith rather than a question which casts doubt upon Thomas' confession.

And the very fact that doubt is cast upon the the meaning of this Scripture shows that the science of interpretation is necessary in order to be able to move from Scripture to proposition.


----------



## Davidius

armourbearer said:


> Actually that is what He says. Modern versions alter the sentence and make it an interrogative, but they thereby cast doubt on Thomas' confession of Jesus as his Lord and God. The sentence has traditionally been taken as a statement which acknowledges Thomas' faith rather than a question which casts doubt upon Thomas' confession.
> 
> And the very fact that doubt is cast upon the the meaning of this Scripture shows that the science of interpretation is necessary in order to be able to move from Scripture to proposition.



Thanks for pointing that out, Rev. Winzer. But either way, one cannot just see Christ and be saved. That's the only point I was trying to make. I'm still thinking about the argument concerning cognitive faculties.


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> Yet per (2) I can account for (1) an omniscient, infallible God who always tells the truth and (3) that man has the requisite abilities to receive this revelation… It seems positively stupid to posit 3 unprovable axioms when 2 of yours can be demonstrated from the one axiom of Scripture.
> 
> You say you can. So, prove it. Please make explicit your accounting of (1) and (3) from (2). To make it easier on you, just account for (1).



 OK Brian. Just so I'm sure you're not kidding, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

You said: (1) There exists a God who is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth.

Now you want me to provide an account from Scripture that

1. God is omniscient.

2. God is infallible. 

3. God always tells the truth.

Have I got it? 

For what it's worth, even the crassest atheists I've ever met have never questioned that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is (said to be) omniscient, infallible and tells the truth. 

So before I start wheeling out the verses in support of each premise, I would like to be sure you haven't lost your mind or are actually a member of the atheist web. 

     

I have to say this has been one weird day. Manata compared Gordon Clark to a meth dealer complete with myself and Dr. Robbins as his pushers. Now I have a man who claims to be a Christian asking me to provide a biblical account for God's omniscience, infallibility and truthfulness. Just a really bizarre day.


----------



## MW

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> But either way, one cannot just see Christ and be saved.



 But there is such a thing as historical faith, whereby a person knows and accepts the facts of the gospel record, but does not put his trust in them, and therefore is not saved.


----------



## Magma2

Seeing now that Brian has asked me to demonstrate from Scripture that God is omniscient, I think the time has come for the Moderators to change the name of this sad farce. I recommend:

Scripturalism Refuted . . . Not!


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,



> Now you want me to provide an account from Scripture that 1. God is omniscient. 2. God is infallible. 3. God always tells the truth. Have I got it?



Not quite. You claimed to be able to derive these three propositions strictly from the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God". So, I grant to you that the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God" is true. Now, go ahead and from this derive the three propositions above. 

Brian


----------



## Brian Bosse

I am having trouble posting. Sorry.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Board, 

While we are waiting on Sean's derivation I thought I would share a little of another conversation I am having with him.



Sean said:


> I think the hang up for you…is that this a_priori is not along with or in addition to the one axiom.



I think this is a fair assessment of my "hang up."



Sean said:


> Clark's point is that we would not be able to even speak of an a_priori were it not asserted in verbal revelation, which brings us right back to his one axiom.



You are missing the key point. You must _begin_ with _apriori_ knowledge to derive any knowledge from Scripture. They key question is this, "Is this _apriori_ knowledge justified apart from Scripture?" Your answer is "no." This means that either the _apriori_ knowledge is not justified at all, or it is justified by Scripture. Let's consider these two possible cases:

*Case 1* (the _apriori_ knowledge is not justified)

If this _apriori_ knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize _apriori_ knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility.

*Case 2* (the _apriori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture)

How do we know that _apriori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that _apriori_ knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize _apriori_ knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify _apriori_ knowledge must use _apriori_ knowledge. This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle. 

Clearly, neither case 1 nor case 2 are desirable options, and as such it refutes your claim that there is no knowledge justified apart from Scripture. Consider the following argument.

*1.* Prove A: _Apriori_ knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
*2.* Assume ~A: _Apriori_ knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is not justified apart from Scripture.
*3.* ~A-->(Case 1 or Case 2)
*4.* ~(Case 1 or Case 2)
*5.* ~~A by the logical law of _Modus Tollens_.
*6.* A by the Law of Negation.
*Q.E.D.*

I have just provided a proof for knowledge that is justified apart from Scripture. The proof is the valid proof form called _Reductio Ad Absurdum_. So, if you think it is unsound, which premise is false? 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> Now you want me to provide an account from Scripture that 1. God is omniscient. 2. God is infallible. 3. God always tells the truth. Have I got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. You claimed to be able to derive these three propositions strictly from the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God".
Click to expand...


What a farce. I thought you were blowing wind. Thanks for confirming it once again Brian. After explaining repeatedly that the axiom of Scripture -- what Clark meant by "the bible is the Word of God" -- is not a single axiomatic proposition standing in Euclidean isolation, it is intended to stand for and include ALL the thousands of propositions and commands entailed in all 66 books of the bible, you still refuse to engage Clark's Scripturalism. Instead you continue to foolishly fight a straw man you've concocted in your own mind. 

If you are now granting that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth, then my job is done.

I realize Anthony was hoping against hope we'd get past your misunderstanding, my hope is now that whatever illusions Anthony had concerning you are now dashed. It should be clear to all that your "misunderstanding" is as intentional as it is willful. You have made precisely zero effort in even trying to understand, much less correctly state, your opponents position even if only to shoot it down. 

Consequently, your so-called "refutation" is exposed as the farce it is. 

 Pitiful.


----------



## Civbert

Brian,

I think you are using a different definition of "justified". Of course a prior forms and ideas are justified in the sense of cause and effect. But you have not justified them from being deduced from a priori propositions. And keeping that definition of justification in mind (deduction from the a priori), innate forms and ideas can not justify additional propositions without specific content. What ideas? Forms are empty so you need ideas. What are they? 

Your still mixing temporal and logical priority. If something must be placed in time before another for man to know, such as God "existence" and man's innate forms, ideas, capacity for reason, etc, then you are speaking of temporal priority. However, your uses of "justification" is not the logical necessity sense, but cause and effect sense. You are saying that this must be true (in time) before man can "know". A causes B.

Now I'm using justified in relation to logical priority. Not A causes B, but that A implies B. B is necessarily true if A is true. This is dealing with the states of things. How they have meaning in relationship to other things. All A is B, Some A is B, No A is B, Some A is not B. These are relationships regrading predication and meaning. For me to justify B, I need to show B is implied by my Axiom.

Now it's clear that the Clarkian Axiom is the Bible. And when I say "Bible" I mean (and we accept what other people say they mean) the 66 books of the protestant Bible as defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and this logically implies every verse. And when I say the Bible is the Word of God, then this logically implies also that all the propositions of the Bible are true. Each and every proposition of the Bible is true. 

And so with reason, we can say that anything clearly propounded in Scripture, or anything that can be deduced from Scripture, by good and necessary consequences is also true. So from this one Axiom, we can demonstrate a great deal of knowledge. Not the least of which is "Jesus is Messiah" and "all men are sinners" and "David was king of Israel". We can also demonstrate the laws of logic, that man has innate ideas and the capacity for abstract reasoning, and God is omniscient. 

This is the logical justification (epistemic certitude) for knowledge. This has nothing to do with time. No one is denying the temporal priority of your premises for one to know as a process. But the the epistemic justification of the truth of a proposition has nothing to do with time. A true proposition is true for all times, places, and people. And we can only justify this truth by showing it is deducible from Scripture. Not deducible from the "word" Scripture, but from the propositional content of Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

Brian,

Deduce any _A_ from a priori knowledge apart from Scripture. 

No hypothetical syllogisms because that's just begging the question. I'm not asking you to justify "knowledge" in the abstract, but merely a single concrete proposition. Consider the laws of logic as given, and also your innate ability for abstract thought. 

I can think of one famous example.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Board,

I provided a valid proof for _apriori_ knowledge being justified apart from Scripture. The conclusion contradicts Sean’s and Anthony’s position. Consequently, they necessarily must think my proof is unsound. If my proof is unsound, then at least one of the steps in the proof is false. I asked them which one was false. They never answered this question.

Sean claimed to be able to deduce that God is omniscient, infallible and always truthful from the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God.” I granted to him that this proposition was true. He has yet to provide the deduction. Rather, he chooses to use charged rhetoric such as “farce,” “foolish” and “pitiful,” when he should be putting forth rational argumentation.



Sean said:


> …the axiom of Scripture…is not a single axiomatic proposition standing in Euclidean isolation, it is intended to stand for and include ALL the thousands of propositions and commands entailed in all 66 books of the bible…



Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems. A theorem is a derived proposition from prior theorems or axioms. Clark proposed “the Axiom” because he _thought_ he could validly deduce the propositions and commands from the axiom. He was mistaken. 



Sean said:


> If you are now granting that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth, then my job is done.



I do grant that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth. However, I do not grant that this can be derived from the axiom alone. You claimed you could do this. The fact that you have not yet provided a justified derivation speaks volumes.



Anthony said:


> Now I'm using justified in relation to logical priority. Not A causes B, but the A implies B…for me to justify B, I need to show B is implied by my Axiom.



Two things here: *(1)* To define logical justification as “B is logically justified by A if and only if A implies B” smacks of arbitrariness, and even then it fails to get you where you want to be. For example, you agreed that _a priori_ knowledge is necessary to get knowledge from Scripture. One could say that if we have _a priori_ knowledge, then we can derive knowledge from Scripture. This is logically represented as “If A, then B.” If we go with your definition of logical priority, then this _a priori_ knowledge is logically prior to being able to know anything from Scripture. Consider the difficulty in your attempt at defining this concept called “logical justification.” I explained in another earlier post that A → B is _not_ the logical representation for A being the necessary precondition for B. Rather, it is B → A. Although it is found in many logic texts, I realize you may not find this intuitively obvious; so, I will provide an illustration. The compound element called water requires hydrogen. If we have water, then we have hydrogen. Notice, the consequence of this implication (hydrogen) is the precondition for the antecedent (water). The point in all of this is that the idea of “logical justification” is vague at best, and you have not done an adequate job of making your so called distinction between it and temporal justification. Is temporal justification somehow not some type of logical justification? *(2)* Even if we were to grant this definition, you still fall into the situational case 2 that I described in my earlier post. I repeat the argument here: “How do we know that _a priori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that _a priori_ knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize _a priori_ knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify _a priori_ knowledge must use _a priori_ knowledge. This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle.” Also, if you cannot justify your derivation from Scripture, then you cannot justify the _a priori_. The idea being that any derivation from an unjustified foundation is itself unjustified. One reason why Clark went the route he did was to avoid this objection by positing an axiom. In the end, Clark failed to overcome this objection because the axiom is insufficient to accomplish what he wanted. 



Anthony said:


> And when I say the Bible is the Word of God, then this logically implies also that all the propositions of the Bible are true... So from this one Axiom, we can demonstrate a great deal of knowledge.



Anthony, this has never been demonstrated by you. You say you can, but when asked to make this explicit you fail to deliver the goods. Again, please provide me with an explicit derivation that is justified knowledge that “Jesus is Messiah.” All I am asking you to do is to apply the very laws of logic espoused by Clark to this issue. If you cannot do so, then this should say something to you. Provide me with a formal proof, not informal rhetoric. 



Anthony said:


> Deduce any A from a priori knowledge apart from Scripture. No hypothetical syllogisms because that's just begging the question. I'm not asking you to justify "knowledge" in the abstract, but merely a single concrete proposition. Consider the laws of logic as given, and also your innate ability for abstract thought.



I am happy to do this as you will see in a moment. But I want you to realize my critique is on your claim to be able to do X. It is not pertinent to this discussion whether or not I can do X. Now, let me do X.

If you remember earlier, I provided what I called my three axioms. You are granting to me axiom 3, and not allowing me axiom 2. However, I have axiom 1. I do not have to remind you of the nature of axioms, and as such axiom 1 can be used in my derivations independently from Scripture. 

*Premise:* God is a being who is omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful. (Axiom 1)
*Conclusion A:* A being who is not omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful is not God. (Law of Contraposition)
*Q.E.D.*

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems.



Are you for real Brian? I've provided a number of citations from Clark's writings which PROVE you are wrong. Did you just not read them? How about Clark's reply to Mavordes which Anthony supplied I think on more than one occasion in this thread?

You say Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms (or, more accurately part of the axiom of Scripture), but rather as theorems. 

*OK, prove it!*

I'm pretty sure I have all of Clark's published works. Provide the complete citations and include reference and page number.

I think that is an extremely reasonable request before anyone spends even 5 more minutes answering what could now be rightly considered your incorrigible and dishonest nonsense. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,



> You say Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms (or, more accurately part of the axiom of Scripture), but rather as theorems.



I did not say what was in your parenthesis. I did say that Clark construed the individual propositions for Scripture to be theorems. ‘Theorems’ is to be understood in the axiomatic sense of a proposition derived from other axioms or theorems. You have asked me to prove this. Here is what Clark says in _An Introduction to Christian Philosophy_ on page 88…



> The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms…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.



These last two paragraphs provide support for my position. Clark clearly thinks it is neither desirable nor necessary to make the “thousands of Biblical propositions” an aggregate set of axioms. It is not desirable because it does not allow one to arrange the truths of Scripture “in patterns of logical subordination.” It is not necessary because through deduction, syllogistically each of these thousands of propositions can be proved true. These propositions derived syllogistically from the axiom are properly called theorems. 

Sincerely,

The Incorrigible, Dishonest and Nonsensical One.

(Note: You really should spend more time putting forth rational argumentation and less time making disparaging remarks about me.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brian Bosse said:


> Sincerely,
> 
> The Incorrigible, Dishonest and Nonsensical One.
> 
> (Note: You really should spend more time putting forth rational argumentation and less time making disparaging remarks about me.)



I fully agree Sean. Conduct yourself like the rational person you purport yourself to be. I'm quite weary of the insults to people on this board.

Brian, unlike me at times, has been extremely patient and has not returned the myriad of ad hominems with anything but reasoned responses. Every time you return his challenges with charged rhetoric you merely reinforce the title of this thread.

Why not quote Clark instead of screaming ever louder: "You're misrepresenting him!" The only person I've seen quoting Clark extensively is Brian. Why is that?


----------



## Magma2

SemperFideles said:


> Why not quote Clark instead of screaming ever louder: "You're misrepresenting him!" The only person I've seen quoting Clark extensively is Brian. Why is that?



Because you haven’t been paying attention.

I’m sorry Rich, but I have been enormously patient with Brian. You forget that besides being a continuation from another thread, he began this thread by titling it “Scripturalism refuted,” then after crafting his poorly constructed straw man, he wrote; “The Scripturalist will not be able to overcome these objections even though they will try. You will see that in some cases Scripturalists will go to such lengths to justify their position that they will embrace irrationalism.” Well, so far, this claim has just been nothing more than bravado and chest thumping.

For what it's worth and I understand your general dislike for me and Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism in general, but in fairness I think you ought to cut me some slack. 

So, before bowing out because you are correct and I am out of patience with Brian, why don’t we recap Brian’s refutation which hangs on only 2 central objections.

First, Brian claims:



> Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must already be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and a priori categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and a priori categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge.



This is false, per the citation I provided Clark refutes Brian’s distortion as follows:



> If the Christian had to avoid the a priori because Kant put it to a non-Christian use, and for the same reason had to deny a blank mind because of Aristotle and Hume, he would have no alternative left. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the image of God in man, a doctrine learned from Scripture, is an assertion of an a priori or innate equipment [notice, it is an assertion “learned from Scripture” [not the assertion of a separate axiom as Brian maintains]. As such it will receive emphasis. But only as such, for so precarious are arguments otherwise based that there would be little confidence in the existence of an a priori and no possibility of identifying its forms, were it not asserted in verbal revelation.



Next, Brian maintains; “Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems.” Yet, for Clark "the bible is the Word of God" is not a single axiomatic proposition standing in Euclidean isolation as Brian incorrectly maintains, it is intended to stand for and include ALL the thousands of propositions and commands entailed in all 66 books of the bible. Brian refuses to abandon his flimsy straw man in spite of a link Anthony providing on a number of occasions where Clark states clearly corrects Marvrodes for making the exact same error Brian is making now.

For example, had Brian taken the time to read Clark’s reply he would have read:



> In Part I [of Mavroades criticism of Clark] we read that the Axiom "can be written on the back of a calling card." A bit later the author says, "The Axiom contains no information whatever as to the specific content of the Bible." And because of this Mavrodes concludes that no useful information can be deduced from it. Doubtless it is in this connection that he twice complains that "Not a single example is given anywhere of the deduction of any theorem."
> 
> Of course, in What Do Presbyterians Believe, I have indicated (without using standard-form categorical syllogisms) the deduction of various doctrines from Scriptural statements. What Mavrodes seems to mean, however, is that I have not deduced the several verses from the Axiom.
> 
> *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.*
> 
> . . . suppose we make the following list: David was King of Israel; hydrogen is a chemical element; and Jim likes peanuts. With these as axioms what can be deduced? Granted, Jim likes peanuts implies that Jim likes peanuts; but, point one, there is no explicit assertion that the axiom is true, and the implication remains valid even when the proposition is false; and, point two, nothing in addition to the three axioms can be deduced, for no two of them imply anything.
> 
> If, following the suggestion of the critique, we assert "David was King implies that Jim likes peanuts," we may get more theorems than on the previous scheme; but here the axioms have become absurd (if the words retain their ordinary meanings), and as before the theorems are only the axioms over again.
> 
> In such a random list of axioms and therefore in the theorems that repeat them, there is no distinction between axiom and theorem; nor is there a distinction between theorem and theorem. If such a set of random propositions can be axiomatized in an indefinite number of ways, then either or both of two consequences follow: each proposition implies each other, so that they are all equivalent in meaning, for which reason justification and sanctification are synonymous; and, since any doctrine can be axiomatic, the doctrine of the Trinity could be no more basic to the limited atonement than the principle of Presbyterian government is basic to the eternal decree.
> 
> Another flaw in Mavrodes' easy and trivial axiomatization, or perhaps the same flaw in different words, comes to the surface in his statement, "If Christian doctrine is true, as I believe it is, then there are indefinitely many sets of true axioms which entail it." This statement appears false to me, at least on the assumptions that Christian doctrine means all thirty-three chapters of the Westminster Confession, that these many propositions are not identical in meaning, and that the word entail is a synonym for imply. On these conditions I would like to know some of the indefinite number of axioms that imply the first chapter of the Confession. To simplify: The Axiom (Scripture is the word of God) implies that David was King; but how can David's being King imply that all Scripture is true?
> 
> . . . Mavrodes gives the impression that he wishes to deduce several propositions from a different foundation. Near the end of Part II he has this syllogism: "God ordained that David should be a King of Israel; God brings to pass whatever he ordains; therefore David was a King of Israel." To which syllogism he appends the remark "This axiom set [the two premises] does not include Clark's Axiom. . . making no reference at all to the Bible." So? There would indeed have been no reference to the Bible, had he argued: Nebuchadnezzar ordained David to be King; whatever Nebuchadnezzar ordains comes to pass. But where else than in the Bible can we get the information that God ordained David? Once again, if the foundation be removed, nothing of Christianity remains.



I honestly fail to see how Clark’s position could be clearer. Clark even refers to the axiom of Christianity in his reply to Mavrodes as “the Westminister Principle,” which should be obvious from the above that, like the Confession, Clark starts with the doctrine of Scripture as his axiom. Even in ordinary discussion if someone were to say, “I believe the Bible is true” he is not saying that the single proposition is true yet the thousands of propositions contained within the Bible are somehow false, so I confess it is a complete mystery why Brian, who clearly isn't an idiot, remains incapable of grasping this?

Beyond that, I previously cited Clark in defense of the Westminister Principle from another work as follows:



> 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* [another clear statement that the Bible is the Word of God is NOT to be understood as a proposition in isolation from the CONTENTS of Scripture]. 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.



As if all that wasn’t clear enough to have convinced any rational person that Brian could not be more wrong when he asserts: “Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems,” I previously provided this citation from Clark:



> 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 which Brian for some bizarre reason has persisted in simply ignoring, Clark’s chosen axiom while "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."*

So, Rich, when you ask me “Why not quote Clark” I have done so and pervasively. 

OTOH you are right I am losing my patience and patience is without question one of the fruits of the Spirit I may be lacking in despite of spending days carefully citing from Clark’s works and discussing what Clark said. 

Regardless, I am done here playing with Brian’s little straw man.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,

Now that you have decided that you are "done here playing with Brian’s little straw man," I will offer some final observations for your consideration.

*(1)* I have provided explicit arguments for my claims.
*(2)* You seem not to interact with these arguments but rather simply assert that I am wrong. You may provide quotations, but you offer no argumentation against my position as to how these quotations undermine my position. Even then, you fail to explain how the quotes I have used to support my position where misconstrued. My last post was a perfect example of this. I provided the "proof" you were looking for. I quoted Clark's own words, and then commented on them arguing that they support my position. You never interacted with it. This seems to be your _modus operendi_.
*(3)* You now are running away from this discussion claiming that the reason for doing so is because you are losing patience. I guess the reason you are losing patience is because you think I am acting in an unreasonable manner. I have tried to be reasonable. But, if this is not a good situation for you, then please do what you feel is necessary. 

All in all, I am not surprised. As an amateur logician, I try to make my arguments as explicit as possible so that people can directly interact with my arguments. I have presented numerous categorical syllogisms and even a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument or two. If my arguments are unsound, then it is easy for the opponent to point to the premise that is not true in those arguments. Sean, you have never done so. Rather, you resort to charged rhetoric. I think the reason you have not done so is because either, *(A)* you are just not knowledgeable about formal argumentation, or *(B)* you have no rebuttal to my formal arguments.

Anthony, on the other hand is knowledgeable about formal argumentation, and does interact with my arguments. I will wait for Anthony to respond. I find him to be much more reasonable and less personal. You might learn from him.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Magma2

Brian Bosse said:


> *(1)* I have provided explicit arguments for my claims.



Based on a dishonest and disingenuous twisting of what Clark said as anyone can see per the many quotes I provided. 



> *(2)* You seem not to interact with these arguments but rather simply assert that I am wrong.



It was enough to point out that your entire "refutation" is fallacious and is a straw man argument. Something I thought even armature logician like you would recognize. 



> I quoted Clark's own words, and then commented on them arguing that they support my position. You never interacted with it. This seems to be your _modus operendi_.



What was there to interact with? I had already provided the entire quotation from which your cut and paste job was taken plus many more demonstrating your complete misreading of Clark which is without any justification at all. I certainly don't mind someone trying to refute Scripturalism, I welcome it, but I would think they should first have a working understanding of what it is they're refuting. Sadly, you don't have a clue. 

Let me put it this way, if your reading of Clark were even remotely correct then I would refute Scripturalism too. Frankly, my 15 year old daughter would be able to refute Scripturalism. 

For what it's worth I'm happy to let anyone read the quotes I've provided and decide for themselves who is telling the truth. 



> *(3)* You now are running away from this discussion claiming that the reason for doing so is because you are losing patience.



If you find some vindication in playing the victim, be my guest. It won't make your so-called "refutation of Scripturalism" any less fallacious, misinformed and irrational. 



> Anthony, on the other hand is knowledgeable about formal argumentation, and does interact with my arguments.



All the best with Anthony.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Magma2 said:


> Based on a dishonest and disingenuous twisting...
> 
> ...Something I thought even armature logician like you would recognize.
> 
> ...Sadly, you don't have a clue.
> 
> ...Frankly, my 15 year old daughter would be able to refute Scripturalism.
> 
> ...misinformed and irrational.



Sean,

You are now suspended for one month. If you decide you desire to return to the PuritanBoard at that point then you will not be permitted even one more thread like this.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Sean,

I guess you just can’t get enough of me.  Earlier, you asked me for proof that Clark viewed the propositions of Scripture as theorems derived from the axiom. I provided what you wanted, and you ignored it. Will you deal with it now? I repeat the argument by beginning with Clark’s words.



Gordon H. Clark said:


> The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms…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.





Brian said:


> These last two paragraphs provide support for my position. Clark clearly thinks it is neither desirable nor necessary to make the “thousands of Biblical propositions” an aggregate set of axioms. It is not desirable because it does not allow one to arrange the truths of Scripture “in patterns of logical subordination.” It is not necessary because through deduction, syllogistically each of these thousands of propositions can be proved true. These propositions derived syllogistically from the axiom are properly called theorems.



Sean, you must necessarily disagree with my commentary on Clark here. So, provide me with some Clarkian exegesis, especially on the last two paragraphs of his quote. If Clark was not making the point I said he was making, then what was Clark actually saying? 

Your Dishonest, Disingenuous, Clueless, Misinformed Victim.

P.S. I posted this prior to seeing the post where Sean was banned. As such, he will not be able to reply for awhile. Anthony may well chime in.


----------



## Civbert

I'm trying to get caught up, and this is the first reply to my last post so I started here. But I can't get past the first sentence.


Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Board,
> 
> I provided a valid proof for _apriori_ knowledge being justified apart from Scripture.



I looked but did not see this proof. Could you quote the proof and add a link.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems. A theorem is a derived proposition from prior theorems or axioms. Clark proposed “the Axiom” because he _thought_ he could validly deduce the propositions and commands from the axiom. He was mistaken.



I covered this before. You have made a mistake in your understanding of Clark. Your reading is uncharitable. The correction is as trivial as is the processes of deducing A from (A & B & C & D). It's the rule of simplification: If (A & B & C & D) are true, then A is true.​
Clark did not think he could deduce the propositions of Scripture from the sentence "The Bible is the Word of God" as if each term was merely a sound. He intends the reader to understand that the propositions of Scripture _are_ the content of the Bible. 

So the logical is trivial: If X is a propositions of Scripture, then X is true.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,



> I looked but did not see this proof. Could you quote the proof and add a link.



I am not sure how to provide a link directly to the post. It is found on the previous page. Here is the quote... 



> You (Sean) are missing the key point. You must begin with _a priori_ knowledge to derive any knowledge from Scripture. They key question is this, "Is this _a priori_ knowledge justified apart from Scripture?" Your answer is "no." This means that either the _a priori_ knowledge is not justified at all, or it is justified by Scripture. Let's consider these two possible cases:
> 
> *Case 1* (the _a priori_ knowledge is not justified)
> 
> If this _a priori_ knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize _a priori_ knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility.
> 
> *Case 2* (the _a priori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture)
> 
> How do we know that _a priori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that _a priori_ knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize _a priori_ knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify _a priori_ knowledge must use _a priori_ knowledge. This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle.
> 
> Clearly, neither case 1 nor case 2 are desirable options, and as such it refutes your claim that there is no knowledge justified apart from Scripture. Consider the following argument.
> 
> *1.* Prove A: _A priori_ knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
> *2.* Assume ~A: _A_ priori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is not justified apart from Scripture.
> *3.* ~A-->(Case 1 or Case 2)
> *4.* ~(Case 1 or Case 2)
> *5.* ~~A by the logical law of _Modus Tollens_.
> *6.* A by the Law of Negation.
> *Q.E.D.*



If this proof is unsound, which premise is false and why?



> I covered this before. You have made a mistake in your understanding of Clark. Your reading is uncharitable. The correction is as trivial as is the processes of deducing A from (A & B & C & D). It's the rule of simplification: If (A & B & C & D) are true, then A is true.



First off, in what sense is my reading uncharitable? I understand Clark's axiom to be the universal affirmative statement "The Bible is the Word of God." You understand his statement to be the conjunction of all the propositions of the Bible. My critique does not hinge on either understanding. So, in what sense am I being uncharitable? It may be mistaken, but it is not uncharitable.

Let me remind you why this is even a topic. I claimed that all of the propositions of Scripture were theorems of Clark's system. Sean, who now refers to me as a dishonest liar, asked me to prove this. My argument is simply that the individual propositions of Scripture are derived from the axiom in Clark's system. Clark said so himself when he said that "from the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the Word of God." (This is true no matter how one construes the axiom.) By definition, this makes the propositions of the Bible theorems of the system. Do you disgaree with this? 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## SolaGratia

"One can only know full truth about God by being" God himself which no one can.


----------



## JohnV

1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.


----------



## Theogenes

Here's a Scripturalist "Blast from the past". It's a quote from Samuel Bolton 
(1606-1654) from his book, "The Arraignment of Error", p262.
"The Scripture is not only the revealer of divine truth, but of all divine truth. Not that there is no more divine truth than what is revealed in the Word, but that there is no more for us; there is no more to be believed and obeyed than what God has revealed in His Word"


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> I am not sure how to provide a link directly to the post. It is found on the previous page. Here is the quote...



Brian, you don't really think that's a proof of a priori knowledge do you?



Brian Bosse said:


> *1.* Prove A: _Apriori_ knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
> *2.* Assume ~A: _Apriori_ knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is not justified apart from Scripture.
> *3.* ~A-->(Case 1 or Case 2)
> *4.* ~(Case 1 or Case 2)
> *5.* ~~A by the logical law of _Modus Tollens_.
> *6.* A by the Law of Negation.
> *Q.E.D.*



Step 4 begs the question. Do you recall how you gave someone a hard time about the TAG argument when the first premise of the argument actually assumed the conclusion being proven. Anything can be proven using that technique. You have not proven a priori is logically necessary, you have assumed it is necessary.

Your argument for step 4 is:


Brian Bosse said:


> *Case 1* (the _apriori_ knowledge is not justified)
> 
> If this _apriori_ knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize _apriori_ knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility.


 Notice that you have switched "deduction" for "derivation". And when I asked you to deduce a simple proposition without using Scripture, using a priori forms you gave this:


Brian Bosse said:


> *Premise:* God is a being who is omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful. (Axiom 1)
> *Conclusion A:* A being who is not omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful is not God. (Law of Contraposition)
> *Q.E.D.*


 You are merely assuming your axiom, no deducing any new proposition. And you did not deduce any propositions from a priori forms or ideas. I can assume A and deduce not-not-A. But that all. If your axiom can not logically produce any knowledge, what good is it? Your a priori knowledge can not justify any knowledge. As an axiom, you could get as much knowledge from assuming "all dogs have four legs". 




Brian Bosse said:


> *Case 2* (the _apriori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture)
> 
> How do we know that _apriori_ knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that _apriori_ knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize _apriori_ knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify _apriori_ knowledge must use _apriori_ knowledge. ...


 Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving.



Brian Bosse said:


> ... This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle.


  Isn't it. But that's what you have done here. The Scripturalist can justify a priori forms post temporori. This is not begging the question, it a logical consequence of assuming the axiom of Scripture. 



Brian Bosse said:


> [Clearly, neither case 1 nor case 2 are desirable options, and as such it refutes your claim that there is no knowledge justified apart from Scripture. Consider the following argument.


 Ergo step 4 begs the question. You have not proven ~(Case 1 or Case 2).


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> ... My argument is simply that the individual propositions of Scripture are derived from the axiom in Clark's system.


 I understood your argument to be that one could _not_ deduce the propositions of Scripture from the Axiom. 



Brian Bosse said:


> Clark said so himself when he said that "from the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the Word of God." (This is true no matter how one construes the axiom.) By definition, this makes the propositions of the Bible theorems of the system. Do you disgaree with this?


 Of course I agree with that: the propositions of the Bible logical follow from assuming the truth of the Bible. A implies A. 

What has not been shown is the logical necessity of a priori knowledge, or how one can deduce anything from it, not the least of which includes the propositions of Scripture.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony!

Do you still love me? 



> Brian, you don't really think that's a proof of a priori knowledge do you?



Yes, I do. It may not be sound, but I think it would fall under the category of ‘proof’. Maybe, you are asking if I really believe that it is sound? If so, then yes, I think it is sound, or I would not have presented it. Maybe, you are asking if I thought it was proof for justified _a priori_ knowledge apart from Scripture rather than some other conclusion? If so, yes, this clearly can be seen from the conclusion. It is a proof for justified knowledge apart from the Bible. 



> Step 4 begs the question...You have not proven a priori is logically necessary, you have assumed it is necessary.



I am looking forward to your analysis that demonstrates this.



> Notice that you have switched "deduction" for "derivation".



I am using them as synonyms. You can assume they mean the same thing and interchange them. A logical derivation is the same as a logical deduction. 



> You are merely assuming your axiom, no deducing any new proposition.



This is where you are mistaken. You are failing to distinguish between axioms and theorems. You asked me to derive (deduce) some proposition from my system, and you granted me the laws of logic. Well, my system has as one of the axioms the proposition “God is a God who is omniscient, omnipresent,…” I did exactly what you asked me to. I deduced a new proposition from this axiom using the laws of logic. If this somehow is not proper, then you undermine _all_ axiomatic systems including Clark’s.



> And you did not deduce any propositions from a priori forms or ideas.



Sure I did. I deduced a proposition based on the _a priori_ idea of contraposition. 



> Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving...The Scripturalist can justify a priori forms post temporori. This is not begging the question, it a logical consequence of assuming the axiom of Scripture…You have not proven ~(Case 1 or Case 2).



Anthony, you apparently do not understand the argument. Let me make it more explicit.

*Anthony’s Position:* For all ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified knowledge if and only if ‘x’ is derived from Scripture. (Note: The axiom itself is not included in this.)
*Agreed Upon Proposition:* All derivations from Scripture require _a priori_ knowledge.
*Key Question:* Is this required _a priori_ knowledge justified?
*Key Issue:* If it is not justified, then all derivations from Scripture are not justified because all derivations based upon unjustified premises are themselves unjustified. 
*Possible Cases Given Anthony’s Position:* Case 1 – the _a priori_ knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are unjustified leading to the conclusion that all derivations are unjustified because of the “Key Issue.” You reject this claim on the basis that you think derivations of Scripture are justified. This leaves you with case 2.

Case 2 - The _a priori_ knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are justified. According to “Anthony’s Position” and the “Agreed Upon Proposition”, then this justified _a priori_ knowledge requires justification. This justification must be a derivation from Scripture which itself requires _a priori_ knowledge that is justified. This leads to a new key question: Is the required_a priori_ knowledge used to justify _a priori_ knowledge itself justified? This situation leaves us two options: (1) continue this regression which leads to absurdity (an infinite regression) and leaves the question unanswered and therefore unjustified, or just arbitrarily stop and beg the question. Either option fails to justify the _a priori_ knowledge used in the derivation. 

This is my justification for my step 4 in my _Reductio Ad Absurdum_ proof. I think it is well founded, and as such my proof is sound.


----------



## Civbert

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Anthony!
> 
> Do you still love me?



Of coarse I do. 



Brian Bosse said:


> .... You are failing to distinguish between axioms and theorems. You asked me to derive (deduce) some proposition from my system, and you granted me the laws of logic. ...
> 
> Sure I did. I deduced a proposition based on the _a priori_ idea of contraposition.


 But not really anything new. And the "a priori" idea of contraposition was a given. Of course you can use logic in your deductions, I couldn't ask you to deduce anything if you were not allowed to use logic. But the proposition you deduced was still not anything more that saying A implies not-not-A. And that was based on a different axiom. The thing is, you can deduce anything much more than that from your axioms. And your additional axioms can be justified by Scripture. This is why there is only one axiom required - Scripture. 




Brian Bosse said:


> Anthony, you apparently do not understand the argument. Let me make it more explicit.
> 
> *Anthony’s Position:* For all ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified knowledge if and only if ‘x’ is derived from Scripture. (Note: The axiom itself is not included in this.)
> *Agreed Upon Proposition:* All derivations from Scripture require _a priori_ knowledge.


 This is were we disagree in part. When I speak of justifying a proposition, I mean deducing it from the an a priori truth (which is ultimately Scripture). But here you are talking about the _process _of "knowing" rather than answering the question if a proposition is _justified _of knowledge. We are talking about two different things. One is a temporal process, wherein one needs to be equipped with the ability of abstract thinking and from this a process of becoming aware of and believing a proposition. The second is justified knowledge because a proposition is in a logical state of being deducible from Scripture. When I speak of a proposition being justified, I need only show it is deducible from Scripture. That all. I'm not looking at the process of learning, reading, hearing, or the pre-existing laws of logic or the fact that I'm able to think abstractly. These are process issues having to do with action of "knowing". No of these things are denied by Scripturalism. But neither are these things in mind when one is trying to justify knowledge. 


Brian Bosse said:


> *Key Question:* Is this required _a priori_ knowledge justified?


 They are justified a posteriori - from Scripture.


Brian Bosse said:


> *Key Issue:* If it is not justified, then all derivations from Scripture are not justified because all derivations based upon unjustified premises are themselves unjustified.


 If true then all knowledge is unjustified since all knowledge is justified from axioms which can not be deduced from anything prior. And would effect all attempts at justifying knowledge - since all systems have their axioms which can not be justified from a priori true propositions. 



Brian Bosse said:


> *Possible Cases Given Anthony’s Position:* Case 1 – the _a priori_ knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are unjustified leading to the conclusion that all derivations are unjustified because of the “Key Issue.” You reject this claim on the basis that you think derivations of Scripture are justified. This leaves you with case 2.
> 
> Case 2 - The _a priori_ knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are justified. According to “Anthony’s Position” and the “Agreed Upon Proposition”, then this justified _a priori_ knowledge requires justification. This justification must be a derivation from Scripture which itself requires _a priori_ knowledge that is justified. This leads to a new key question: Is the required_a priori_ knowledge used to justify _a priori_ knowledge itself justified? This situation leaves us two options: (1) continue this regression which leads to absurdity (an infinite regression) and leaves the question unanswered and therefore unjustified, or just arbitrarily stop and beg the question. Either option fails to justify the _a priori_ knowledge used in the derivation.
> 
> This is my justification for my step 4 in my _Reductio Ad Absurdum_ proof. I think it is well founded, and as such my proof is sound.


Basically, you have just given the "justification" of the Axiom of Scripture. If it is necessary to assume a starting point for justifying (in the deductive logical sense) any proportions as knowledge, then assuming Scripture as the axiom is "justified" (in the warranted belief sense). Since the assumption of Scripture is all that is logically necessary for knowledge to be justified (in the strict logical sense), then no additional premises need to be assumed as axioms. Basically, your additional axioms are unnecessary for a strictly logical justification of any proposition as knowledge.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Anthony,

Great post! Thank you so much for interacting with my arguments directly. I will try and provide the same courtesy.



> Of coarse I do.



Me too! 



> But not really anything new… But the proposition you deduced was still not anything more that saying A implies not-not-A.



First off, you cannot rightly object to my answer if I provided what you asked for. You asked me to “Deduce any A from a priori knowledge apart from Scripture.” I did this. If you wanted something different, then it was not my fault you weren’t specific enough. 

Secondly, and this is a very minor point, I did not deduce ~~A from A. Rather, I deduced “All ~P is ~S” from “All S is P.” This could be thought of as deducing (~B-->~A) from (A-->B). Again, this is what you asked for. 

Thirdly, it is a little vague to say that nothing new has been deduced. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that immediate logical inferences do not count as knowledge? This seems arbitrary, and I fail to see your point. I have my axiom 1, you are not allowing my axiom 2, but you do allow me the rules of logic. With these constraints I can only draw immediate inferences from axiom 1. These are legitimate deductions.



> When I speak of justifying a proposition, I mean deducing it from the an a priori truth (which is ultimately Scripture). But here you are talking about the process of "knowing" rather than answering the question if a proposition is justified of knowledge. We are talking about two different things.



Two points: *(1)* You just defined “justifying a proposition” as a deduction from Scripture. This is the same as, “For all propositions ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified if and only if ‘x’ is deduced from Scripture.” I called this rule “Anthony’s Position.” It seems we are in agreement here. *(2)* You argue there is a difference between “the process of knowing” and the answer to the question of how a proposition is justified. I was under the impression you and I had already clarified this. When you ask the question “How do we know?” you are really asking the question “How can one justify knowing anything?” This can be further reduced to “How can one justify knowing proposition ‘p’?” So, I fail to see how we are talking about two different things. 



> One is a temporal process, wherein one needs to be equipped with the ability of abstract thinking and from this a process of becoming aware of and believing a proposition. The second is justified knowledge because a proposition is in a logical state of being deducible from Scripture.



Anthony, my argument is strictly a logical priority argument given your position. You say that for ‘x’ to be justified knowledge for person ‘A’, then _logically prior_ to this there must be a deduction of ‘x’ from Scripture or ‘A’ cannot claim to know ‘x’. I am using the definition named “Anthony’s Position.” I think it is important that we remember that the context of this discussion is the subjective person. When you ask “How do you know” we are asking how individuals themselves can justify knowing any proposition. This is necessarily subjective. Only if they have the proper rational basis can they make this claim. So, if they do not know that ‘x’ is derived from Scripture, then they do not have justified knowledge of ‘x’ according to “Anthony’s Position.” This is supported by the next quote…



> When I speak of a proposition being justified, I need only show it is deducible from Scripture. That all.



The implication here is that if you cannot show that proposition ‘x’ is deducible from Scripture, then you cannot claim to know ‘x’. Our agreed upon position is that we must use the laws of logic to deduce ‘y’ from Scripture. Let’s specify ‘x’ as the laws of logic. You must use ‘x’ to deduce ‘y’ from Scripture. This leads us to the “Key Question”. Is ‘x’ justified knowledge? If it is not justified, then ‘y’ is not justified by the “Key Issue.” According to you, ‘x’ can only be justified knowledge if it is deducible from Scripture. Since we must use ‘x’ to justify any ‘y’ from Scripture, when we instantiate ‘y’ as ‘x’ (the laws of logic) we are now saying that must use ‘x’ to deduce ‘x’ from Scripture. Is ‘x’ justified knowledge? This is the question we started with, and nothing has been justified yet.



> If true then all knowledge is unjustified since all knowledge is justified from axioms which can not be deduced from anything prior. And would effect all attempts at justifying knowledge - since all systems have their axioms which can not be justified from a priori true propositions.



Clark proposes his Axiom as something to be considered. He thinks if we accept the axiom as true, then we can have justified knowledge. He never expects us to justify axioms. So, if one posits the laws of logic as axiomatic, then I can have justified knowledge. The problem with your position is that you are not willing to do this. Frankly, I do not see why you are not willing to do this. 



> If it is necessary to assume a starting point for justifying (in the deductive logical sense) any proportions as knowledge, then assuming Scripture as the axiom is "justified" (in the warranted belief sense).



I see you are still missing the point of my argument. My argument does show that there must a starting point for justifying any propositions as knowledge. However, it specifically argues that Clark’s axiom is not sufficient. It does this by showing how the laws of logic must be axioms as well given “Anthony’s Position” regarding justification. The absurdity reached in my proof is taking Clark’s axiom by itself. This proves that it cannot just be Clark’s axiom by itself. However, if you make the laws of logic an axiom, then you can deduce propositions from Clark's axiom, and according to “Anthony’s Position” this is justified knowledge. If you don’t do this, then you are left with an axiom from which no justified knowledge follows.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## larryjf

Civbert said:


> However, a mere predication is insufficient to justify knowledge. I can say all cows are pink. Is this justified knowledge simply because I have predicated pink to cows? Does my innate ability to reason justify this as knowledge? What if I said all men are sinners. Is that knowledge simple by predication? How do I know this is true? Scripture. How do I know men are created with innate abilities to reason (a pre-condition for knowledge)? Scripture. Any pre-condition for knowledge, is not known unless it is revealed to me in Scripture. I can not deduce truth of the "preconditions" of knowledge from sensation, or by empty forms, or from evidence.



I am very new to the idea of Scripturalism, so please bear with my ignorance.

But if this is true then how can we justify the knowledge that 2+2=4??


----------



## Theogenes

Larry,
See this essay on Math and the Bible: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=55

Jim


----------



## Theogenes

Brian,
First, I want to say that I am not a logician, so my comments won't be technically difficult. 
In reviewing the discussion, I do agree with Anthony and Sean. It seems that you don't understand Clark's view of an axiomatic starting point being a "presupposition", not a "post-supposition". Meaning, that if you have to prove the starting point then it's not your starting point. Clark's starting point is the Scriptures in their entirety. When it is said that Clark's starting point is "The Bible alone is the Word of God", the word "Bible" is a symbol for ALL of the propositions found therein and to choose ANY proposition is to start from the axiomatic starting point of the Scriptures. It seems that you don't get that point. Have you read Clark's response to Mavrodes which Anthony and Sean have cited? 
Another area seems to address the process of knowing. How do we know?
I think Clark demonstrates (in Lord God of Truth), that it is Christ, the Logos, who makes us understand anything. He is the Teacher. He uses the innate equipment which He created us with, being made in His image, In other words, a mind structured rationally, not a "blank" mind. And what is knowledge? Isn't it what God thinks. God knows all true propositions and He has chosen to reveal some of them to us in the Scriptures and valid deductions from them.
Anyways, that's my two or four cents worth.
Jim


----------



## larryjf

Jim Snyder said:


> Larry,
> See this essay on Math and the Bible: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=55


Interesting article.

So the Scripturalist would say that the Bible is the source of our knowledge of math where as a non-Scripturalist would perhaps say that the Bible presupposes an already existing knowledge of math?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Jim,

Thank you for your comment. I am going to be writing a paper dealing with Scripturalism. In it I will analyze Clark's response to Mavrodes. I hope you will read it when I am finished.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. Jim, to illustrate the problem with Scripturalism, I am going to ask you to provide me with something easily done for any axiomatic system. Provide me with the axiom (which I grant as a presupposition), and from this derive any theorem (read: proposition of Scripture) using only justified premises in your derivation.


----------



## Theogenes

Brian,
Please state what "the problem" is with Scripturalism. Also, you say "Provide me with the axiom" and from this axiom derive a theorem which you say is a proposition of Scripture. Well, first of all any axiomatic statement that I would provide would already be a proposition of Scripture so I don't really understand what you're getting at. If you mean something like this, here goes...
1. All who believe in Jesus have everlasting life (John 3:16)
2. Lydia believed in Jesus (Acts 16)
Therefore, Lydia has everlasting life.

Or, perhaps, less syllogistically, I could look at Genesis 1-2 and from that axiomatic starting point reject the evolutionist's theory that the cosmos are the result of time plus chance.

I'm still curious as to what your main beef is with Scripturalism?? Why is it a problem for reformed people to believe that God is sovereign in the area of epistemology as He is in soteriology? It seems like they adopt an arminian view of autonomy when it comes to knowledge though they vigorously defend God's sovereignty in salvation. My understanding of Scripturalism is the idea of Sola Scriptura. And my understanding of Clark's works is that he takes Scripture as his starting point, his source of knowledge, and from that weaves a Christian world view covering the areas of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, economics, salvation, and worship. That's why Robbins calls him the "philosopher of the Reformation", because he takes sola Scriptura and applies it to all of life. Why do you have a problem with that??
Jim


----------



## Vytautas

Jim Snyder said:


> Why is it a problem for reformed people to believe that God is sovereign in the area of epistemology as He is in soteriology? It seems like they adopt an arminian view of autonomy when it comes to knowledge though they vigorously defend God's sovereignty in salvation.



Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?


----------



## Davidius

Vytautas said:


> Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?



It's not just about knowledge being found in scripture. The issue is _justified_ knowledge.


----------



## JM

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It's not just about knowledge being found in scripture. The issue is _justified_ knowledge.



Good point, I've never thought of it that way before.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Jim,

Thank you for your patience. 



> Also, you say "Provide me with the axiom" and from this axiom derive a theorem which you say is a proposition of Scripture. Well, first of all any axiomatic statement that I would provide would already be a proposition of Scripture so I don't really understand what you're getting at.



Clark said he had one axiom, namely, “The Bible is the word of God.” From this he thought he could deduce syllogistically all of the propositions of the Bible. Do you agree that this properly represents Clark’s position? (By the way, in prior posts in this thread, these words were quoted directly from Clark). If this is Clark’s position, then any deduction he provides that concludes to a proposition of Scripture contains premises not part of the axiom. This is fatal for any axiomatic system. In the case of Scripturalism, it means that all propositions in Scripture cannot be properly called justified knowledge. 

By the way, I do not have any problem saying that God is the ontological foundation for epistemology. My beef is that Scripturalism does not provide us with what it claims it does. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Vytautas

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It's not just about knowledge being found in scripture. The issue is _justified_ knowledge.



Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all _justified_ knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?


----------



## Theogenes

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Jim,
> 
> Thank you for your patience.
> 
> 
> 
> Clark said he had one axiom, namely, “The Bible is the word of God.” From this he thought he could deduce syllogistically all of the propositions of the Bible. Do you agree that this properly represents Clark’s position?
> 
> 
> (By the way, in prior posts in this thread, these words were quoted directly from Clark). If this is Clark’s position, then any deduction he provides that concludes to a proposition of Scripture contains premises not part of the axiom. This is fatal for any axiomatic system. In the case of Scripturalism, it means that all propositions in Scripture cannot be properly called justified knowledge.
> 
> By the way, I do not have any problem saying that God is the ontological foundation for epistemology. My beef is that Scripturalism does not provide us with what it claims it does.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Brian



Brian,
No, I do not believe you understand Clark's position. IN the statement, "The Bible alone is the Word of God", the word BIBLE represents ALL the propositions of Scripture. In other words,, Scripture is his axiomatic starting point. He didn't say that he could deduce all the propositions of Scripture from that statement. That is absurd. I think you are approaching the idea of axiom too reductionistically. He wasn't trying to deduce the propositions of Scripture from those eight words! In Clark's system he begins with the Scriptures as his starting point, as the source of knowledge and than by the process of deduction makes necessary inferences from that starting point. Pastors do this all the time when they preach a sermon. They begin with Scripture, exegete it's meaning and then deduce it's application for the congregation. That's what Clark does in his system, which is really not his system. It's the system that the WCF says is the biblical system (See WCF, Chap. 1, sec 6).
Also, Clark defines knowledge somewhere as "possession of the Truth", and "Truth is what God thinks". in my opinion we use the word "knowledge" very loosely and it covers everything from techical skills to the weather report. The Bible says, "IN Christ are hidden ALL the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge" , Col.2:3. God is omniscient and knows all the Truth, all true propositions. And he has chosen to reveal some of His mind to us - The Bible. This makes us dependent on Christ, the Teacher (who enlightens everyman -John 1:9) to teach us. If we know anything, it is because He has taught us. This demonstrates His Sovereignty in epistemology and not just in soteriology. Christ is the epistemological Logos as well as the soteriological Logos. 
Brian, I think your "beef" is barking up the wrong tree.
Jim


----------



## Theogenes

Richard,
See my reply to Brian above. 
Also, all knowledge is not found in the Scripture. It would have to be a much bigger book if that were the case! (See John 21:25)
All knowldege is in God's mind, right? He is omniscient. There is no knowledge outside of God's mind. "In Christ are hidden ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col.2:3), Note, ALL, not "some" of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And God has graciously revealed some of His mind to us. It's called the bible. And since God thinks logically and has made us in His image to do like wise, if we make a good and necessary deduction from Scripture that is Truth as well (See WCF, chap1, sec 6). 
Jim






Vytautas said:


> Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Jim,



Jim said:


> He didn't say that he could deduce all the propositions of Scripture from that statement. That is absurd.



Here is what Clark says in _An Introduction to Christian Philosophy_ on page 88…



Gordon Clark said:


> The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms…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.



Clark clearly thinks it is neither desirable nor necessary to make the “thousands of Biblical propositions” an aggregate set of axioms. It is not desirable because it does not allow one to arrange the truths of Scripture “in patterns of logical subordination.” It is not necessary because through deduction, syllogistically each of these thousands of propositions can be proved true. Is my understanding of Clark really absurd? I think not.

My “beef” is that when you deduce these thousands of Biblical propositions syllogistically from the one axiom one necessarily must use premises that are not part of the one axiom. These additional premises are not justified knowledge according to Scripturalism. As such, all the deductions fail to provide justified knowledge. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Theogenes

Brian,
Your "beef" was Mavrodes' "beef" citing the exact same statement by Clark. And Clark answers it here:http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1

Please read it and abandon your present course of thinking because it is to misunderstand Clark's position.
Please reply AFTER you've digested Clark's reply.
Thanks!
Jim


----------



## Davidius

Vytautas said:


> Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all _justified_ knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?



That's the whole point of this thread.  We're trying to figure out whether we can justify any knowledge without _starting_ with Clark's axiom.


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Jim,



> Please read it and abandon your present course of thinking because it is to misunderstand Clark's position.



I have read both Mavrodes and Clark's response. In fact, I am currently writing an analysis of the engagement. Why don't explain to me Clark's rebuttal to this argument, and square it with the quote I provided you? 

Brian


----------



## Theogenes

Brian,
I look forward to your analysis of the Clark/Mavrodes exchange. Here are two statements from Clark addressing your "beef" and Mavrodes:

"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".

And:

"There are two reasons why this seems to be a misunderstanding. In the earlier part of this reply, I argued that Mavrodes treated the Axiom as if the Bible were a mere word without content. Obviously from a word, nothing can be inferred. But such a nominalistic procedure is clearly not intended. Similarly, the Confession, when it says that all things necessary for the glory of God can be deduced from Scripture, does not use Scripture as an empty word. The Confession goes further, as I did not, and defines what it means by Scripture. The canonical list therefore is not a theorem deduced from the Axiom; it is a part of the Axiom itself in that it is the definition of its chief term. Hence the related objections fall away".


Jim


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Jim,



Clark said:


> 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.



We are not sure what criticism Clark is answering, but let's see if it overcomes my objection. Clark gives us the axiom...

*Axiom:* The Bible is the Word of God.

It seems from the quote above that we are to understand 'Bible' in its denotative sense. That is to say, we are to understand the term 'Bible' to refer to as series of conjunctions made up of each proposition of Scripture. If this is the case, then the axiom could be stated as follows...

*Axiom:* (P1^P2^P3^...^Pn) is the Word of God, where 'Pn' is a proposition of Scripture.

Ok, from the earlier Clark quote I provided you, he thinks from this that one can syllogistically derive as true all the Pn's of Scripture. I agree that this is the case. However, the problem of having to utilize other premises still remains. In order to use the axiom to derive any Pn, one must use other premises. By definition these other premises do not count as justified knowledge. Therefore, whatever derivations that utilize such premises cannot be considered justified knowledge. But maybe Clark overcomes this in the next quote you provided?



Clark said:


> There are two reasons why this seems to be a misunderstanding. In the earlier part of this reply, I argued that Mavrodes treated the Axiom as if the Bible were a mere word without content. Obviously from a word, nothing can be inferred. But such a nominalistic procedure is clearly not intended. Similarly, the Confession, when it says that all things necessary for the glory of God can be deduced from Scripture, does not use Scripture as an empty word. The Confession goes further, as I did not, and defines what it means by Scripture. The canonical list therefore is not a theorem deduced from the Axiom; it is a part of the Axiom itself in that it is the definition of its chief term. Hence the related objections fall away.



Well, this does clarify our axiom, but not by much. Rather, he is further defining what makes up the Bible. In other words, he is clarifying where all the the Pn's come from. If memory serves me correctly, for Clark the Bible is made up of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. 

*Axiom:* (P1^P2^P3^...^Pn) is the Word of God, where 'Pn' is a proposition from the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

Great, we know where each Pn comes from. However, this still does not address the issue. In order to deduce any Pn from the axiom other premises are needed. These other premises are by defintion unjustified knowledge. As such, all Pn's deduced from the axiom are unjustified. This is a serious problem for Scripturalism. I am unaware of anyone who has provided an adequate defense - including Clark. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Theogenes

Brian,
Since neither Sean, Anthony, me and Clark himself cannot make you able or willing to understand Clark's position I see no point in continuing this discussion. 
PS, I will read your full analysis of the Clark/Mavrodes interaction if you post it.

Jim


----------



## Brian Bosse

Hello Jim,



> Since neither Sean, Anthony, me and Clark himself cannot make you able or willing to understand Clark's position I see no point in continuing this discussion.



I think I understand Clark's position very well, and your attempt to help me see more clearly was not very vigorous. You provided me two quotes. When I explained how I understood those quotes, you just end the discussion. 



> PS, I will read your full analysis of the Clark/Mavrodes interaction if you post it.



Thank you.

Brian


----------

