# Aquascum's objections to Scripturalism



## Jon

Reference: http://www.reformed.plus.com/aquascum/summary.htm.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 1) Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent.


Invalid. Scripturalism has not been demonstrated to be self-referentially coherent, but that does not imply that it is _not_ self-referentially coherent. It must first be shown that the contrary is true before this argument holds. Otherwise, it is an _argumentum ad ignorantium_.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 2) Scripturalism is refuted by Scripture itself. (Mt. 24:32)


Invalid. Mt. 24:32 does not infer that when one empirically observes the tender branch of the fig tree and the putting forth of the fig leaves that summer is near. In order for this inference to be valid, the proposition would have to be generalized. The argument would run thusly. All times the fig tree's branch is tender and puts forth leaves are times that all men know summer is near. Only this universal proposition properly refutes Scripturalism and this proposition is clearly an impossible reading, for many people have no idea what a fig tree is, much less that its branches being tender and its leaves coming forth mean summer is near.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 3) The infallibilist constraint on knowledge is in conflict with Scripturalism and yet is regularly employed by Scripturalists against alternative modes of knowledge.


Invalid. Logic is deducible from Scripture and logic requires an "infallibilist contraint on knowledge." That is, "intuition, induction, and other sources of belief" cannot be sources of knowledge because they are not rational, meaning they cannot infer a necessary proposition.

I'm currently working on demonstrating propositional logic from Scripture, but these three verses"”Ex. 3:14, 2 Co. 1:18, Mt. 12:30"”affirm the laws of identity, contradiction, and excluded middle, respectively. That will have to suffice for a brief affirmation of logic from Scripture.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 4) The internalist constraint on knowledge is in conflict with Scripturalism and yet is regularly employed by Scripturalists in arguments against non-Christians.


Invalid. The prior response mostly applies here as well. Unless one can demonstrate how he knows proposition p, there is no rational basis for the proposition. An example immediately comes to mind. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him (Jas. 2:14 KJV)?" The application here is if a man says he has knowledge, but cannot demonstrate how he knows it, does he really have knowledge? This rhetorical question implies a no, just as it does in James.

Points 5-7 deal with Occasionalism, which are not necessary in a Scripturalist system, and will thus be ignored. (I too think occasionalism has insoluable problems.)



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 8) Scripturalists cannot show how a Christian worldview solves various philosophical and ethical problems raised for non-Christian worldviews.
> 
> 8.a) For instance, the law of non-contradiction (that A is not non-A) is a perfectly general law nowhere contained in Scripture nor validly deducible from propositions of Scripture.


Invalid. Of course it is: 2 Co. 1:18. The law of contradiction is also inferred from the law of identity: Ex. 3:14. Even more, the law is implied on every single page of Scripture because unless it holds, Scripture is meaningless. Language and meaning would be impossible unless a meant a and not non-a.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 8.b) Similarly, the notion that "nature is uniform and stable" (implicit in any inductive inference about the future) is neither a proposition of Scripture nor deducible from propositions of Scripture.


Invalid. The Scripturalist need not (and does not, if he is consistent) insist on the uniformity or stability of nature; rather, he insists on the will of God, which _is_ in Scripture: Is. 14:24, and many others.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 8.c) Likewise for various ethical claims, such that infanticide or racism is immoral.


Invalid. This objections ignores that the terms "infantcide" and "racism" come loaded with meaning and corresponding definitions, the language of which, when analyzed, can clearly be applied to the Scriptures and shown to be wrong. Infantcide is the killing of infants. This is murderous. Racism is the hatred of a person based on his race. This is a violation of the command to love one's neighbor. Only if these terms are emptied of their meaning does this objection hold.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 9) A Scripturalist cannot know that he exists, cannot have assurance of salvation, and cannot know how to apply God´s ethical requirements to his life.
> 
> 9.a) A proposition asserting the existence of any Scripturalist in particular (say, "œVincent Cheung exists") is neither contained in Scripture nor validly deducible from propositions of Scripture. Therefore, no Scripturalist can know that he exists.


I hate to come across as a stereotypical Scripturalist (because I'm not one), but I absolutely must insist on a definition of "exist" here. What does he mean by "exist"? I must insist this objection is invalid because it is highly ambiguous.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 9.b) Assurance that one is saved (a key component of Reformed, as opposed to Roman Catholic, doctrine) involves, at the very least, knowledge that one has repented and believed. But that is knowledge of a proposition neither contained in Scripture nor validly deducible from propositions of Scripture. Therefore, no Scripturalist can have assurance of salvation.


This begs the question. I repudiate the notion that "knowledge" one has repented and believed is necessary for assurance, and rather suggest that belief is what is required. The author ought to demonstrate how knowledge is required for assurance. As for me, John 3:16 is quite adequate.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 9.c) Finally, a married man can know how to apply God´s ethical requirements to his life--specifically, following the command "You shall not commit adultery""”only if he knows that the woman he is sleeping with is his wife. Since the proposition that some particular person is his wife is a proposition neither contained in Scripture nor validly deducible from propositions of Scripture, no Scripturalist can know how to apply God´s ethical requirements to his life. (Obviously, all of these examples could be multiplied.)


This does not follow. The Scripturalist can readily appeal to verses such as Romans 14:23, Hebrews 11:6, and others to demonstrate that acting without faith is sinful. Even more, when we couple this with the convicting testimony of the Spirit, it becomes clear that the Scripturalist cannot commit sin in good conscience.



> _Aquascum writes:_
> 10) A Scripturalist must reject historic Christian doctrine as something unknowable.


Invalid. This objection simply expresses the author's preference for the knowability of historic Christian doctrine, which in turn, begs the question. He ought to first demonstrate how these doctrines are knowable.



> _Jon writes:_
> These are just a few refutations of poor objections to Scripturalism by a semi-Scripturalist. In fact, Scripturalism has much bigger problems than Aquascum has even touched on. If one desires to defeat Scripturalism, one need only attack the incompleteness of the system. Since the Scripturalist must demonstrate everything from Scripture, it becomes easy to note that language itself is the Achilles' Heel of the system. If Scripturalism cannot produce a theory of language, and subsequently, meaning, then it cannot "know" what Scripture says.



Just some friendly, challenging thoughts from an optimistic Scripturalist.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

Aquascum writes:
1) Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent.

Jon writes:
Invalid. Scripturalism has not been demonstrated to be self-referentially coherent, but that does not imply that it is not self-referentially coherent. It must first be shown that the contrary is true before this argument holds. Otherwise, it is an argumentum ad ignorantium.

first, the link in the OP has an extra period on the end, it ought to read:
http://www.reformed.plus.com/aquascum/summary.htm

the full quote from this link at point 1) is:
1) Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent. The idea that all knowledge is restricted to propositions of Scripture and valid deductions from propositions of Scripture is itself neither a proposition of Scripture nor validly deducible from propositions of Scripture. Therefore, if Scripturalism were true, Scripturalists would have a good reason to reject Scripturalism.

This is certainly true. Where in Scripture does it say that ONLY the propositions from Scripture are valid?(and those things by good and necessary reasoning are derivable from such propositions)
It says that Scripture is true, that God is truthful, that Scripture is reliable and that God is faithful. How can you deduce from these propositions that God doesn't speak anywhere else then in Scripture?

Jon's argument simply doesn't make any sense, how do you prove coherence?(typically you show incoherence) What is self-referential coherence, or how would you go about proving it? What contrary are you talking about proving first? That Scripture is self-referentially incoherent? Well that is what it means that there does not exist a proposition T of Scripture, such that T states that all knowledge is contained within Scripture. To disprove this you need to quote Scripture or reasoning from Scripture that it does make such a sufficiency type of statement. I've seen it shown that Scripture is truthful but not that Scripture is exhaustive truth to the elimination of any other sources of truthful knowledge. You can anchor this argument in the nature of God in being Truthful but you can't simply attribute this exhaustiveness to Scripture especially given:



> Jhn 21:25	And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.



The attribute of God's exhaustive truthfulness is simply not a communicable attribute, not even to Scripture, nor to any epistemology attempted to be derived from it. Being that there are two logos- first the Logos, the Word, Christ the eternally existent, and the logos-the Word of God enscripted. Certainly you would not reduce Logos to logos or expand logos to fillup all of the Logos, which essentially what this claim of Scripturalism appears to do.

but of course, i may be completely wrong and your statement:


> Invalid. Scripturalism has not been demonstrated to be self-referentially coherent, but that does not imply that it is not self-referentially coherent. It must first be shown that the contrary is true before this argument holds. Otherwise, it is an argumentum ad ignorantium.


may make perfectly good sense to those far wiser than i am, but at this point, it is incoherent and doesn't do justice to the insight afforded to me by


> 1) Scripturalism is self-referentially incoherent. The idea that all knowledge is restricted to propositions of Scripture and valid deductions from propositions of Scripture is itself neither a proposition of Scripture nor validly deducible from propositions of Scripture. Therefore, if Scripturalism were true, Scripturalists would have a good reason to reject Scripturalism.





[Edited on 2-16-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Don

Jon said, 


> Invalid. Scripturalism has not been demonstrated to be self-referentially coherent, but that does not imply that it is not self-referentially coherent. It must first be shown that the contrary is true before this argument holds. Otherwise, it is an argumentum ad ignorantium.




Umm Jon, are you serious? did you read where aquascum said at the top of Top Ten Reasons List, "The following points are a *simplification* and a *summary* of many points made in my original Response. For further documentation and a more complete statement of the argument, please see that Response." I think you may have blundered or maybe I'm just completely missing something!

His original critique was the first link on the page, where he deals quite sufficiently with Cheung. *You are critiquing a summary*, and not his original piece! Many of his points are similar to Dr. Sudduth's! Here is the original critique (that Cheung has yet to reply to and whined about b/c Aquascum wanted to remain anonymous) with his main page of links to his various articles on Cheung and Scripturalism here. Aquascum, unlike Cheung, Robbins, et al, is a world class philosopher and it seems as though you have underestimated him! 

You have admitted that there is no rational justification for Scripturalism, have you not? Why hold on to a dead philosophy? Scripturalism has been 'killed' several times over by Manata all the way up to Dr. Sudduth and Aquascum. What purpose does it serve to attempt to deduce 'propositional logic' from Scripture? Methinks you guys are attempting to do things that God never intended to be done with the Bible and that your time could be much better spent. 

Plantinga, et al, like Van Til, would affirm that there is no knowledge 'outside' of God, this can be seen from his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. This is very similar to a transcendental type argument and I think it is formulated better than many of VT's arguments. James Anderson, a Van Tillian, (PHD, U of Edinburgh) has written a paper on this entitled "If Knowledge, then God" that you could google and read.


[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Don]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

thank you for the pointers to:
"If Knowledge, then God"
http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/papers/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf

and
"Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" by Plantinga
an audio is at:
http://www.hisdefense.org/LinkClick...ents+against+Naturalism.ram&tabid=136&mid=939
an outline of it is at:
http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by rmwilliamsjr]


----------



## Jon

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> This is certainly true. Where in Scripture does it say that ONLY the propositions from Scripture are valid?(and those things by good and necessary reasoning are derivable from such propositions)


If by valid, you mean sound (and I think you do), then that comes from the axiom that only the propositions of Scripture can be known to be true, which is precisely the point at issue.

The reason Aquascum's objection is fallacious is because he has not presented a sound argument to the contrary. Instead, since the axiom has not been demonstrated to be self-referentially coherent, he argues that it is not. This is an argument from ignorance.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> It says that Scripture is true, that God is truthful, that Scripture is reliable and that God is faithful. How can you deduce from these propositions that God doesn't speak anywhere else then in Scripture?


This misses the point a bit. The axiom does not say God doesn't speak elsewhere than Scripture (although, the Reformed doctrine of cessationalism would certainly have something to say on that matter; but I digress), instead, it says that nothing extra-biblical can be known to be true. The axiom does not propose that the Bible alone is true. It proposes that only the Bible can be known to be true.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> Jon's argument simply doesn't make any sense, how do you prove coherence?(typically you show incoherence)


In this particular case, demonstrating that the axiom implies itself would accomplish that. That is, showing that Scripture expounds the proposition that Scripture alone is knowable to men would show that Scripturalism is internally coherent because it implies itself. This is a sort of self-justification of the axiom. In other systems, such as logic, coherence is very strong because each law applies the other two. That seems to be what Aquascum is looking for, but I could be wrong. He doesn't define the term.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> What is self-referential coherence, or how would you go about proving it?


You ought to ask Aquascum that question, since it is his objection that demands it. As to how to prove it, that will be discussed below.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> What contrary are you talking about proving first? That Scripture is self-referentially incoherent? Well that is what it means that there does not exist a proposition T of Scripture, such that T states that all knowledge is contained within Scripture. To disprove this you need to quote Scripture or reasoning from Scripture that it does make such a sufficiency type of statement. I've seen it shown that Scripture is truthful but not that Scripture is exhaustive truth to the elimination of any other sources of truthful knowledge.


Scripturalism takes as its axiom this proposition: Scripture is the only source of knowledge (for men, obviously). Now, Aquascum protests that Scripturalism is thus self-referentially incoherent (it does not imply itself) because this axiom is not explicitly laid down in Scripture and cannot be deduced from Scripture. But this is not necessarily so. It is the case that no one has demonstrated that Scripture implies the axiom. It is not necessarily the case that it _does not_ imply it. In order for one to definitively say Scripture doesn't support the axiom is to study every verse and every possible implication of every verse and every possible implication of every verse when taken with every other possible verse and their implications, and so on. This type of indirect proof is practically impossible. Thus, what is needed is a sound argument that is contrary to the axiom. If one can show that Scripture implies _it is not_ the only source of knowledge then the axiom is shown to be spurious and self-contradictory. This is what Aquascum attempted to do with his second argument, an appeal to Mt. 24:32. That argument was invalid, though.

Until the contrary of the axiom can be proven, or until the impossbility of the axiom can be proven, the system remains incomplete. For all intents and purposes, this is really good enough reason to reject it for most people, though. In other words, it is irrational to accept the axiom of Scripturalism, but many people do it, anyway.

To be direct, Aquascum's premise, "[The axiom of Scripturalism] is not explicitly stated in Scripture or validly deducible from Scripture," is precisely the premise that must be proven in order for the argument to be sound. To do that, he must indirectly prove Scripture does not contain the axiom by demonstrating that every single possible inference from Scripture fails to support the axiom. Alternatively, he can prove the contrary, _viz._ that Scripture states it is _not_ the only source of knowledge for men.



> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> You can anchor this argument in the nature of God in being Truthful but you can't simply attribute this exhaustiveness to Scripture especially given:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jhn 21:25	And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attribute of God's exhaustive truthfulness is simply not a communicable attribute, not even to Scripture, nor to any epistemology attempted to be derived from it. Being that there are two logos- first the Logos, the Word, Christ the eternally existent, and the logos-the Word of God enscripted. Certainly you would not reduce Logos to logos or expand logos to fillup all of the Logos, which essentially what this claim of Scripturalism appears to do.
Click to expand...

This the second time you raised the objection that Scripture is not exhaustively true. So that there is no confusion, I will say that I agree with you whole-heartedly, and that every Scripturalist does as well. The axiom is not that the Bible alone is true. The axiom is that only the Bible can be _known_ to be true.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Jon

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Umm Jon, are you serious? did you read where aquascum said at the top of Top Ten Reasons List, "The following points are a *simplification* and a *summary* of many points made in my original Response. For further documentation and a more complete statement of the argument, please see that Response." I think you may have blundered or maybe I'm just completely missing something!


Yes, I had read the original (that is, the objection to Cheung) before. But, now that you mention it, I haven't read it since I began to critically analyze Scripturalism myself. But, I do remember reading this:



> _Aquascum writes:_
> Of course, Cheung is free to maintain that, as a matter of fact, SS2 is a proposition of Scripture or is validly deducible from propositions of Scripture. But in order for that claim to remain plausible in light of the foregoing argumentation, I think he´s going to need to produce such a case, and not just make vague claims about what follows from "biblical metaphysics." If he thinks it follows, let´s see the relevant syllogism. After all, this is what Cheung regularly requires of his unbelieving detractors when it comes to their epistemology.


And this supports what I was saying about Scripture not being proven to support Scripturalism. As I said, no one has demonstrated that SS2 follows from Scripture, but that does not mean it doesn't. So, the system is incomplete. Aquascum's charge in this regard is valid. I have pointed it out myself.



> _Originally posted by Don_
> His original critique was the first link on the page, where he deals quite sufficiently with Cheung. *You are critiquing a summary*, and not his original piece! Many of his points are similar to Dr. Sudduth's! Here is the original critique (that Cheung has yet to reply to and whined about b/c Aquascum wanted to remain anonymous) with his main page of links to his various articles on Cheung and Scripturalism here.


So as to avoid the charge that I was attacking a straw man, I will attempt to read all of Aquascum's arguments against Scripturalism and reply to those that my original replies do not sufficiently address.



> _Originally posted by Don_
> Aquascum, unlike Cheung, Robbins, et al, is a world class philosopher and it seems as though you have underestimated him!


Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Aquascum was a world class philosopher. I guess that means I must be wrong.

I'm sorry, Don, but that was a very silly comment.



> _Originally posted by Don_
> You have admitted that there is no rational justification for Scripturalism, have you not? Why hold on to a dead philosophy? Scripturalism has been 'killed' several times over by Manata all the way up to Dr. Sudduth and Aquascum. What purpose does it serve to attempt to deduce 'propositional logic' from Scripture? Methinks you guys are attempting to do things that God never intended to be done with the Bible and that your time could be much better spent.


How many years did it take the early church to come up with an orthodox formulation of the Trinity? How long did it take the church to formulate the doctrine of election? Hundreds of years on both counts. Scripturalism has been around for, what, 50 years? It is still in its infancy. Even more, it is an entire philosophical system, an entire worldview. It is not just one doctrine, but the defense of all doctrine. Surely you realize that your objection is just as irrational as an appeal to Scripturalism. It has not be disproven. It has simply be demonstrated over and over to be incomplete.

Why continue to study it as a subject? Well, "to see if these things are so" (Acts 17:11). Even more, it has extensive benefits if it can be shown to be self-referentially coherent. Being able to assume the whole content of Scripture from the very outset avoids all kinds of problems that other systems have in justifying their appeals to Scripture. In any case, I don't accep tyour opinion that Scripturalism is a "dead philosophy" that souldn't be studied. I think it ought to be studied to see if it is a viable philosophy. But I don't try to push this opinion on others as you do yours.



> _Originally posted by Don_
> Plantinga, et al, like Van Til, would affirm that there is no knowledge 'outside' of God, this can be seen from his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. This is very similar to a transcendental type argument and I think it is formulated better than many of VT's arguments. James Anderson, a Van Tillian, (PHD, U of Edinburgh) has written a paper on this entitled "If Knowledge, then God" that you could google and read.


Thanks for the article. I'll be sure to read it.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jon_
> ...
> To be direct, Aquascum's premise, "[The axiom of Scripturalism] is not explicitly stated in Scripture or validly deducible from Scripture," is precisely the premise that must be proven in order for the argument to be sound. To do that, he must indirectly prove Scripture does not contain the axiom by demonstrating that every single possible inference from Scripture fails to support the axiom. Alternatively, he can prove the contrary, _viz._ that Scripture states it is _not_ the only source of knowledge for men.
> ...
> _Soli Deo Gloria_
> 
> Jon



This drives me nuts because it seems to assume the if Aquascum could prove that the Axiom is not deducible from Scripture, he would be correct. ... But you CAN NOT DEDUCE AXIOMS! from what the infer without committing a fallacy. Axioms are_ assumed_ true. 

You can construct a formally valid argument for proving any axiom like this: A, therefore A. All propositions imply themselves. The law of identity says A implies A and not non-A. This axiom of logic establishes the fact that all axioms (all propositions) imply themselves. However, this is a tautology - which itself means it's true because it's true. It does not violate any forms of logic, but it is informally fallacious.

What Aquascum _must_ do to prove Scripturalism is incoherent, is show that Scripture contradicts Scripturalism. He would need to demonstrate a proposition of Scripture that says Scripture lies. Only that specific claim will prove the Scripturalism is self refuting. For the axiom of Scripturalism is Scripture is the Word of God - and all the we can know is Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom. 

Some will say if they can find a falsehood in Scripture, they have shown Scripturalism is incoherent. But to do that, they would need to reject the Axiom prior to finding the falsehood - because the Axiom implies that if it is false, it is not Scripture. Incoherence can only proven by starting with the Axiom, find something deducible from the Axiom (an undeniable Scripture) that itself contradicts the Axiom - that says "the Word of God is not true". Incoherence is proven only by showing that system leads to internal contradiction or contrary propositions. 

And let me repeat this. Axioms are not deduced. Axioms are not proven. Axioms are assumed true. Even if Scripture _no where_ claimed to be God's Word, this would not make Scripturalism incoherent. Only if Scripture contradicts or is contrary to the Axiom can you prove incoherence.

And consider this because it seems to be part of Aquascum's confusion. You can _believe_ things you do not _know_. This idea that you can not know Scripturalism is true based on it's own merits is a Red Herring. You can not "know" any axioms of any system no matter how hard you try. Epistemological axioms are accepted and believed at face value. You do not prove axioms. If you can prove an axiom from a priori truth - then it is _...not....an....axiom!_ And a proposition must always be justified from prior true propositions before it can be called knowledge. 

If you can not justify the truth of the proposition, it is a "belief". This is not a bad thing. Faith in the truth of Scripture is Christian faith. Belief in the Gospel is Christian faith. Really Scripturalism says that saving faith in the propositions of Scripture (which is the Gospel and Jesus and the Word) , basic belief in Jesus through believing His words is knowledge. We know Jesus by understanding His words (Scripture) and believing His words are truth (the Axiom of Scripture).

BTW Peter Singer is a "world class philosopher" and is still a moron. My 5-yr-old has more wisdom than him. So any appeal to position or authority is not convincing and has no bearing on the arguments Aquascum presents. 

P.S. Did you read Dr. Sudduths last post about his book to me? I'm realling looking forward to reading it.


----------



## Don

Jon,

You said, "And this supports what I was saying about Scripture not being proven to support Scripturalism. As I said, no one has demonstrated that SS2 follows from Scripture, but that does not mean it doesn't. So, the system is incomplete. Aquascum's charge in this regard is valid. I have pointed it out myself."

Jon, this is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. There is NO POSITIVE EPISTEMIC REASON for me to accept scripturalism. 

I might as well believe in 'invisible pink unicorns' as atheists like to charge Christians with and say, "oh yeah, but you can't *completely* disprove them! And I will search night and day until I find one!" 

That's the same kind of reasoning you are using. All you are saying here is, "Oh yeah, but you have not *completely* disproven it." you could say this about any philosophy under the sun! 

There are obviously more reasons not to accept Scripturalism than there are to accept it. And by the way, the burden belongs to you (I think you would admit this).


Jon said, "So as to avoid the charge that I was attacking a straw man, I will attempt to read all of Aquascum's arguments against Scripturalism and reply to those that my original replies do not sufficiently address."

Dude, it is extremely bad form to quote a summary and then attempt a refutation! I was trying to be nice, but that was silly! 


Jon said, "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Aquascum was a world class philosopher. I guess that means I must be wrong.

I'm sorry, Don, but that was a very silly comment."

Oh I'm sorry, BUT WHERE DID I CONCLUDE THAT YOU MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE HE IS A GOOD PHILOSOPHER? Pray tell. This is nothing more than an emotional response. 

I'm pointing this out to you b/c of the obvious blunder that you have made by not reading the SECOND SENTENCE of the article you were quoting and in the process, have seemed to grossly underestimate your opponent! I also made this comment because I find it somewhat intriguing that credentialed philosophers are sometimes said to not 'understand the nature of axioms' (Civbert) and other like comments about *basic* philosophy while 'Clarkians' do. Civbert did something similar to what has been done in this thread by calling Dr. Sudduth's critique a strawman since Sudduth commented on alethic scripturalism at the beginnning of his critique. The problem is that Civbert must not have read the entire critique because the majority of it was about *epistemic* scripturalism. 

All I am trying to point out is that AQUASCUM IS NOT AN INTERNET WARRIOR, with no credentials, like cheung, who will post quotes and other things that indicate that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread! 

That is what I consider silly, Jon.


Jon said, "How many years did it take the early church to come up with an orthodox formulation of the Trinity? How long did it take the church to formulate the doctrine of election? Hundreds of years on both counts. Scripturalism has been around for, what, 50 years? It is still in its infancy. Even more, it is an entire philosophical system, an entire worldview. It is not just one doctrine, but the defense of all doctrine. Surely you realize that your objection is just as irrational as an appeal to Scripturalism. It has not be disproven. It has simply be demonstrated over and over to be incomplete."

Nice false analogy! I would not put "scripturalism' in the same universe, much less the same ballpark or sentence, as the doctrine of the Trinity or election, but if you want to, then whatever. Besides, these doctrines had been around for quite some time prior to their formulations in different writings, including scripture. Scripturalism, on the other hand, besides being new as you have admitted, has been shown to be INCOHERENT! This is nothing more than an extremely weak attempt for you to hold onto it, but if you want to, then whatever. 

I'm not seeing how my objection is 'irrational'. Which kind of rationality am I not following when you speak of irrationality? I'm assuming one of the epistemic sort? 


Jon said, "Why continue to study it as a subject? Well, "to see if these things are so" (Acts 17:11). Even more, it has extensive benefits if it can be shown to be self-referentially coherent. Being able to assume the whole content of Scripture from the very outset avoids all kinds of problems that other systems have in justifying their appeals to Scripture. In any case, I don't accep tyour opinion that Scripturalism is a "dead philosophy" that souldn't be studied. I think it ought to be studied to see if it is a viable philosophy. But I don't try to push this opinion on others as you do yours."

Well Acts 17:11 seems to be lifted way out of it's context (but I digress). 

I'm not trying to *push* any opinion on anyone, you can believe whatever you wish. I am just trying to get you to be fair in your critiques. 

Why must I accept Scripturalism (or try to make it coherent) in order to be able to "assume the whole content of Scripture from the outset" to avoid "all kinds of problems that other systems have in justifying their appeals to Scripture"? Is this really necessary? Any argument to support this? I'm not sure how you can even claim this as a benefit, since Scripturalism has yet to be shown coherent or not self-defeating. 

I'm just attempting to offer some pointers and get you to actually critique what you are supposed to be critiquing. If you are going to salvage it and deduce propositional logic from Scripture, good luck. I'll spend my time looking for 'bible codes' instead!  (this was meant in good humor!)


Jon said, "Thanks for the article. I'll be sure to read it."

No problem. 

Don

*edited for readability as I was hurried earlier* 

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Don]


----------



## Don

Civbert,

I didn't read your entire post, as I am short on time, but I did notice this: 

"BTW Peter Singer is a "world class philosopher" and is still a moron. My 5-yr-old has more wisdom than him. So any appeal to position or authority is not convincing and has no bearing on the arguments Aquascum presents."


I think it's safe to assume *this* is directed at me, but I have not based any of my conclusions regarding Clark, Scripturalism, or anything else on whether someone is a 'world-class' philosopher or not, so *this* is pretty much useless.



[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Don]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

> This the second time you raised the objection that Scripture is not exhaustively true. So that there is no confusion, I will say that I agree with you whole-heartedly, and that every Scripturalist does as well. The axiom is not that the Bible alone is true. The axiom is that only the Bible can be known to be true.



A1=only the Bible can be know to be true.

this has at least two different ways of being interpreted.
1-internally, only those propositions expressed in the Bible can have full 100% reliability/justification/warrant attached to them. accent on the KNOWN.

2-externally, only those propositions from the Bible can be justified as true. That is the Bible only(out of all other possible justification mechanisms) warrants true propositions. accent of the TO BE TRUE.

which way are you using it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> Mt. 24:32 does not infer that when one empirically observes the tender branch of the fig tree and the putting forth of the fig leaves that summer is near. In order for this inference to be valid, the proposition would have to be generalized. The argument would run thusly. All times the fig tree's branch is tender and puts forth leaves are times that all men know summer is near. Only this universal proposition properly refutes Scripturalism and this proposition is clearly an impossible reading, for many people have no idea what a fig tree is, much less that its branches being tender and its leaves coming forth mean summer is near.


I have a serious problem with this, for it does not treat the Word of our Lord as a sentence to be taken seriously and at face value. It is not treated according to the science of hermeneutics, and more specifically the historical-grammatical method, but rather diseccted according to one particular school of logcal analysis.

Jesus is clearly speaking to persons here, whom he not only has good reason to _surmise_ (in his human nature) have such general knowledge *not deduced from Scripture,* I might add, (and the argument would hold for anyone who had been sufficiently (minimally?) educated in fig-horticulture). But also we may justly conclude that in his divine capacity, he _knows_ that they _know_ what he says is true.

What are we to make of Jesus' statement, if we conclude that he was _not_ appealing to the knowledge presumed in the minds of his hearers? OK, so Jesus was not making an unconditional claim _about knowledge._ Yet he is still saying _something in general_ about human knowledge and reasoning, and something specific related to these Jew's knowledge, something that is _sufficiently valid_ with respect to his hearers to bring them into judgment!

Can we think of conditions under which Jesus' specific assertion (if universalized) could be falsified? Yes, we can. If the tree's environment is artificially altered, if its internal chronometer or season-sensing mechanism is tampered with, damaged, or blighted by disease, etc. But what are these but a violation of _cetaris paribus_? Such exceptions are not Jesus' interest in making his claim.

Paul in Rom 1:31 (cf. Rom. 2:15) tells us that the ungodly know about God's judgment without ever seeing a word of inscripturated revelation. This isn't even knowledge gained empirically or rationally, but is _innate_. If a person begins with some innate knowledge, how can he *not* be said to gain real additional knowledge from both rational and emperical process? If your theory of knowledge functions in a black-white world of building blocks and integers, and has no *calculus,* no doctrine of _sufficiency,_ it is impoverished and useless in the real world.


----------



## Magma2

> I have a serious problem with this, for it does not treat the Word of our Lord as a sentence to be taken seriously and at face value. It is not treated according to the science of hermeneutics, and more specifically the historical-grammatical method, but rather diseccted according to one particular school of logcal analysis.
> 
> Jesus is clearly speaking to persons here, whom he not only has good reason to surmise (in his human nature) have such general knowledge not deduced from Scripture, I might add, (and the argument would hold for anyone who had been sufficiently (minimally?) educated in fig-horticulture). But also we may justly conclude that in his divine capacity, he knows that they know what he says is true.



I also have a serious problem when men wrongly ascribe Mt. 24:32 as a blanket affirmation and categorical endorsement of empiricism or some form of extra-biblical or sensate epistemology. Jesus was making an ad hominem argument (which are obviously not always fallacious). John Locke said this type of ad hominem argument is "œto press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions." Those who use this passage as some sort of proof-text against the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark seem positively oblivious to the fact that Jesus was referencing a _parable_; "Now learn the parable from the fig tree . . . ." Jesus was using the parable as an example of something his hearers would readily accept to illustrate something they would not. A similar example is found in Mat 16:

"œBut He answered and said to them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. And in the morning, 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?"

In either case the examples Jesus uses he does so in an ad hominem fashion and are not divine endorsements of empirical or extra-biblical epistemologies. Those who attempt to use such passages in this manner are indeed violating the science of hermeneutics and the historical-grammatical method and are imposing their own epistemological, and not very logical, prejudices upon the Scriptures.

BTW, does this Aquascum have a real name? Further, why would anyone take seriously a man who 1) is obviously too cowardly to use his real name, and, 2) uses an alias that invites the reader to equate him with pond scum?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> BTW, does this Aquascum have a real name? Further, why would anyone take seriously a man who 1) is obviously too cowardly to use his real name, and, 2) uses an alias that invites the reader to equate him with pond scum?



I am not sure of Aquascum's real name but Aqua has pointed out that his alias is from Finding Nemo and the machine that cleans that scum from the aquariums.


----------



## ChristianTrader

How does Scripturalism treat the two or more witness statement by scripture for something to be established? For example if you have two unimpeached witnesses to a murder, then you can without execute the murderer. It seems that in this case, we have extrascriptural knowledge. If this knowledge is considered scriptural then, it seems that you have made the term a catchall with no specific meaning.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Questions:
1) Are the fig tree and the sky accurate predictors, or aren't they?

2) Did Jesus use commonly accepted conventional wisdom, but in actuality (as he must have well known) totally inaccurate, indeed false, "old wives tales" as the basis for his parables?

No one, from what I can tell, is "ascrib[ing] Mt. 24:32 as a blanket affirmation and categorical endorsement of empiricism or some form of extra-biblical or sensate epistemology." It is sufficient that enough (even just a little bit!) be said generally about human knowledge to cast a healthy shadow of doubt over the sweeping, categorical claims of Scripturalism. When it is claimed that these verses affirm that knowledge in _some_ measure is available through the senses, that is not a denial that some knowledge is also innate, and some knowledge is accessible through the use of reason.

Scripturalism fails the same test that voids every other totalitarian epistemological system--be it rationalistic or empericist. When the evolutionary Scientist claims "we just don't have that answer *yet*," according to his religious commitment to what Dabney refered to as "the sensualistic philosophy," he is actually saying, as RJR once slyly put it, "our system cannot produce any answer _that we know of_." Likewise, Scripturalism's claim to _eventually_ be able to produce all the necessary axioms to justify a coherent, stable system, to the irrelevance and falsification of every other system, is just as open to the charge of fantastic, undemonstrable assertion. First produce the system. First produce the results. Then let the system dominate, if it can.

Saying that this criteria is obviated by this appeal:


> "This is THE Christian system! See how high a place we are according to the Bible? We do that better than anybody else (we're sure about that!). Then, by definition, everyone else is using a bastardized version at best.


is open to obvious charges. And I think Robbins' peerless viciousness toward any other contender for the title of "best biblical epistemology" is proof of the totalitarian nature of Scripturalism. Most well-known or published proponents of other "biblical epistemologies" exhibit far more humility and grace, no matter how convinced they are that their's is best or truest to the written Word.

The ugliest Calvinists are the ones who can never be brought to say, "I'm willing to entertain the notion, however improbable, that I could have been misled about the nature of salvation by grace. After all, I'm asking you Mr. Arminian to entertain just such a notion regarding your own convictions." The true Calvinist believes in grace so much that he's sure the Arminian will never be persuaded except by God's Spirit anyway (1 Cor. 4:7). The same kind of thing may be said of epistemologies.

I don't think the ground won back by pointing to the "ad hominem" nature of Jesus' argument is powerful enough to remove the cloud obscuring Scripturalism's shiny, steel finish. Either Scripturalism is perfect, and indestructible, or it is wrong. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

Clark's Scripturalism left him unable, at least in a formal sense, to affirm that he could know (a real-llife incident) if the woman he was walking with at that moment was his wife or not (or all the subsidiaries of that single question). Skepticism, then, in the realm of everyday life.

At the end of the day we have to realize that no one lives, or ever has lived, by the epistemic principles of Scripturalism. It isn't possible to live in this world that way. And if we cannot, then I have serious reservations that the world of Scripturalism is the world God created and redeemed.


This is all I have to say in this thread. Blessings on y'alls continued speculations. I'm out.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> How does Scripturalism treat the two or more witness statement by scripture for something to be established? For example if you have two unimpeached witnesses to a murder, then you can without execute the murderer. It seems that in this case, we have extrascriptural knowledge. If this knowledge is considered scriptural then, it seems that you have made the term a catchall with no specific meaning.



Good question! 

But I don't think the Bible is calling that epistemological knowledge. This is not requiring an absolute deductive proof of guilt, but a deduction of the probability of guilt based on witness testimony. 

Technically speaking, it is not inductive unless we claim that we can know (prove for a fact) that a person committed murder. But if we are only claiming that we believe there is a strong probability that the person committed murder, then we have deduced our conclusion - which is a strongly reasoned opinion.

Now as far as Scripturalism goes, this is consistent with the Axiom. We can know that all men are guilty of sin, that all deserve eternal punishment. And we can deduce from Scripture (which is true) that we should not assume a person is guilty of murder based on only one witness. Why? If we could "know" a murder is guilty based on two witness, we could do the same with only one. But since we know that witnesses can be wrong, then we need more than one witness to increase the likelihood that the person is guilty. We still don't "know" he is guilty, but our "opinion" has a stronger basis.

Not extrabibilical knowledge, but extrabiblical opinion.

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

> How does Scripturalism treat the two or more witness statement by scripture for something to be established? For example if you have two unimpeached witnesses to a murder, then you can without execute the murderer. It seems that in this case, we have extrascriptural knowledge. If this knowledge is considered scriptural then, it seems that you have made the term a catchall with no specific meaning.



It seems to me that you are equivocating on the word knowledge. I don´t know if anyone, certainly not any lawyer worth his salt, would say that the testimony of two or more witnesses, even two or more eye witnesses, established the truth of anything. Witness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy. Witnesses routinely contradict themselves, change their stories, selectively embellish or detract, the list goes on. Deu 17:6 for example supplies the necessary standard for rendering judgments in capitol offenses, nothing from that verse or any other similar verse requires the inference that evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses renders a judgment defacto true. Are such standards sufficient for a system of jurisprudence? Of course. Are such standards sufficient for epistemology? Not a chance.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> How does Scripturalism treat the two or more witness statement by scripture for something to be established? For example if you have two unimpeached witnesses to a murder, then you can without execute the murderer. It seems that in this case, we have extrascriptural knowledge. If this knowledge is considered scriptural then, it seems that you have made the term a catchall with no specific meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question!
> 
> But I don't think the Bible is calling the epistemological knowledge. This is not requiring an absolute deductive proof of guilt, but a deduction of the probability of guilt based on witness testimony.
Click to expand...


If you are trying to say that it is not infalliblly true that person X is guilty of murder, then yes you are correct. However the point is that we are required to count it is as true until possible evidence of collusion etc. took place.

At this point, you have the right to say, "Person X is guilty of the murder and we will execute said person tomorrow." At this point, we can say that this is the truth.



> Technically speaking, it is not inductive unless we claim that we can know (prove for a fact) that a person committed murder. But if we are only claiming that, we believe there is a strong probability the the person committed murder, then we have deduced our conclusion - which is a strongly reasoned opinion.



Only if you wish to say that the only time we can use knowledge is if we are infallibly certain, can such a statement as the one above, make sense. I have not seen any argument for that position.



> Now as far as Scripturalism goes, this is consistent with the Axiom. We can know that all men are guilty of sin, that all deserve eternal punishment. And we can deduce from Scripture (which is true) that we should not assume a person is guilty of murder based on only one witness. Why? If we could know a murder is guilty based on two witness, we could do the same with only one.



That is not necessarily true. The fact with two or more unimpeachable witnesses, then one has to go from the possibility of mistake to the position that only evildoing on the part of the witnesses could account for the falsehood. 



> But since we know that witness can be wrong, then we need more than one witness to increase the likelihood that the person is guilty. We still don't "know" he is guilty, but our "opinion" has a stronger basis.
> 
> Not extrabibilical knowledge, but extrabiblical opinion.



If you wish to say that opinion can reach the level of certainty that a person can be executed rightly for the committing of murder or other capital crimes, then we are only really arguing over word usage. Which really is not worth much time.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> How does Scripturalism treat the two or more witness statement by scripture for something to be established? For example if you have two unimpeached witnesses to a murder, then you can without execute the murderer. It seems that in this case, we have extrascriptural knowledge. If this knowledge is considered scriptural then, it seems that you have made the term a catchall with no specific meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you are equivocating on the word knowledge. I don´t know if anyone, certainly not any lawyer worth his salt, would say that the testimony of two or more witnesses, even two or more eye witnesses, established the truth of anything.
Click to expand...


The Bible say that it does, so that should end the discussion.



> Witness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy. Witnesses routinely contradict themselves, change their stories, selectively embellish or detract, the list goes on.



This is definitely true, which is why you have to unimpeachable witnesses. If they tell the same story, then it is established.



> Deu 17:6 for example supplies the necessary standard for rendering judgments in capitol offenses, nothing from that verse or any other similar verse requires the inference that evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses renders a judgment defacto true.



What do you mean by defacto? It is considered true to the level that someone is to be executed righteously.



> Are such standards sufficient for a system of jurisprudence? Of course. Are such standards sufficient for epistemology? Not a chance.



The point is that the Bible says that this standard is a good one. That should be enough to end the debate on it.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Questions:
> 1) Are the fig tree and the sky accurate predictors, or aren't they?



Sure. Scripturalism does not refute that. Fig tress are accurate predictors of changes in season, and one may have good reason to believe the seasons have changed based on observations of fig trees. But this is neither epistemological knowledge nor empiricism.

First one must know what is a fig tree. And what is a leaf. And what is the relationship between the fig tree's buds and the seasons. Then from this *a priori* knowledge, one may *deduce* that the season are _ most likely_ changing when one observes the buds of a fig tree. This is actually a logical deduction based on prior true propositions to wit - that the fig tree is a good "indicator" of the change of seasons. What is deduced is not a universal principle - ergo it is not induction. And it is not based solely on sense experience, ergo it is not empiricism. It is does not contradict Scripture so we can reasonably believe it. 

We can also believe snow is a good indicator of winter, and rain is a good indicator that we should pack an umbrella.

Since Scripturalism does not dispute that one may believe things are probably or possibly true based on extra-biblical evidence (even if we can not technically "know" them) - this does not contradict Scripturalism. What Scripturalism rejects is that extra-biblical evidence can falsify Scripture, or have any bearing on the truths of Scripture. It does not say you can not hold the very strong opinion that you can safely drive your car over that bridge, but that you can not "know" that the bridge will not collapse not matter how hard you reason. It will always remain a small possibility.

There is the false conception that Scripturalism means that everything outside of Scripture (or deducible therefrom) is false or unbelievable. It is technically "unknowable" but this does not mean that we can not have certain belief in extra-biblical propositions. What Scripturalism does is make Scripture the only thing we can know with certain justification. It does not reject all that we can believe extra-biblical "truths'. And we will often call this knowing even if this is technically incorrect. 

We can have very strong reasons for believing things are true that are extra-biblical. No question about it. We can believe the theory of relativity, or that I am hungry, or Joe Blow is one of the elect. We can have strong arguments for believing these things. But we can not "know" these things in the sense that they are absolutely necessarily justifiably true. Joe may be lost, relativity may be false, and maybe I have heartburn. Do you not agree? This is just a matter of how we differentiate between knowledge and opinion. We believe both, some we believe with great certainty. But only the things that we can demonstrate from Biblical premises, do we call knowledge. Operationally, we still do the same things, and reason the same way. Scripturalism just puts God's revelation above all other things we believe by saying:

"This we know! - God's Word is True!

If you claim the Scripture is God's infallible word. And if you agree with the WCF that we can know the Scriptures, and what we can deduce from them are true doctrines that are applicable for, not just the church, but our daily lives. And if you reject worldly philosophies that attempt to make make man's thinking and knowing independent of God's sovereignty. Then you, my friend, are really a Scripturalist. It's not that complicated - it's just a matter being consistent with how you define the term knowledge and how you separate knowledge from opinion. 

For some reason, men want to give man a degree of freedom to operate independent of God's will. And so we find Scripturalism a threat to our independence- for it makes mans knowledge totally dependent on God. Scripturalism asserts that anything we believe true independently of God's clear revelation in Scripture is questionable - because man is a sinner and sin has consequences. Mans' knowledge is dependent on God's revelation, for only God's verbal revelation gives us any sure foundation of truth that we can reason from our about. Non-propositional experience itself can not produce propositions (although experience can play a role in what we believe), and reason itself independent of revelation can not produce propositions. The only hope we have that we can have knowledge is God's verbal propositional revelation in Scripture. What is the alternative?

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> This drives me nuts because it seems to assume the if Aquascum could prove that the Axiom is not deducible from Scripture, he would be correct. ... But you CAN NOT DEDUCE AXIOMS! from what the infer without committing a fallacy. Axioms are_ assumed_ true.
> 
> You can construct a formally valid argument for proving any axiom like this: A, therefore A. All propositions imply themselves. The law of identity says A implies A and not non-A. This axiom of logic establishes the fact that all axioms (all propositions) imply themselves. However, this is a tautology - which itself means it's true because it's true. It does not violate any forms of logic, but it is informally fallacious.
> 
> What Aquascum _must_ do to prove Scripturalism is incoherent, is show that Scripture contradicts Scripturalism. He would need to demonstrate a proposition of Scripture that says Scripture lies. Only that specific claim will prove the Scripturalism is self refuting. For the axiom of Scripturalism is Scripture is the Word of God - and all the we can know is Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom.
> 
> Some will say if they can find a falsehood in Scripture, they have shown Scripturalism is incoherent. But to do that, they would need to reject the Axiom prior to finding the falsehood - because the Axiom implies that if it is false, it is not Scripture. Incoherence can only proven by starting with the Axiom, find something deducible from the Axiom (an undeniable Scripture) that itself contradicts the Axiom - that says "the Word of God is not true". Incoherence is proven only by showing that system leads to internal contradiction or contrary propositions.
> 
> And let me repeat this. Axioms are not deduced. Axioms are not proven. Axioms are assumed true. Even if Scripture _no where_ claimed to be God's Word, this would not make Scripturalism incoherent. Only if Scripture contradicts or is contrary to the Axiom can you prove incoherence.
> 
> And consider this because it seems to be part of Aquascum's confusion. You can _believe_ things you do not _know_. This idea that you can not know Scripturalism is true based on it's own merits is a Red Herring. You can not "know" any axioms of any system no matter how hard you try. Epistemological axioms are accepted and believed at face value. You do not prove axioms. If you can prove an axiom from a priori truth - then it is _...not....an....axiom!_ And a proposition must always be justified from prior true propositions before it can be called knowledge.
> 
> If you can not justify the truth of the proposition, it is a "belief". This is not a bad thing. Faith in the truth of Scripture is Christian faith. Belief in the Gospel is Christian faith. Really Scripturalism says that saving faith in the propositions of Scripture (which is the Gospel and Jesus and the Word) , basic belief in Jesus through believing His words is knowledge. We know Jesus by understanding His words (Scripture) and believing His words are truth (the Axiom of Scripture).
> 
> BTW Peter Singer is a "world class philosopher" and is still a moron. My 5-yr-old has more wisdom than him. So any appeal to position or authority is not convincing and has no bearing on the arguments Aquascum presents.
> 
> P.S. Did you read Dr. Sudduths last post about his book to me? I'm realling looking forward to reading it.




Civbert, 

Methinks you are still highly confused. Aquascum said that Mt 24:32 *disproves* or *refutes* Scripturalism (as also stated in his summary). Whether this is correct or not, I'll let the reader decide. I'm missing where Mr. Aquascum has required a Scripturalist to *prove* an axiom, which seems to be the point where you have misrepresented him. 

You do not seem to be able to distinguish between 
1) a system affirming a proposition (p) and not being able to prove (p);
with
2) a system affirming p while the system entails not p (or ~p) 

or as Aquascum said, "...it does not pass its own prescriptions for a rational noetic structure."

This is basic, and I am wondering why a 'Clarkian' would not know it, considering the claims that are made by you guys. 

'The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy' states that self-referential incoherency is "an internal defect of an assertion or theory, which it possesses provided that (a) it establishes some requirement that must be met by assertions or theories, (b) it is itself subject to this requirement, and (c) it fails to meet this requirement". p.826. Like Jon said in the other thread, the most popular self-referential incoherency is logical positivism.


[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

> Questions:
> 1) Are the fig tree and the sky accurate predictors, or aren't they?



Probably sometimes. So are RUNE stones I imagine. Are meteorologists on the evening news always accurate predictors of tomorrow´s weather? How about five days from now?

Of course, this is all besides the point if Jesus was arguing ad hominem as I contend he was. 



> 2) Did Jesus use commonly accepted conventional wisdom, but in actuality (as he must have well known) totally inaccurate, indeed false, "old wives tales" as the basis for his parables?



Well, it is indeed _false_ that fig trees and the sky are always an accurate or even reliable predictors of anything, much less the seasons or even tomorrow´s weather. This is why such things are called "œpredictions." So, yes, Jesus used commonly accepted conventional wisdom as a means of highlighting the unbelief of his hearers and as illustrations which he used to point to the source of real wisdom and truth. For in Christ "œare hidden all [and not just some of] the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." But, since this started with Mat. 24 does the word parable mean anything to you?  



> No one, from what I can tell, is "ascrib[ing] Mt. 24:32 as a blanket affirmation and categorical endorsement of empiricism or some form of extra-biblical or sensate epistemology." It is sufficient that enough (even just a little bit!) be said generally about human knowledge to cast a healthy shadow of doubt over the sweeping, categorical claims of Scripturalism.



Not in the slightest. If that´s what you think it established you certainly haven´t demonstrated it, least of all from that verse. 



> When it is claimed that these verses affirm that knowledge in some measure is available through the senses, that is not a denial that some knowledge is also innate, and some knowledge is accessible through the use of reason.



But look at how you wiggle and hedge. What does "œknowledge in some measure" mean exactly? Also, how do you arrive at knowledge, any knowledge, "through the senses"? Well, you haven´t told us, but you merely assert the very thing you need to demonstrate.



> Scripturalism fails the same test that voids every other totalitarian epistemological system--be it rationalistic or empericist. When the evolutionary Scientist claims "we just don't have that answer yet," according to his religious commitment to what Dabney refered to as "the sensualistic philosophy," he is actually saying, as RJR once slyly put it, "our system cannot produce any answer that we know of." Likewise, Scripturalism's claim to eventually be able to produce all the necessary axioms to justify a coherent, stable system, to the irrelevance and falsification of every other system, is just as open to the charge of fantastic, undemonstrable assertion. First produce the system. First produce the results. Then let the system dominate, if it can.



You´ve evidently said a lot, but I´m not at all sure you really said anything. What is totalitarian about an epistemology which begins and ends with; for the Bible tells me so? Further, all axioms are indemonstrable, that´s why they´re called axioms. Do the Scriptures provide evidence that they are the Word of God? Of course. Is there a demonstration by which we can prove that the Scriptures are the Word of God? Well, if there is such a proof, then I would think that, whatever "œthat" is, would be the axiom of the Christian faith, not the Scriptures. Beyond that, I don´t think you realize that every system of thought, every philosophy, if it´s going to start must start somewhere. That _somewhere_ is that system´s axiom. The real test of any axiom is whether or not it can account for or "œcovers" all that follows. The axiom of the Scriptures does this with flying colors and the Bible testifies to this truth; "œAll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God *may be perfect*, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."



> Saying that this criteria is obviated by this appeal:
> Quote:
> "This is THE Christian system! See how high a place we are according to the Bible? We do that better than anybody else (we're sure about that!). Then, by definition, everyone else is using a bastardized version at best.
> is open to obvious charges. And I think Robbins' peerless viciousness toward any other contender for the title of "best biblical epistemology" is proof of the totalitarian nature of Scripturalism. Most well-known or published proponents of other "biblical epistemologies" exhibit far more humility and grace, no matter how convinced they are that their's is best or truest to the written Word.



So your argument is; Scripturalism is totalitarian and false because you don´t like John Robbins and consider him "œvicious." Not a very strong argument. I happen to like John Robbins very much and don´t find him in the least bit vicious or totalitarian in the least. If anything, Robbins is a political libertarian and I strongly recommend his economic lectures (which I pray one day that he will develop into a book, which I think will mark him as one of the most important Christian writers in the field of economics, in spite of your unchristian disdain for the man). 



> The ugliest Calvinists are the ones who can never be brought to say, "I'm willing to entertain the notion, however improbable, that I could have been misled about the nature of salvation by grace. After all, I'm asking you Mr. Arminian to entertain just such a notion regarding your own convictions." The true Calvinist believes in grace so much that he's sure the Arminian will never be persuaded except by God's Spirit anyway (1 Cor. 4:7). The same kind of thing may be said of epistemologies.



OK, you completely lost me. How did we get from a discussion of Clark´s epistemology and Mat 24 to a discussion of Arminianism? I think the discussion of the so-called practical benefits of ersatz-evangelical Arminianism is winding down on another thread. =



> I don't think the ground won back by pointing to the "ad hominem" nature of Jesus' argument is powerful enough to remove the cloud obscuring Scripturalism's shiny, steel finish. Either Scripturalism is perfect, and indestructible, or it is wrong. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground.



Well, if we agree that Jesus´ argument in Mat. 24 is ad hominem then this is but one argument that again fails to mar Scripturalism's "œshiny, steel finish."  



> Clark's Scripturalism left him unable, at least in a formal sense, to affirm that he could know (a real-llife incident) if the woman he was walking with at that moment was his wife or not (or all the subsidiaries of that single question). Skepticism, then, in the realm of everyday life.



Yes, Clark was skeptical about many things, because unlike many of his critics, he wasn´t satisfied with begging the question. He saw the Word of God alone as the one and only way out from the inevitable and abject skepticism that has destroyed every other system of thought. While certainly not overt, this is the overwhelming message of the first work I ever read by Clark; Thales to Dewey. Beyond that, Clark clearly saw that Peter wasn´t engaging in hyperbole when he said the Word of God is a "œ lamp shining in a dark place." Most of his critics, and I dare say this would include you, seem to think God´s Word is a lamp shining in a dimly lit place, but certainly not a dark place. I think you and others miss the epistemological import of such passages. 

Anyway, I guess to sum up, I agree with Anthony :bigsmile:


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> Civbert,
> 
> Methinks you are still highly confused. Aquascum said that Mt 24:32 *disproves* or *refutes* Scripturalism (in his summary). Whether this is correct or not, I'll let the reader decide. I'm missing where Mr. Aquascum has required a Scripturalist to *prove* an axiom, which seems to be the point where you have misrepresented him.
> 
> You do not seem to be able to distinguish between
> 1) a system affirming a proposition (p) and not being able to prove (p);
> with
> 2) a system affirming p while the system entails not p (or ~p)
> 
> or as Aquascum said, "...it does not pass its own prescriptions for a rational noetic structure."
> 
> This is basic, and I am wondering why a 'Clarkian' would not know it, considering the claims that are made by you guys.
> 
> 'The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy' states that self-referential incoherency is "an internal defect of an assertion or theory, which it possesses provided that (a) it establishes some requirement that must be met by assertions or theories, (b) it is itself subject to this requirement, and (c) it fails to meet this requirement". p.826. Like Jon said in the other thread, the most popular self-referential incoherency is logical positivism.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]



But lets look at the quote. It appears that a self-referential incoherent system must meet the following criteria:

_(a) it establishes some requirement that must be met by assertions or theories,_

What are the requirements of Scripturalism. It says that for us to justify the truth of a proposition, it must be either a proposition of Scripture (Scripture is true), or deducible from Scripture (what can be deduced from Scripture is true). 

_(b) it is itself subject to this requirement,_

Does Scripturalism say that we can justify the truth of "the Scripture is true"? Nope. We can believe it. We can not "know" it. We can not deduce an axiom from within a system without committing the fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning. 

So the axiom is not subject to this requirement. What about the the propositions of Scripture themselves? Are there any false propositions of Scripture? If you give me a Scriptural proposition that says Scripture is false, then this would be incoherent and Scripturalism fails. If you can show me a false Scriptural propositions, you must first assume Scripture can be false and thereby presume Scripturalism is false.

_(c) it fails to meet this requirement". _

(b) is not required by the axiom, so (c) does not apply. And since no proposition of Scripture says Scripture is false, then nothing in the system fails this requirement.

Ergo, Scripturalism IS self-referential coherent. 

The reason Aquascum argument fails so completely is he is apparently ignorant of the fact that every system of knowledge, without exception, must start with axioms. This can be shown simply by asking "how do you know?" two or three times until you either travel in a circle (tautology) or reach the axiom which can not be proven from any a priori true propositions within the system. 

Take any philosophical system and ask how do you know. It will always be circular or have a clear axiom. The results are the same - you CAN'T START FROM NOTHING so you MUST START WITH SOMETHING. That something is the axiom of the system. YOU MUST ASSUME THE AXIOM IS TRUE to check to see if the system is coherent. If the axiom leads to contradictory statements, it is incoherent. And if you assume the axiom is false, you can not check the system is coherent. 

No rational system functions without axioms. 

The only question is what is the axioms you chose. You have to chose or you can not know anything at all. And you have already chosen if you claim to know anything at all. 


Do you know anything?

What do you know?

How do you know that?

How do you know that?
 
Again, for Aquascum to refute Scripturalism, all he needs to do is give show a propositions from Scripture that say scripture is false or implies scripture is false. That all. That the only thing that can make Scripturalism incoherent. 

Mt 24:32 doe not say Scripture is false - and it does not prove we can know anything apart from Scripture or deduction therefrom _unless_ one first assumes first we can know anything apart from Scripture. And if one assumes we can know anything apart from Scripture, one has ipso facto assumed Scripturalism is false. 

Follow carefully: to prove from Scripture that one can know something apart from Scripture _ is itself self-referentially incoherent!!_ 


Scripture proves we can know things apart from Scripture.

How do you know this? 

From Scripture. 

But your claim it to know things apart from Scripture. What do you know apart from Scripture?

I know that _X_.

How do you know _X_?

Because Scripture says I can.

Then _X_ is _not_ known apart from Scripture.

So, you can not refute Scripturalism internally. And to refute it externally with extra-biblical knowledge is begging the question.


----------



## Civbert

This is an aside but I think it may have some application.

Euler's Geometry has maybe 5 axioms from which all it's theorems are proven. And since there are more than one axiom that it assumes, then there is the potential that some of the theorems could be contradictions.

But what about a system with only one axiom? Can anything correctly deduced from one axiom lead to a contradiction? I believe this is impossible. However I'm open to suggestion.

Now how many axioms does Scripturalism have. I've heard it this way: Scripturalism say that all propositions of Scripture are true, as well as all propositions that can be deduced from Scripture. But the second part follows logically from the first part. Really, there is only one necessary proposition for the axiom of Scripturalism: all Scripture is true. 

Now logically, the I form follow from the A form. That is, if all of something is x, then some of something is also x. If all Clarkians are monkeys, then some Clarkians (those living in Jonesborough) are monkeys.

Scripturalism: All Scripture is true, implies some Scripture (Jesus is the Son of God) is true. And also (David was King of Israel) is true. And also all men are sinners is true.

So the whole of the propositions of Scripture are implied from the Axiom of Scripturalism. And logically, anything that follows from the propositions are likewise true: the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Now back to my earlier statement. Since Scripturalism has only one axiom, then none of the propositions that follows from this axiom (all the propositions of Scripture) can contradict themselves or the axiom. Of course we already agree with this if we agree the Scripture can not contradict Scripture. So although Aquascum seems to give a valid argument to refute Scripturalism, it is impossible for him to truly refute it.

Now I know immediately (more correctly is I believe most assuredly) that the first objection will be said that Scripturalism says the _all_ truth is Scripture. Well no, this is not correct. No sane Scripturalist makes this claim. First because this denies the propositions deduced from Scripture, and this limits truth (and thereby God's knowledge) to the propositions of Scripture.

The next objection will be the Scripturalism claims the all knowledge is Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom.

This is almost correct. It is merely to say that all that any _man_ can "know" is Scripture and what is deduced therefrom. This may be correct because most Scripturalist deny any other epistemology is valid. Empiricism, Rationalism, Irrationalism, Logical Positivism, Mysticism, Existentialism, they all fail. Either they are all incoherent or lead to skepticism. Now since there is no valid alternative to finding knowledge apart from God's revelation, agreeing that all Scripture is true is the same as saying that all we can know is Scripture and what it implies. 

So it is enough to say the Axiom is "Scripture is true". If asked what else might be true we can say lots, but we can not know what really know it if it is not from Scripture. And when we say we assume the Axiom is true, this is because the Spirit has given us belief in the truth of Scripture.


----------



## Don

[/quote]

But lets look at the quote. It appears that a self-referential incoherent system must meet the following criteria:

_(a) it establishes some requirement that must be met by assertions or theories,_

What are the requirements of Scripturalism. It says that for us to justify the truth of a proposition, it must be either a proposition of Scripture (Scripture is true), or deducible from Scripture (what can be deduced from Scripture is true). 

_(b) it is itself subject to this requirement,_

Does Scripturalism say that we can justify the truth of "the Scripture is true"? Nope. We can believe it. We can not "know" it. We can not deduce an axiom from within a system without committing the fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning. 

So the axiom is not subject to this requirement. What about the the propositions of Scripture themselves? Are there any false propositions of Scripture? If you give me a Scriptural proposition that says Scripture is false, then this would be incoherent and Scripturalism fails. If you can show me a false Scriptural propositions, you must first assume Scripture can be false and thereby presume Scripturalism is false.

_(c) it fails to meet this requirement". _

(b) is not required by the axiom, so (c) does not apply. And since no proposition of Scripture says Scripture is false, then nothing in the system fails this requirement.

Ergo, Scripturalism IS self-referential coherent. 
[/quote]


Civbert, 

I will only reply to this section of your post. Much could be said of your entire post, but if you look at the bottom of my signature, I still have one section of the CPA to pass and don't have the time nor the desire to engage this, especially since the relevant portions have been posted already. 

Now, if you claim that you cannot *know* Scripturalism is true, you would escape the problems of self-referential incoherency. This is precisely one of the positions that Dr. Sudduth critiqued when he talked about *vanilla epistemic scripturalism*. Consequently, I am still not convinced that you have read his critique, so I point you in that direction yet again. 

See ya.


----------



## BrianLanier

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> [BTW, does this Aquascum have a real name? Further, why would anyone take seriously a man who 1) is obviously too cowardly to use his real name, and, 2) uses an alias that invites the reader to equate him with pond scum?



Since Aquasum wants to remain anon...., suffice it to say, he IS a world class philosopher. BTW, _too cowardly to use his real name_; that wasn't very nice, was it?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Don_



But lets look at the quote. It appears that a self-referential incoherent system must meet the following criteria:

_(a) it establishes some requirement that must be met by assertions or theories,_

What are the requirements of Scripturalism. It says that for us to justify the truth of a proposition, it must be either a proposition of Scripture (Scripture is true), or deducible from Scripture (what can be deduced from Scripture is true). 

_(b) it is itself subject to this requirement,_

Does Scripturalism say that we can justify the truth of "the Scripture is true"? Nope. We can believe it. We can not "know" it. We can not deduce an axiom from within a system without committing the fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning. 

So the axiom is not subject to this requirement. What about the the propositions of Scripture themselves? Are there any false propositions of Scripture? If you give me a Scriptural proposition that says Scripture is false, then this would be incoherent and Scripturalism fails. If you can show me a false Scriptural propositions, you must first assume Scripture can be false and thereby presume Scripturalism is false.

_(c) it fails to meet this requirement". _

(b) is not required by the axiom, so (c) does not apply. And since no proposition of Scripture says Scripture is false, then nothing in the system fails this requirement.

Ergo, Scripturalism IS self-referential coherent. 
[/quote]


Civbert, 

I will only reply to this section of your post. Much could be said of your entire post, but if you look at the bottom of my signature, I still have one section of the CPA to pass and don't have the time nor the desire to engage this, especially since the relevant portions have been posted already. 

Now, if you claim that you cannot *know* Scripturalism is true, you would escape the problems of self-referential incoherency. This is precisely one of the positions that Dr. Sudduth critiqued when he talked about *vanilla epistemic scripturalism*. Consequently, I am still not convinced that you have read his critique, so I point you in that direction yet again. 

See ya. [/quote]

I think this can be a fruitful line of conversation.

1)Can one know that scripturalism is true

If one cannot know then it is just an opinion to be accepted or rejected at will.

2)Can one know that a necessary part of the definition of knowledge is infallible certainty.

If one cannot know such, then all the times that Clarkians call something an opinion vs. knowledge, is just them expressing their opinion, which can again be accepted or rejected at will.


----------



## Magma2

> Since Aquasum wants to remain anon...., suffice it to say, he IS a world class philosopher. BTW, too cowardly to use his real name; that wasn't very nice, was it?



Everyone´s entitled to their opinions. I´m sure there was a time when men praised Protagoras as a world class philosopher too, but then Plato recognized that he was just a world class sophist. And, yes, I consider a man who hides behind an alias and will not put his own name to his work a coward.


----------



## Don

[/quote]

I think this can be a fruitful line of conversation.

1)Can one know that scripturalism is true

If one cannot know then it is just an opinion to be accepted or rejected at will.

2)Can one know that a necessary part of the definition of knowledge is infallible certainty.

If one cannot know such, then all the times that Clarkians call something an opinion vs. knowledge, is just them expressing their opinion, which can again be accepted or rejected at will. [/quote]


Hi Hermonta, 

Yes, I think that was Dr. Sudduth's point and that vanilla epistemic scripturalists lose their ability to say whether *any* extra-biblical proposition is true or false (as it reduces to opinion as you have stated) and in that way, it defeats itself. So it seems that the deliverances of the sciences and other such evils that scripturalists yell about would be on the same epistemic footing as scripturalism, as both are extra-biblical. If the Scripturalist then tries to assert that scripturalism is true or that he can know that it's true, he winds up in self-referential incoherency. Either way, he is defeated. 

Don

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

> 1)Can one know that scripturalism is true



Can one know that the Scriptures are true? Becasue that is what you're asking, since per Clark the Scriptures are the axiom on which the Christian system rests. In his debate with Mavrodes Clark called the axiom he was contending for the "Westminister Principle" (if you want to read an exchange between two real "world class" philosophers, see Mavrodes attack on Scripturalism at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=2 and Clark's reply at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1). 

So what does the Confession say?

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; *yet, 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.
*



> If one cannot know then it is just an opinion to be accepted or rejected at will.



Eph 2:8,9; "œFor by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." 




> 2)Can one know that a necessary part of the definition of knowledge is infallible certainty.



Infallible certainty is not a necessary part of the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Certainty is a psychological state of mind, but only propositions can be either true or false.


----------



## Magma2

> I think that was Dr. Sudduth's point and that vanilla epistemic scripturalists lose their ability to say whether *any* extra-biblical proposition is true or false (as it reduces to opinion as you have stated) and in that way, it defeats itself. So it seems that the deliverances of the sciences and other such evils that scripturalists yell about would be on the same epistemic footing as scripturalism, as both are extra-biblical.



Then why is it that Dr. Sudduth and other of Clark´s critics seem only capable of leveling abusive ad hominem attacks and vain and petty caricatures of Clark´s position like the ones you provide above? Why haven´t such critics and so-called "œworld class philosophers" spent their time trying to overcome, say, Clark´s arguments in support of the proposition that science is always false? After all, Clark did write a monograph on the topic; Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=127).


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> I think this can be a fruitful line of conversation.
> 
> 1)Can one know that scripturalism is true
> 
> If one cannot know then it is just an opinion to be accepted or rejected at will.
> 
> 2)Can one know that a necessary part of the definition of knowledge is infallible certainty.
> 
> If one cannot know such, then all the times that Clarkians call something an opinion vs. knowledge, is just them expressing their opinion, which can again be accepted or rejected at will.



I think those are very good questions as they highlight some of the problems.

Everything you said I agree with. But it is also true for any rational system of thought. When it comes to the systems axioms, we must simply believe them or not. We can not justify knowing them.

Now, we must be careful about what know and believe mean. Most often we mean "know" to mean nothing more than "very certain" the we can know Scripturalism. But I'm not using that definition of "know" because that would be equivocating. I'm using "know" in the sense of justifiably true from prior true propositions. Now if you object, just consider the question "how do we know". There is no objection to the question, and it demands we give a justification from prior knowledge about how we know something. But when it comes to the axioms of a system - we can not justify this from a priori knowledge. The axiom is the starting point and must be assumed. We can argue for the efficacy of the axioms, but we can never prove them.

What we say we know must be justified from a priori knowledge or it's really an opinion - no matter how certain our belief in it. Axioms - for all systems are opinions. Knowledge, for all systems, are justifiable from prior true propositions. Axioms for all systems can not be justified.

So Scripturalism is no different than any other rational epistemology. We can not "know" any system of epistemology is true, we always assume it. So the criteria for choosing an epistemology has to be something other than "knowing" it's true. For Christians, we believe the Bible is the Word of God because this is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not justified from a priori knowledge. And this is import: if we could justify the truth of the Bible from a priori knowledge (that is apart from the working of the Spirit), then we would have the innate power to save ourselves without the God. We would be our own saviors. 

Scripturalism is not really some aberration, it's a formulation of our situation from the beginning of Christendom. We are saved by faith alone, and this is a gift from God. We can not prove the axiom of belief in the Scriptures, our in the Gospel, because we can not justify our own faith. If we would justify faith, we'd save ourselves. This is a violation of Christianity.

There are many interesting implications of Scripturalism. And it is very systematic and coherent and comprehensive. - but we can not go wrong in making God's revelation the foundation of what we can know. 

BTW. I have read ALL of Dr. Sudduth's objections several times along with Aquascum's and Paul Mantea's (sp?) post "Why I'm Not a Ch*#$###ian" and I see they are really saying the same things. I think if anything, they seem to be sharing the same arguments and same errors. And it's easy to agree with them by accepting some of their assertions. The problem is their assertions misrepresent Scripturalism in some key ways, and ignore the role of axioms. (Find the word axiom in them and you will see what I mean.) 

I'm not saying that I'm undeniable right, but I am saying that the arguments they have given are undeniable flawed. They have not nailed down anything, much less scratched anything. 

If you think I'm confused, I understand why. Their arguments are rather obscure and difficult to follow at times. Dr. Sudduth's arguments are much cleaner and systematic, but are full of unfamiliar terms that he does not define. I'm looking forward to reading his next book because I think it will fill in many of the blanks and I think it will support many assertions of Clarkians and Scripturalism. Aquascum's papers are long and complicated but fail from the start (having cut off the snake's heard, it matters not how well constructed the body is). I've read all he said, and there are other problems as Jon has noted in brief, but since they do not apply, I haven't bothered with them. Paul's arguments I'd need to read again to make sure I am representing them accurately, but I think he used the same augments about incoherence as Aquascum and others.

Actually Jon has given some of the best arguments showing some of the gaps in Scripturalism. I don't think the gaps are necessarily as large as he does - but I agree that they could be filled in better.

Well, if anyone has other references the show problems with Scripturalism, please let me know. Or let me know if Aquascum or anyone else has any new things to say.


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Since Aquasum wants to remain anon...., suffice it to say, he IS a world class philosopher. BTW, too cowardly to use his real name; that wasn't very nice, was it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone´s entitled to their opinions. I´m sure there was a time when men praised Protagoras as a world class philosopher too, but then Plato recognized that he was just a world class sophist. And, yes, I consider a man who hides behind an alias and will not put his own name to his work a coward.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure what point this proves, how it rescues scripturalism, or how it is even relevant. That's fine, consider him a coward, who cares what you think. That coward still annihilated scripturalism, Cheung et al, and it doesn't look like any substantial response is forthcoming. (Talk about 'abusive ad hominems).

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> I think that was Dr. Sudduth's point and that vanilla epistemic scripturalists lose their ability to say whether *any* extra-biblical proposition is true or false (as it reduces to opinion as you have stated) and in that way, it defeats itself. So it seems that the deliverances of the sciences and other such evils that scripturalists yell about would be on the same epistemic footing as scripturalism, as both are extra-biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is it that Dr. Sudduth and other of Clark´s critics seem only capable of leveling abusive ad hominem attacks and vain and petty caricatures of Clark´s position like the ones you provide above? Why haven´t such critics and so-called "œworld class philosophers" spent their time trying to overcome, say, Clark´s arguments in support of the proposition that science is always false? After all, Clark did write a monograph on the topic; Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=127).
Click to expand...



Could you substantiate any of these charges (abusive ad hominem, etc)? But whether you could or not, it still doesn't automatically negate any of their critiques. 

I appreciate the link but I already have that book. 

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_



I think this can be a fruitful line of conversation.

1)Can one know that scripturalism is true

If one cannot know then it is just an opinion to be accepted or rejected at will.

2)Can one know that a necessary part of the definition of knowledge is infallible certainty.

If one cannot know such, then all the times that Clarkians call something an opinion vs. knowledge, is just them expressing their opinion, which can again be accepted or rejected at will. [/quote]


Hi Hermonta, 

Yes, I think that was Dr. Sudduth's point and that vanilla epistemic scripturalists lose their ability to say whether *any* extra-biblical proposition is true or false (as it reduces to opinion as you have stated) and in that way, it defeats itself. So it seems that the deliverances of the sciences and other such evils that scripturalists yell about would be on the same epistemic footing as scripturalism, as both are extra-biblical. If the Scripturalist then tries to assert that scripturalism is true or that he can know that it's true, he winds up in self-referential incoherency. Either way, he is defeated. 

Don

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don] [/quote]

Which is why this is an argument against some Scripturalist and not necessarily Scripturalism. And it is almost always easier to find flaws in particular statements rather then really going after the system in question.

The "epistemic footing" of Scripturalism is the same as any rational system. However, empiricism (the presuppositions of Science) can not justify any knowledge whatsoever. So natural science fails to get out of the gates, so to speak.

Scripturalism asserts that it is true because that how axioms work. The axiom of empiricism say knowledge comes from sensory experience alone. How do they know? They can't! They believe. But even if we assume the axiom of empiricism, it's really a big mystery how one gets knowledge from sensations - since they are categorically different. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and awareness. 

So if you think Scripturalism is self defeating because it can not account for itself - well then ALL systems of knowledge fail and we know nothing at all. This criteria in fact defeats all systems of thought since none can account for themselves without being circular.


----------



## Don

[/quote]
Which is why this is an argument against some Scripturalist and not necessarily Scripturalism. And it is almost always easier to find flaws in particular statements rather then really going after the system in question.

The "epistemic footing" of Scripturalism is the same as any rational system. However, empiricism (the presuppositions of Science) can not justify any knowledge whatsoever. So natural science fails to get out of the gates, so to speak.

Scripturalism asserts that it is true because that how axioms work. The axiom of empiricism say knowledge comes from sensory experience alone. How do they know? They can't! They believe. But even if we assume the axiom of empiricism, it's really a big mystery how one gets knowledge from sensations - since they are categorically different. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and awareness. 

So if you think Scripturalism is self defeating because it can not account for itself - well then ALL systems of knowledge fail and we know nothing at all. This criteria in fact defeats all systems of thought since none can account for themselves without being circular. [/quote]


Anthony, 

I will take your word that you read all of the relevant critiques, but understand my doubt since you have constantly shown an ignorance of what they have written. 

No one, to my knowledge, has asserted what you are negating here "Which is why this is an argument against some Scripturalist and not necessarily Scripturalism", and I think a fair reading of the comments and critiques would satisfy that. That is why I attributed *vanilla* epistemic scripturalism to you when you commented that you could not *know* whether your axiom is true, yet you could believe it anyway. And if "..natural science fails to get out of the gates" then so has Scripturalism, as they are both extra-biblical propositions. This position has been defeated, the others that Sudduth and Aquascum speak of are defeated. The burden is on you to come up with a *version* of Scripturalism that is not. I don't see how this is really any different than what Jon said yesterday. 

And again, for you to say that "ALL systems of knowledge fail and we know nothing at all" is to actually show that you do not 'understand the nature of axioms' and is an inductive generalization, which you reject and despise, since you have not examined *ALL* systems. Anyway, this is still no savior for scripturalism. 

In the meantime, you can believe in Scripturalism while I'll maintain my belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns, and though we have not found the 'correct' goggles to view them, it's just a matter of time before we do. 

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

Please do some study on the meaning of axioms (presuppositions and first principles are similar terms). Don't take my word for it. And please read my arguments on how one discover their own axioms. 

Jon's blog has some excellent articles on epistemology, knowledge, and presuppositions. 

Also there is a difference between knowledge and belief which you seem to miss. We often say we have "faith in Jesus" and "we know Jesus". What is the difference? This is critical. Only the Scripturalist can justify the second. There is a lot of baggage in those two phrases and you need to unpack them. Scripturalism can do this without equivocation or resorting to neo-orthodox mystical terms.

I don't think you have address the content of my arguments - which makes me doubt that you have read or understood them. But if you have and do, please show me what my errors are. Assertions are not arguments so if you have a counter argument to my arguments I'd appreciate you giving it. I've demonstrated the errors in Aqua, Sudduth, and Paul's arguments and you have only asserted that I have not. Please explain.

If you don't understand my arguments there is no shame in saying so and asking for clarification. I'm not confused, but that does not mean you will not find my arguments confusing (and if you do, so might others). So rather than asserting that I'm confused, ask me questions that will help you understand my arguments.


----------



## Magma2

> Could you substantiate any of these charges (abusive ad hominem, etc)? But whether you could or not, it still doesn't automatically negate any of their critiques.



Saying things like "œvanilla epistemic scripturalists lose their ability to say whether *any* extra-biblical proposition is true or false" is a good example of the kind of abusive ad hominem argument I had in mind as is referring to "œthe deliverances of the sciences and other such evils" is merely to create a caricature of Clark´s position as if it were so easily and cavalierly dismissed.



> I appreciate the link but I already have that book.



Good. Maybe others don´t and they´ll actually read it. Clark nowhere characterizes the conclusions of the sciences as "œevil," far from it, but had you read the book you would have known that. Or, if you have, you made my point.


----------



## Don

> Good. Maybe others don´t and they´ll actually read it. Clark nowhere characterizes the conclusions of the sciences as "œevil," far from it, but had you read the book you would have known that. Or, if you have, you made my point.




Well I wasn't going to respond anymore as I think this thread has run it's course. Then I saw this comment, and it is almost hilarious. I never meant that literally, Sean but whatever dude. (I have seen this from you on different boards)

Anyway, stop taking all these sideroads and actually come up with something substantive. If you can, maybe someone will respond...

*edited*

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Maybe others don´t and they´ll actually read it. Clark nowhere characterizes the conclusions of the sciences as "œevil," far from it, but had you read the book you would have known that. Or, if you have, you made my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I wasn't going to respond anymore as I think this thread has run it's course. Then I saw this comment, and it is almost hilarious. I never meant that literally, Sean and I think a fair reading would show that. (I have seen this from you on different boards)
> 
> Anyway, stop taking all these sideroads and actually come up with something substantive. If you can, maybe someone will respond, because I am no longer responding to you. I have seen how you act at other places, so no thanks....
Click to expand...


I don't get it. You're now asking Sean not to respond to your request to respond? That is funny. 

It's ironic that you are accusing Sean of not posting anything substantive when he is merely responding to your requests for more information. Is your asking Sean to stop taking side-roads nothing but a unsubstantial side-road?

Is this post of mine an abuse ad hominem? I suppose it's a bit of a jab. But since I'm not making any argument here - not even saying anything substantive, it is just a continuation of the side road on which you are also driving on. 

I think that's funny.  The jokes on me too! 

If anyone wants to come along they can respond to the response to that response. As long as they don't post anything substantive.  

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Don

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Maybe others don´t and they´ll actually read it. Clark nowhere characterizes the conclusions of the sciences as "œevil," far from it, but had you read the book you would have known that. Or, if you have, you made my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I wasn't going to respond anymore as I think this thread has run it's course. Then I saw this comment, and it is almost hilarious. I never meant that literally, Sean and I think a fair reading would show that. (I have seen this from you on different boards)
> 
> Anyway, stop taking all these sideroads and actually come up with something substantive. If you can, maybe someone will respond...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get it. You're now asking Sean not to respond to your request to respond? That is funny.
> 
> It's ironic that you are accusing Sean of not posting anything substantive when he is merely responding to your requests for more information. Is your asking Sean to stop taking side-roads nothing but a unsubstantial side-road?
> 
> Is this post of mine an abuse ad hominem? I suppose it's a bit of a jab. But since I'm not making any argument here - not even saying anything substantive, it is just a continuation of the side road on which you are also driving.
> 
> I think that's funny.
> 
> If anyone wants to come along they can respond to the response to that response. As long as they don't post anything substantive.
Click to expand...



This is incredible! Calling aquascum a coward and making blanket accusations of abusive ad hominems and then repeating yourself when not dealing with any of the actual arguments raised is not substantial. I now see why aquascum may want to remain anonymous. 

See ya

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Maybe others don´t and they´ll actually read it. Clark nowhere characterizes the conclusions of the sciences as "œevil," far from it, but had you read the book you would have known that. Or, if you have, you made my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I wasn't going to respond anymore as I think this thread has run it's course. Then I saw this comment, and it is almost hilarious. I never meant that literally, Sean and I think a fair reading would show that. (I have seen this from you on different boards)
> 
> Anyway, stop taking all these sideroads and actually come up with something substantive. If you can, maybe someone will respond, because I am no longer responding to you. I have seen how you act at other places, so no thanks....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get it. You're now asking Sean not to respond to your request to respond? That is funny.
> 
> It's ironic that you are accusing Sean of not posting anything substantive when he is merely responding to your requests for more information. Is your asking Sean to stop taking side-roads nothing but a unsubstantial side-road?
> 
> Is this post of mine an abuse ad hominem? I suppose it's a bit of a jab. But since I'm not making any argument here - not even saying anything substantive, it is just a continuation of the side road on which you are also driving.
> 
> I think that's funny.
> 
> If anyone wants to come along they can respond to the response to that response. As long as they don't post anything substantive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is incredible! Calling aquascum a coward and making blanket accusations of abusive ad hominems and then repeating yourself when not dealing with any of the actual arguments raised is not substantial. I now see why aquascum may want to remain anonymous. Sean can respond all he wants, but I will not.
> 
> See ya
Click to expand...


Don, I was hoping you'd see the humor in my last post. Sure it was a jab at you. But it was ironic because it applies to me too. Laugh a little, see the irony of this situation. We're both driving on the same side-road - posting these pointless little comments (the last three of four - not all of them). As long as we're not saying anything substantial, we might as well laugh at ourselves a little. 

Just ribbing you some and hoping you'll lighten up. I need to do the same sometimes. 

huh? come on....gives us a smile.

 ...  ...  ...  ...


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Can one know that scripturalism is true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can one know that the Scriptures are true? Becasue that is what you're asking, since per Clark the Scriptures are the axiom on which the Christian system rests. In his debate with Mavrodes Clark called the axiom he was contending for the "Westminister Principle" (if you want to read an exchange between two real "world class" philosophers, see Mavrodes attack on Scripturalism at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=2 and Clark's reply at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1).
> 
> So what does the Confession say?
> 
> We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; *yet, 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.
> *
Click to expand...


Are you attempting to say that you know scripturalism is true because the Holy Spirit has told you so?



> 2)Can one know that a necessary part of the definition of knowledge is infallible certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infallible certainty is not a necessary part of the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Certainty is a psychological state of mind, but only propositions can be either true or false.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

Fair enough. Then my question is what do you mean by the term "opinion?" The way the term is usually used is to say that you are somehow unsure about the truth of a certain statement.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Fair enough. Then my question is what do you mean by the term "opinion?" The way the term is usually used is to say that you are somehow unsure about the truth of a certain statement.



This was probably not meant for me but....

The only epistemological difference between a proposition that is knowledge and one that is opinion, is knowledge propositions can it be deduced from a prior knowledge propositions. Knowledge is justified true belief. Opinion is belief. 

Axioms are unique "opinions" in that we must and do necessarily assume they true or there can be no knowledge to deduce. That we can not prove axioms is a red herring that Aquascum says makes Scripturalism untenable. If he is consistent, he will admit that all rational theories on knowledge are therefore untenable. 

To directly address your comment about the meaning of opinion, you are right, _normally_ an opinion means the truth of a statement is uncertain. But the technicalle (or epistemological) meaning of opinion means only a belief in the truth of a proposition that is not proven or provable true. "Certainty" is a psychological state of feeling sure. But in the epistemological sense of knowledge and opinion, certainty is not an issue. The issue is: can something believe be justified true, or do we just believe it is true. 

Axioms can not be justified (proven). That does not have any bearing on how certain we can believe them. You can not justify knowing a plane can fly you from here to LA, but you may be very certain of the opinion if you're not afraid to take the trip. Certainty is not a necessary component of opinion or even knowledge.

Cheung says all extra-biblical propositions - those that are not Scripture or deduced therefrom - are "at best, unjustified opinions." Now if Aquascum were being faithful to the clear intent of Cheung, he would have to be clear that Cheung is not including the Axiom of Scripture among these propositions. For instants: all men are sinners. What about Jesus? Well clearly the statement does not intend to include Jesus. Aquascum has taken Cheung's words and applied them where they were not intended, and he is being disingenuous in doing this. 

Aquascum's mixing of the technical meaning of opinion with the psychological sense invalidates his arguments. He can not have it both ways not matter how Cheung used the term he quoted. He must consider the intent of the author or his logic is flawed. And Aquascum's logic is flawed unless he is willing to say all knowledge is impossible.



[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Magma2

Let me answer your questions in reverse order:



> Fair enough. Then my question is what do you mean by the term "opinion?" The way the term is usually used is to say that you are somehow unsure about the truth of a certain statement.



I work in right wing grassroots politics. I work for groups that want to curb the unfettered and unbridled power of labor unions, to protect the right of Americans to keep and bear firearms, to end abortion-on-demand, to reduce the tax burden on American families and minimize the size of government, to curb illegal immigration, and the list goes one. Consequently, most people I come in contact with have some very definite opinions about any number of things and don´t seem unsure in the least. Frankly, in my opinion that most of their opinions are true most of the time. Further, as you can imagine, I have many opinions of my own about any number of things from the mundane to the marginally profound, but where opinions may or may not be true, knowledge is always true. For what it's worth I like to think all my opinions are true, but I realize that is just sinful human pride. Therefore, since I accept axiomatically that the Bible alone is the Word of God and that knowledge requires an account, unless an opinion can be accounted for per the Scriptures, my chosen axiom by God´s grace, I see no reason to call it knowledge. 

Now, the problem is how does someone account for opinions or beliefs apart from Scripture; i.e., per a different starting point or axiom or set of axioms? Don seems to take umbrage at the notion that science does not arrive at knowledge, but rather deals with hypotheses which may or may not be true (sounds like an opinion, doesn´t it)  But if science, which is arguably the crown of empirical presuppositions and the center of human pride fails to account for the truth of its conclusions, why do we call such guesses, as educated as they may be, knowledge? 

In any case, the long an short is that if opinions never rise to the level of knowledge, this is not to suggest that they don´t function extremely well most of the time and in many areas of life. But knowledge, if we´re going to call it that, requires an account. 




> Are you attempting to say that you know scripturalism is true because the Holy Spirit has told you so?



I don´t know that it was an attempt, but merely an assertion which is made per the Confession. But rather than having me drone on with an answer, and since I evidently can´t even answer Don´s questions to me without irritating him, I let Clark answer your question from his reply to Mavrodes (which I cited above):



> Mavrodes briefly alludes to detailed difficulties in the problem of the canon. He could have mentioned others, and I have no interest in minimizing them. He also chiefly and rightly insists on the importance of the canon, for if "Romans and Isaiah were not canonical, while Tobit and II Maccabees were, then [our] faith and practice might also be somewhat altered." Then, repeating the objection he says, "The Westminster Principle, then, makes the question of canonicity crucial, and simultaneously makes it unanswerable."
> 
> With commendable perceptiveness Mavrodes notices that Abraham also poses the same unanswerable question: "How did Abraham know that it was God who called him to Mt. Moriah, rather than the devil?" But though Mavrodes candidly admits that he cannot answer, an answer is required. Carnell once tried to answer it by appealing to anticipatory ideas of decency; but rather clearly such ideas would have led Abraham to conclude that the command to sacrifice Isaac came from Satan.
> 
> Mavrodes still further generalizes the question: "How [do] we come to know God?" This question too, as it includes its subsidiary forms, is one to be emphasized. Until a theologian has answered this question, he has no ground for objection to any view. He may express dissatisfaction with the Westminster principle; he may say, "I just don't believe it"; but he can have no logical reasons or well based objections. Dissatisfaction, if it occurs, should rather be directed against failure to answer these questions. To sit speechless cannot be accepted as our goal. Those who discuss religious problems, whether they be Calvinists or humanists, must be pressed to explain how God can be known---or, in the latter case, how values can be known when there is no God. The battle is between views or answers; the battle is not between a view and silence.
> 
> Now, as it appears, I have a view to propose. It is the Westminster Principle, or the Axiom, for I believe they are identical. This Principle, so my argument runs, does not founder on the contradiction Mavrodes indicated. Recall that he set in opposition the Principle that all truth must be deduced from Scripture and a list of canonical books for which no verses can be cited. This seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the Confession.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Although this seems to be sufficient to answer Mavrodes' logical difficulties, there is a second point necessary to remove some lingering dissatisfaction. Mention has been made of Abraham and his conviction that God, not Satan, was speaking. This is essentially similar to the conviction that the Bible is the word of God and not the lying words of the devil.
> 
> Relative to this matter, the Confession makes a statement Professor Mavrodes did not quote. I urge my readers to consider it carefully, for it indicates how one comes to believe that the Bible is the word of God, or, in more technical language, how one comes to adopt the Axiom. Chapter One, section five says: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture [though today many people would pay no attention to any Church, particularly to those who believe the Bible]; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts [each of which the humanists contest], . . . are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, 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."
> 
> It may not be amiss at this point to expand the historical reference. The Westminster Confession is not the only Reformation creed, nor is it alone in this assertion. Permit therefore one or two additional citations.
> 
> The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561) after mentioning the sixty-six books, continues in Article V, "We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical . . . believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling [les choses adviennent qui y sont prÃ©dites]."
> 
> Perhaps someone might interpret the last sentence of this Article as inconsistent with the testimony of the Spirit. But even on this interpretation, which is not a necessary one, it is clear that the identity of the canon does not rest on a barely discernible, indeed a hypothetical Jewish council. The Reformation thus escaped the frustration of historicism.
> 
> The French Confession of Faith (A.D. 1559) also says, "We know these books to be canonical ... not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books . . ."
> 
> The statements of these creeds mean that adherence to Scripture is not a deduction from sensory experience, nor the result of anticipations of decency, nor even of archaeological confirmation. Confidence in Scripture is the result of the inward working of the Holy Ghost. Note particularly that this illumination of the Spirit is not an additional revelation. He does not give us any additional information. He does not witness to our spirits, but with our spirits (Rom. 8:16), and here explicitly by and with the word (cf. Can I Trust My Bible, chapter one, "How May I Know the Bible is Inspired," Moody Press, 1963).
> 
> This too is how Abraham knew it was God and not Satan who commanded him to kill Isaac. Anticipations of decency, religious experience, joy, pain, and crisis, which Professor Mavrodes goes on to mention, would all have suggested that the command to kill Isaac came from Satan. Similarly Edwin A. Burtt in Types of Religious Philosophy argues that Christ advocated an immoral labor and economic theory, and on other grounds too experience shows that Christ is inferior to modern ideals. When such humanists are convinced also that the Bible is historically inaccurate and is full of contradictions, it is clear that "the consent of the parts and the heavenliness of the matter" cannot be made into convincing arguments. Neither argument nor (what is the same thing) preaching can produce faith. Faith is the immediate result of regeneration. God changes our minds and causes us to believe.
> 
> This work of the Holy Spirit does not occur without preaching and argument. Though belief is caused by the Holy Spirit alone, the content of the belief is presented by human messengers. Abstractly God might have used some other method of propagating the Gospel; to say this is the way it is done is not to limit God's power -- it merely describes his method.
> 
> This method, which becomes the method of the preacher, needs one final clarification before the concluding paragraph is reached. The difficulties with the canon are well known; destructive criticism is our daily enemy; archaeology gives us cause for rejoicing. But if we depend on the testimony of the Spirit, can we discuss these details with non-Christians, or must we ignore the objections? Does not Reformed theology cut the lines of communication?
> 
> To which my reply is: Let us use as much archaeological evidence as we can find. Let us go into great detail on J, E, D, and P. We shall discuss the presence of camels in Egypt in 2000 B.C., and the hypothetical council of Jamnia. But our arguments will be entirely ad hominem. We shall show that the principles our opponents use destroy their own conclusions; that their critical procedures on Genesis cannot be applied to Homer's Iliad; that their historiography ruins Caesar's Gallic Wars. The argument is ad hominem and elenctic. When finally the opponent is reduced to silence and we can get in a word edgewise, we present the word of God and pray that God cause him to believe.



[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Don

[/quote]

Don, I was hoping you'd see the humor in my last post. Sure it was a jab at you. But it was ironic because it applies to me too. Laugh a little, see the irony of this situation. We're both driving on the same side-road - posting these pointless little comments (the last three of four - not all of them). As long as we're not saying anything substantial, we might as well laugh at ourselves a little. 

Just ribbing you some and hoping you'll lighten up. I need to do the same sometimes. 

huh? come on....gives us a smile.

 ...  ...  ...  ...  [/quote]


I'm not mad brother! I did respond with a little too much emotion so I apologize to everyone... 

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Don]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> Fair enough. Then my question is what do you mean by the term "opinion?" The way the term is usually used is to say that you are somehow unsure about the truth of a certain statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was probably not meant for me but....
Click to expand...


You both have used the term "opinion" in a negative term, so it was not necessary directed at you 



> The only epistemological difference between a proposition that is knowledge and one that is opinion, is knowledge propositions can it be deduced from a prior knowledge propositions. Knowledge is justified true belief. Opinion is belief.



You can get justified true belief and not have knowledge, as seen by the standard gettier cases. One can also make the argument that one can have knowledge without justification in certain cases. (As an aside, it seems that that some definitions are used as if they are the only definitions possible, and they really are not. If I wish to define knowledge as something other than what you wish to define it is as, then we just have to disagree.)



> Axioms are unique "opinions" in that we must and do necessarily assume they true or there can be no knowledge to deduce.



Fair enough, so I guess the question is if "scripturalism" is one of those opinions that without it, no knowledge could be possible.



> That we can not prove axioms is a red herring that Aquascum says makes Scripturalism untenable. If he is consistent, he will admit that all rational theories on knowledge are therefore untenable.



The problem here is that you are attempting to offer an internal critique of Aquascum's plan of attack, while using your own presuppositions. You must remember that aquascum et. al those who oppose scripturalism have a bunch of tools that you dont have in your tool box. Your refusual to acknowledge them does not make those tools valid or invalid. You have to fight him using the tools of his system not the tools of yours, if you critique is to have any force.

His argument is that you have to claim certain things on your system in order to have a coherent system. If your system is not coherent "on your own terms, then that is your problem not his.



> To directly address your comment about the meaning of opinion, you are right, _normally_ an opinion means the truth of a statement is uncertain. But the technicalle (or epistemological) meaning of opinion means only a belief in the truth of a proposition that is not proven or provable true.



Unless you can somehow force me to accept that definition, then all you have done is give me your opinion which I can reject or accept. And I reject your definition.

I do not have to give you a syllogism in order to know something. I can just say "I saw you do it, therefore I know you did it."



> "Certainty" is a psychological state of feeling sure. But in the epistemological sense of knowledge and opinion, certainty is not an issue. The issue is: can something believe be justified true, or do we just believe it is true.



Here is a link to a good discussion on the issue of certainty. I think you are conflating two different kinds of certainty:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Certainty.htm



> Axioms can not be justified (proven). That does not have any bearing on how certain we can believe them. You can not justify knowing a plane can fly you from here to LA, but you may be very certain of the opinion if you're not afraid to take the trip. Certainty is not a necessary component of opinion or even knowledge.



Alright, then you really have no objection than calling something arrived at inductively as knowledge, besides a base assertion.



> Cheung says all extra-biblical propositions - those that are not Scripture or deduced therefrom - are "at best, unjustified opinions."



That is false, because the proposition that X is a murderer is not found in scripture but we can be justified in saying that X is so, if we go about the method of justification properly.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Let me answer your questions in reverse order:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Then my question is what do you mean by the term "opinion?" The way the term is usually used is to say that you are somehow unsure about the truth of a certain statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work in right wing grassroots politics. I work for groups that want to curb the unfettered and unbridled power of labor unions, to protect the right of Americans to keep and bear firearms, to end abortion-on-demand, to reduce the tax burden on American families and minimize the size of government, to curb illegal immigration, and the list goes one. Consequently, most people I come in contact with have some very definite opinions about any number of things and don´t seem unsure in the least. Frankly, in my opinion that most of their opinions are true most of the time. Further, as you can imagine, I have many opinions of my own about any number of things from the mundane to the marginally profound, but where opinions may or may not be true, knowledge is always true.
Click to expand...


According to your definition. According to others, knowledge is defeatable. You have defend your position that knowledge is not defeatable.



> For what it's worth I like to think all my opinions are true, but I realize that is just sinful human pride. Therefore, since I accept axiomatically that the Bible alone is the Word of God and that knowledge requires an account, unless an opinion can be accounted for per the Scriptures, my chosen axiom by God´s grace, I see no reason to call it knowledge.



So you are using your opinions to define knowledge, which a person can accept or reject?

Also when you say knowledge requires an account, what do you mean by the term, account?



> Now, the problem is how does someone account for opinions or beliefs apart from Scripture; i.e., per a different starting point or axiom or set of axioms? Don seems to take umbrage at the notion that science does not arrive at knowledge, but rather deals with hypotheses which may or may not be true (sounds like an opinion, doesn´t it)



If that is you definition of how opinion is defined 



> But if science, which is arguably the crown of empirical presuppositions and the center of human pride fails to account for the truth of its conclusions, why do we call such guesses, as educated as they may be, knowledge?



The issue is can one justify (at least some propositions) that science gives. The answer is yes. At the very least you can establish them by peer review, which is consistent with the two or more witness requirement for establishing things into the public record. Is it possible to get such wrong, yep. But so.

The difference between opinion and knowledge is the doing of due dilligence to reach a conclusion. We are disagreeing over what due dilligence must be done.



> In any case, the long an short is that if opinions never rise to the level of knowledge, this is not to suggest that they don´t function extremely well most of the time and in many areas of life. But knowledge, if we´re going to call it that, requires an account.



Again you need to define account, and then on top of that, you need to show that it is somehow necessary that I accept that definition.



> Are you attempting to say that you know scripturalism is true because the Holy Spirit has told you so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t know that it was an attempt, but merely an assertion which is made per the Confession. But rather than having me drone on with an answer, and since I evidently can´t even answer Don´s questions to me without irritating him, I let Clark answer your question from his reply to Mavrodes (which I cited above):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mavrodes briefly alludes to detailed difficulties in the problem of the canon. He could have mentioned others, and I have no interest in minimizing them. He also chiefly and rightly insists on the importance of the canon, for if "Romans and Isaiah were not canonical, while Tobit and II Maccabees were, then [our] faith and practice might also be somewhat altered." Then, repeating the objection he says, "The Westminster Principle, then, makes the question of canonicity crucial, and simultaneously makes it unanswerable."
> 
> With commendable perceptiveness Mavrodes notices that Abraham also poses the same unanswerable question: "How did Abraham know that it was God who called him to Mt. Moriah, rather than the devil?" But though Mavrodes candidly admits that he cannot answer, an answer is required. Carnell once tried to answer it by appealing to anticipatory ideas of decency; but rather clearly such ideas would have led Abraham to conclude that the command to sacrifice Isaac came from Satan.
> 
> Mavrodes still further generalizes the question: "How [do] we come to know God?" This question too, as it includes its subsidiary forms, is one to be emphasized. Until a theologian has answered this question, he has no ground for objection to any view. He may express dissatisfaction with the Westminster principle; he may say, "I just don't believe it"; but he can have no logical reasons or well based objections. Dissatisfaction, if it occurs, should rather be directed against failure to answer these questions. To sit speechless cannot be accepted as our goal. Those who discuss religious problems, whether they be Calvinists or humanists, must be pressed to explain how God can be known---or, in the latter case, how values can be known when there is no God. The battle is between views or answers; the battle is not between a view and silence.
> 
> Now, as it appears, I have a view to propose. It is the Westminster Principle, or the Axiom, for I believe they are identical. This Principle, so my argument runs, does not founder on the contradiction Mavrodes indicated. Recall that he set in opposition the Principle that all truth must be deduced from Scripture and a list of canonical books for which no verses can be cited. This seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the Confession.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Although this seems to be sufficient to answer Mavrodes' logical difficulties, there is a second point necessary to remove some lingering dissatisfaction. Mention has been made of Abraham and his conviction that God, not Satan, was speaking. This is essentially similar to the conviction that the Bible is the word of God and not the lying words of the devil.
> 
> Relative to this matter, the Confession makes a statement Professor Mavrodes did not quote. I urge my readers to consider it carefully, for it indicates how one comes to believe that the Bible is the word of God, or, in more technical language, how one comes to adopt the Axiom. Chapter One, section five says: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture [though today many people would pay no attention to any Church, particularly to those who believe the Bible]; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts [each of which the humanists contest], . . . are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, 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."
> 
> It may not be amiss at this point to expand the historical reference. The Westminster Confession is not the only Reformation creed, nor is it alone in this assertion. Permit therefore one or two additional citations.
> 
> The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561) after mentioning the sixty-six books, continues in Article V, "We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical . . . believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling [les choses adviennent qui y sont prÃ©dites]."
> 
> Perhaps someone might interpret the last sentence of this Article as inconsistent with the testimony of the Spirit. But even on this interpretation, which is not a necessary one, it is clear that the identity of the canon does not rest on a barely discernible, indeed a hypothetical Jewish council. The Reformation thus escaped the frustration of historicism.
> 
> The French Confession of Faith (A.D. 1559) also says, "We know these books to be canonical ... not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books . . ."
> 
> The statements of these creeds mean that adherence to Scripture is not a deduction from sensory experience, nor the result of anticipations of decency, nor even of archaeological confirmation. Confidence in Scripture is the result of the inward working of the Holy Ghost. Note particularly that this illumination of the Spirit is not an additional revelation. He does not give us any additional information. He does not witness to our spirits, but with our spirits (Rom. 8:16), and here explicitly by and with the word (cf. Can I Trust My Bible, chapter one, "How May I Know the Bible is Inspired," Moody Press, 1963).
> 
> This too is how Abraham knew it was God and not Satan who commanded him to kill Isaac. Anticipations of decency, religious experience, joy, pain, and crisis, which Professor Mavrodes goes on to mention, would all have suggested that the command to kill Isaac came from Satan. Similarly Edwin A. Burtt in Types of Religious Philosophy argues that Christ advocated an immoral labor and economic theory, and on other grounds too experience shows that Christ is inferior to modern ideals. When such humanists are convinced also that the Bible is historically inaccurate and is full of contradictions, it is clear that "the consent of the parts and the heavenliness of the matter" cannot be made into convincing arguments. Neither argument nor (what is the same thing) preaching can produce faith. Faith is the immediate result of regeneration. God changes our minds and causes us to believe.
> 
> This work of the Holy Spirit does not occur without preaching and argument. Though belief is caused by the Holy Spirit alone, the content of the belief is presented by human messengers. Abstractly God might have used some other method of propagating the Gospel; to say this is the way it is done is not to limit God's power -- it merely describes his method.
> 
> This method, which becomes the method of the preacher, needs one final clarification before the concluding paragraph is reached. The difficulties with the canon are well known; destructive criticism is our daily enemy; archaeology gives us cause for rejoicing. But if we depend on the testimony of the Spirit, can we discuss these details with non-Christians, or must we ignore the objections? Does not Reformed theology cut the lines of communication?
> 
> To which my reply is: Let us use as much archaeological evidence as we can find. Let us go into great detail on J, E, D, and P. We shall discuss the presence of camels in Egypt in 2000 B.C., and the hypothetical council of Jamnia. But our arguments will be entirely ad hominem. We shall show that the principles our opponents use destroy their own conclusions; that their critical procedures on Genesis cannot be applied to Homer's Iliad; that their historiography ruins Caesar's Gallic Wars. The argument is ad hominem and elenctic. When finally the opponent is reduced to silence and we can get in a word edgewise, we present the word of God and pray that God cause him to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [Edited on 2-17-2006 by Magma2]
Click to expand...


Is there something in there that defends the claim that I must accept scripturalism if I accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God or that if I fight scripturalism, then I am fighting the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Magma2

> According to your definition. According to others, knowledge is defeatable. You have defend your position that knowledge is not defeatable.



Not sure what you´re asking?




> So you are using your opinions to define knowledge, which a person can accept or reject?




Again, not sure what you´re asking? Opinions don´t define knowledge. Knowledge is a true opinion with an account of it´s truth.




> Also when you say knowledge requires an account, what do you mean by the term, account?



I´m not using account in any specialized way, I just mean a reasoned argument. 



> If that is you definition of how opinion is defined



An opinion is "œa belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." Again, not anything specialized. 




> The issue is can one justify (at least some propositions) that science gives. The answer is yes. At the very least you can establish them by peer review, which is consistent with the two or more witness requirement for establishing things into the public record. Is it possible to get such wrong, yep. But so.



Well, you´re wrong. Science cannot justify even one of the propositions it "œgives." Karl Popper said science is nothing more than hypotheses and their refutations. The conclusions of science are always tentative and Clark demonstrates in great detail why the conclusions of science are always false. I recommend you read his book The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God.




> The difference between opinion and knowledge is the doing of due dilligence to reach a conclusion. We are disagreeing over what due dilligence must be done.



Correct. You evidently believe that the testimony of two or more witnesses or the conclusion reached at the end of a fallacious argument qualifies as due diligence. Valid deductions from true premises will always result in true conclusions. OTOH if witnesses and peer reviews get things wrong, on what basis can you know that they get things right? 



> Again you need to define account, and then on top of that, you need to show that it is somehow necessary that I accept that definition.



It´s not necessary that you accept anything. 



> Is there something in there that defends the claim that I must accept scripturalism if I accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God or that if I fight scripturalism, then I am fighting the Holy Spirit?



I think the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark is biblical. I think the problem is that very few have actually read Clark. Instead they read his critics.


----------



## Magma2

> Unless you can somehow force me to accept that definition, then all you have done is give me your opinion which I can reject or accept. And I reject your definition.



Sorry Anthony, just a quick question for Hermonta. 

If you don´t accept how the word "œopinion" has been defined, that´s fine. No one has asked you to accept this definition. If you´d care to offer another one, why don´t you share it? 



> I do not have to give you a syllogism in order to know something. I can just say "I saw you do it, therefore I know you did it."



So are you going to equate opinions with knowledge? I guess you would. But, let me ask, how do you know you saw him "œdo it"?


----------



## Civbert

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll take this one chunk at a time if that's OK. If I miss something critical, let me know.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> The only epistemological difference between a proposition that is knowledge and one that is opinion, is knowledge propositions can it be deduced from a prior knowledge propositions. Knowledge is justified true belief. Opinion is belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can get justified true belief and not have knowledge, as seen by the standard gettier cases. One can also make the argument that one can have knowledge without justification in certain cases. (As an aside, it seems that that some definitions are used as if they are the only definitions possible, and they really are not. If I wish to define knowledge as something other than what you wish to define it is as, then we just have to disagree.)
> ...CT
Click to expand...


First Gettier was offering a smoke and mirrors situation - his classical case against "knowledge is justified true belief" depends on his understanding of the terms of the definition - a basically, I think he was blowing smoke. 

Also, you were asking for me to define my view of "opinion" as a Scripturalist, or how I think Scripturalism uses the term. If you want to disagree with my definitions, that's OK, but we need to be careful. If you argue against my logic, you need to adopt my definitions as I use them to show my reasoning is faulty. And while you have not done that here, that _is_ what Aquascum did to Cheung. 

And I can not use force _my_ definitions of the terms _you_ are using to critique your arguments, if adopting your definitions makes your arguments sound. To be just, I need to understand your definitions and see if your logic is sound or faulty using your terms as you define them. That is why the phrase "for the sake of arguments, let us agree....".

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Axioms are unique "opinions" in that we must and do necessarily assume they true or there can be no knowledge to deduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, so I guess the question is if "scripturalism" is one of those opinions that without it, no knowledge could be possible.
> 
> ...
> CT
Click to expand...


I don't know.  But I do believe it is the case. 

While I think there is a kind of innate knowledge, that we do not get from Scripture - this can not be justified in an epistemological sense. And God certainly has not revealed all of His knowledge since there are still some things only known by God. So other than possible innate propositions, I do not believe there is any other way for a person to "know" outside the Axiom of Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> That we can not prove axioms is a red herring that Aquascum says makes Scripturalism untenable. If he is consistent, he will admit that all rational theories on knowledge are therefore untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you are attempting to offer an internal critique of Aquascum's plan of attack, while using your own presuppositions. ....
Click to expand...


That's actually what Aquascum has done. Remember, he is critiquing Scripturalism as Cheung expresses it. But he does so by ignoring Cheung's intent. It's easy to make someone position look bad if you conveniently ignore what the person is trying to convey.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...You must remember that aquascum et. al those who oppose scripturalism have a bunch of tools that you dont have in your tool box. Your refusual to acknowledge them does not make those tools valid or invalid. ...



Tools are not the issue. If you mean he's using his own smoke and mirrors, that I agree with. But if Aquascum is really a knowledgeable philosopher, and yet he believes that you can ignore how axioms work with systems of thought, then it's like trying to fix a car with paper tools and saying "see, it doesn't work".



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ... You have to fight him using the tools of his system not the tools of yours, if you critique is to have any force....


It's not _his_ system that is in questions, it the system called Scripturalism that is being argued about. No, the burden is on Aquascum to use the correct tools of Scripturalism - to understand how presuppositionalism works. He needs to understand how axioms work (a concept he conveniently ignores) and how this works within Scripturalism. After all - it's Aquascum that is claiming that Scripturalism is incoherent - but its only incoherent if we adopt _Aquascum's_ terms - his system of paper tools. 




> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> His argument is that you have to claim certain things on your system in order to have a coherent system. If your system is not coherent "on your own terms, then that is your problem not his.


Ah you see, Aquascum is making a _claim_ here, not giving an augment - a claim is just an assertion. And he claims that Scripturalism makes claims that it simply does not make. At best, he has shown some errors in Cheung's explanations, but Aquascum did this by misrepresenting Cheung's intentions, and saying that Scripturalism demands that it can prove itself internally. This is just not true. And it is not true for any other rational system. So all Aquascum has done is shown a mistake made by Cheung. This does no damage to Scripturalism itself.




> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> To directly address your comment about the meaning of opinion, you are right, _normally_ an opinion means the truth of a statement is uncertain. But the technical (or epistemological) meaning of opinion means only a belief in the truth of a proposition that is not proven or provable true.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can somehow force me to accept that definition, then all you have done is give me your opinion which I can reject or accept. And I reject your definition.
Click to expand...

I don't have to force you to do accept anything. But you must adopt my definitions to show that my arguments are fallacious. 




> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> I do not have to give you a syllogism in order to know something. I can just say "I saw you do it, therefore I know you did it."


Really? Prove you saw what you claim. I'm sure you believe you saw what you saw, but since you can't prove it, it is unjustified opinion - on my terms. And this is about Scripturalism. If you want to offer an alternative, you are free to use your own terms. But you may not impose your definitions onto my system.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> "Certainty" is a psychological state of feeling sure. But in the epistemological sense of knowledge and opinion, certainty is not an issue. The issue is: can something believe be justified true, or do we just believe it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to a good discussion on the issue of certainty. I think you are conflating two different kinds of certainty:
> 
> http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Certainty.htm
Click to expand...

I can't have conflated two kinds of certainty since you never gave me your definition, and I could only assume what you meant by "certain". My use was consistent. I'll check out the article though.




> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Axioms can not be justified (proven). That does not have any bearing on how certain we can believe them. You can not justify knowing a plane can fly you from here to LA, but you may be very certain of the opinion if you're not afraid to take the trip. Certainty is not a necessary component of opinion or even knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, then you really have no objection than calling something arrived at inductively as knowledge, besides a base assertion.
Click to expand...


Huh? This does not follow. My example showed that you could NOT know the plane was safe to fly on, but you could be certain or hold that opinion. My system, my terms. 



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Cheung says all extra-biblical propositions - those that are not Scripture or deduced therefrom - are "at best, unjustified opinions."
> 
> 
> 
> That is false, because the proposition that X is a murderer is not found in scripture but we can be justified in saying that X is so, if we go about the method of justification properly.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...

As I showed earlier - we don't "know" X is a murderer, we can only believe X a murderer. At most, we can know X is _possible_ a murderer. It's not knowledge that X is a murder, but knowledge that X is possibly a murderer - which is no longer inductive (no claim is made that "X is a murder" is a fact).


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> According to your definition. According to others, knowledge is defeatable. You have defend your position that knowledge is not defeatable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you´re asking?
Click to expand...

[/quote]

My point is that it seems that you wish to be a definitions "nazi". The issue is if that is a justified position or if you can know that a certain definition is correct. If you cannot control the definitions then the house of cards folds.



> So you are using your opinions to define knowledge, which a person can accept or reject?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not sure what you´re asking? Opinions don´t define knowledge. Knowledge is a true opinion with an account of it´s truth.
Click to expand...


Something must define knowledge. What is it that defines knowledge? And must I accept your definition of it? If not then I just reject your definition and then the game is done.



> Also when you say knowledge requires an account, what do you mean by the term, account?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I´m not using account in any specialized way, I just mean a reasoned argument.
Click to expand...


But that must be unpacked. For example, I would say that a reasoned account me of my knowledge that my friend Jeremy was at the movie theater with me at 7:00 pm tonight, is that I saw him there, with me. Would you agree with that?



> If that is you definition of how opinion is defined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An opinion is "œa belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." Again, not anything specialized.
Click to expand...


Positive knowledge? Give me an example?



> The issue is can one justify (at least some propositions) that science gives. The answer is yes. At the very least you can establish them by peer review, which is consistent with the two or more witness requirement for establishing things into the public record. Is it possible to get such wrong, yep. But so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you´re wrong. Science cannot justify even one of the propositions it "œgives." Karl Popper said science is nothing more than hypotheses and their refutations.
Click to expand...


And I can agree or disagree with him, right? There is also the issue of what does Popper mean by the term science. There are two main aspects of science, the theorizing of why something occurs and the observation that something occurs under a certain condition. My statement holds in the latter viewpoint, while Popper was addressing the former.



> The conclusions of science are always tentative and Clark demonstrates in great detail why the conclusions of science are always false. I recommend you read his book The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God.



I understand his anti-realist position, but he goes a bit farther than he needs to go. That the conclusions are tentative is true but always false is a different matter.


> The difference between opinion and knowledge is the doing of due dilligence to reach a conclusion. We are disagreeing over what due dilligence must be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. You evidently believe that the testimony of two or more witnesses or the conclusion reached at the end of a fallacious argument qualifies as due diligence.
Click to expand...


It is only fallacious if I put it forwards as a deductive argument. If I dont, then I do not overpromise what I can deliver. All you are saying is that the argument is not deductive, which is true but then the question is, So What?

You need to remember that philosophy was done long before Clark and will be done, long after Clark or Robbins.



> Valid deductions from true premises will always result in true conclusions.



Very true.



> OTOH if witnesses and peer reviews get things wrong, on what basis can you know that they get things right?



Are you asking me for an infallibility criteria? For that would be point three of aquascum's critique of scripturalism.

The knowing would come from more observations. Until the previous observations were shown to be faulty either through bad equipment, fraud etc. We are justified in calling the statements true.



> Again you need to define account, and then on top of that, you need to show that it is somehow necessary that I accept that definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It´s not necessary that you accept anything.
Click to expand...


Alright, then I can just openly say that I reject scripturalism for reasons X, Y and Z (including the issue of bad definining of terms) and there is no high horse you could stand on to refute me, because the definitions etc are just your opinion.



> Is there something in there that defends the claim that I must accept scripturalism if I accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God or that if I fight scripturalism, then I am fighting the Holy Spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark is biblical. I think the problem is that very few have actually read Clark. Instead they read his critics.
Click to expand...


But you do not know it to be true, so its an issue of accepting your opinion over someone else', right?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you can somehow force me to accept that definition, then all you have done is give me your opinion which I can reject or accept. And I reject your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Anthony, just a quick question for Hermonta.
> 
> If you don´t accept how the word "œopinion" has been defined, that´s fine. No one has asked you to accept this definition. If you´d care to offer another one, why don´t you share it?
Click to expand...


I would loosely define it as a "gut feeling or thought based on the totality of your knowledge but without having studied the issue to much an extent".

But as I said that is very loose.



> I do not have to give you a syllogism in order to know something. I can just say "I saw you do it, therefore I know you did it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to equate opinions with knowledge? I guess you would. But, let me ask, how do you know you saw him "œdo it"?
Click to expand...


I saw you do it. I do not have to go any farther.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll take this one chunk at a time if that's OK. If I miss something critical, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> The only epistemological difference between a proposition that is knowledge and one that is opinion, is knowledge propositions can it be deduced from a prior knowledge propositions. Knowledge is justified true belief. Opinion is belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can get justified true belief and not have knowledge, as seen by the standard gettier cases. One can also make the argument that one can have knowledge without justification in certain cases. (As an aside, it seems that that some definitions are used as if they are the only definitions possible, and they really are not. If I wish to define knowledge as something other than what you wish to define it is as, then we just have to disagree.)
> ...CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First Gettier was offering a smoke and mirrors situation - his classical case against "knowledge is justified true belief" depends on his understanding of the terms of the definition - a basically, I think he was blowing smoke.
Click to expand...


Almost everything comes down to definitions. We are operating with different defs and until you force me over to yours, there really is not much that you can argue or say to me.

I also do not think that he was blowing smoke. But that is just my opinion.



> Also, you were asking for me to define my view of "opinion" as a Scripturalist, or how I think Scripturalism uses the term. If you want to disagree with my definitions, that's OK, but we need to be careful. If you argue against my logic, you need to adopt my definitions as I use them to show my reasoning is faulty. And while you have not done that here, that _is_ what Aquascum did to Cheung.



Actually you are just wrong here. I am doing more than one thing. First I am attempting to show that you offer a critique of opposing systems while assuming that scripturalism and its defs are true. That is not how you do an internal critique. If you want to critique my system then you will have to allow me to have my definitions and then see where I end up.

Secondly, I am offering a critique of your defense of scripturalism. Scripturalism (as well as all other systems) promise a number of things. When it is pointed out that some things that scripturalism promises, it cannot deliver, then the response is that no on else can do it either. That response doesnt gain anything, it is just a reductio on scripturalism. That response presupposes that scripturalism is true and therefore everyone else has to play by its rules.

For a system to be coherent it must deliver what it promises. If other systems do not promise the same things as another system, then that is no problem to point out that it does not deliver it.

Another aspect of the same issue is that other systems have other tools than scripturalism. If scripturalism cannot deliver something using its tools but someone else can using their own tools, then that is just more problems with scripturalism.




> And I can not use force _my_ definitions of the terms _you_ are using to critique your arguments, if adopting your definitions makes your arguments sound. To be just, I need to understand your definitions and see if your logic is sound or faulty using your terms as you define them. That is why the phrase "for the sake of arguments, let us agree....".
> [Edited on 2-17-2006 by Civbert]



Exactly.


----------



## Civbert

ChristianTrader,

If a system of epistemology is the issue, then we need to examine it by it's own terms. What you seem to be doing is saying - I believe in empiricism therefore Scripturalism is false. Well I can say I love is a hairy dog, therefore you don't love me.

Do you see what I mean? You certainly can not defeat Scripturalism by assuming a contrary definition of knowledge - that would be begging the question.

But if you want to go there - how do you know what you saw?


----------



## Civbert

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I can not use force _my_ definitions of the terms _you_ are using to critique your arguments, if adopting your definitions makes your arguments sound. To be just, I need to understand your definitions and see if your logic is sound or faulty using your terms as you define them. That is why the phrase "for the sake of arguments, let us agree....".
> [Edited on 2-17-2006 by Civbert]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


First - Scripturalism is the system of question - so it's terms are the ones we must use - it's methods, it's definitions, it's axioms. Agreed?

Second - you need to demonstrate that Scripturalism has made a promise it can not keep, not assert it. Agreed?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...
> Another aspect of the same issue is that other systems have other tools than Scripturalism. If Scripturalism cannot deliver something using its tools but someone else can using their own tools, then that is just more problems with Scripturalism.



Even so, it does not invalidate or disprove or show any incoherence in Scripturalism. And really, that's the only argument that available against Scripturalism. For instance - it does not allow that one can know oneself. Well that's a real bummer, but it's not a defeater. It might also mean you can not "know" by mere observation, but again this is a bummer, not a defeater. I don't mean to get technical with you but bummers are not defeaters. 


But if you want to show that other systems can deliver the goods, you can not do that by changing the definition of knowledge to win your case. This is epistemology - knowledge is the question. Changing the definition of knowledge midstream is equivocating. (I'm not necessarily saying you are doing that, but it's a common tactic.) 

So we are back to picking a definition of knowledge and sticking with it if we are going to argue about Scripturalism or compare it to any other epistemology.

Again you need to answer the question - how do you know what you see? It's not enought to just say you see therefore you know. That's not an argument.


----------



## Don

Well it looks like I'm back for a little while... 




> Even so, it does not invalidate or disprove or show any incoherence in Scripturalism. And really, that's the only argument that available against Scripturalism. For instance - it does not allow that one can know oneself.



How do you know all this Anthony? Is this deducible from Scripture or stated in Scripture? Is this really the *only* argument *available* against Scripturalism? Is it validly deducible from Scripture or stated directly in Scripture that this is the *only* argument available against Scripturalism? Let me remind you that these are all *extra-biblical* propositions and are therefore your opinion and you do not actually *know* any of them. And can someone tell me what opinions are like?  

If you want to change your position and claim that you know these, then that's fine with me as you'll end in self-referential incoherence. 




> Well that's a real bummer, but it's not a defeater. It might also mean you can not "know" by mere observation, but again this is a bummer, not a defeater. I don't mean to get technical with you but bummers are not defeaters.



Where is the Scripture verse that says 'bummers are not defeaters'? Or how is that validly deduced from Scripture? Is this your opinion again?  




> But if you want to show that other systems can deliver the goods, you can not do that by changing the definition of knowledge to win your case. This is epistemology - knowledge is the question. Changing the definition of knowledge midstream is equivocating. (I'm not necessarily saying you are doing that, but it's a common tactic.)



Again, how can you make these requirements of anyone when they are not validly deduced from Scripture or stated in Scripture? Do you *know* what equivocating is or do you have an *opinion* of what it is? If you know it, how did you deduce it? 




> Again you need to answer the question - how do you know what you see? It's not enought to just say you see therefore you know. That's not an argument.



Where is this bible verse? Where is the deduction from Scripture that Hermonta needs to answer this question?

Since we can only know things either validly deduced from Scripture or stated in Scripture, I want to see some 'deductions', now! 

If any of this is just your 'unjustified opinion', then who cares about it? *This can be said for every one of your statements that are not deducible from Scripture or stated in Scripture and you will end in radical skepticism*. 

I've been reading through some of the posts, and have seen several *inductive generalizations*. These are not knowledge Anthony, you know when you say that *all* systems fail and the like - and we know that induction is all wet, so no more claims to knowledge like this. 



*edited* 

*Now if you just want to say that you have confidence in your opinions and it's not really knowledge, then I want to ask how this 'confidence' was obtained. How did you gain *any* epistemic credentials for having any more confidence in these opinions*

If you want to that it's functional and just works, then science and many other theories work, so what gives Scripturalism any more validity. 

The answers to the above paragraphs would need to be validly deducible from Scripture or stated in it. 

Oh and please deduce the laws of logic from scripture as well without *PRESUPPOSING* them either before or while you are deducing them! 

Regards,
Don

[Edited on 2-18-2006 by Don]


----------



## Magma2

Don writes:


> Oh and please deduce the laws of logic from scripture as well without *PRESUPPOSING* them either before or while you are deducing them!



While most of your post in my view was merely gainsaying and not argument, I thought I would touch on this last objection since it seems to be the most substantive and, besides, I think the other objections have already been dealt with.

First, it is quite impossible to say or write anything without presupposing the laws of logic. However, I think the question why not make logic another axiom in addition to the Scriptures is a good one, even if it wasn´t specifically the one you asked.

Clark answered this question as follows:



> The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.
> 
> For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God´s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God´s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God´s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.
> 
> As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of John´s Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God´s willing.



While I think the above answers what I think is the better question, I do think it possible to deduce the laws of logic, specifically LC and LEM from Scripture. On the Scripturalist list, George Coghill gave me permission to reprint his argument for LC and LEM here. His argument is pretty involved, but I think most (including myself) certainly can get the gist. Besides, I think his argument has a certain elegance to it:



> That lc and lem are deliverances of scripture comes from 1 John 2:21:
> 
> No falsehood (pseudos) is of the truth.
> 
> That as it stands is a pretty good declaration of the law of contradiction. It says that there is no proposition (x) that is both a falsehood and of the truth (ie a member of the class of true propositions).
> 
> Note that this is a universal negative. That is, it applies to every member of the class, which in this case is propositions. Now, that it applies to all propositions not just those in scripture should be obvious from the fact that there are no falsehoods in scripture.
> 
> Let Tx stand for 'x is of the truth', and Fx stand for x is a falsehood.
> 
> Then we can put it into symbolic logic as:
> 
> ~3x(Fx & Tx) ---(1)
> 
> where '~' means 'not' and '3x' means 'there exists an x'
> 
> By de Morgans laws this is equivalent to:
> 
> ~3x~(~Fx + ~Tx) ---(2)
> 
> Now in scripture there are (as far as I can see) only two types of proposition spoken of: true ones and false ones. (If you disagree then please show where scripture indicates differently.) Also as far as I can see these two are in contradiction to one another (see the references Sean gave the other day). Again if you disagree then please show the error from scripture. If this is the case
> 
> That being the case (2) can be rewritten as:
> 
> ~3x~(Tx + Fx)
> 
> Then by quantifier conversion this becomes:
> 
> (x)(Tx + Fx)
> 
> (where '(x)' means 'for all x')
> 
> Restating this in longhand it becomes:
> 
> For every proposition, x, it is the case that either x is of the truth or x is a falsehood.
> 
> And that is the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> [I used predicate logic first because it is easier to see what is going on and since when talking about contradictions predicate logic and aristotilian logic give the same results.]
> 
> For completeness, I shall do the same with Aristotilian logic:
> 
> No falsehood is of the truth can be written formally as:
> 
> E(F,T)
> 
> which by conversion can also be written as:
> 
> E(T,F)
> 
> As I said that is as good a statement as any of lc.
> 
> Then by obversion this becomes:
> 
> A(T,F')
> 
> and since T is equivalent to F' (as stated previously) we get
> 
> A(T, T) ---(3)
> 
> which is the law of identity.
> 
> Now recall from Clark's "Logic" that the universal affirmative can be written in symbolic terms as:
> 
> A(a, b) = (a < b)[(b < a) + (a < b')'(b' < a)']
> 
> So substituting from (3) into this gives:
> 
> (T < T)[(T < T) + (T < T')'(T' < T)]
> 
> Expanding gives:
> 
> (T < T)(T < T) + (T < T)(T < T')'(T' < T)
> 
> I am not going to go through this step by step (you can check it for yourself) but it should be pretty obvious that the left hand side of this disjunction reduces to 'T" and the right hand side reduces to 'F'
> 
> So we have:
> 
> T + F
> 
> Which is the law of the excluded middle, and states that every proposition is either of the truth or is a falsehood.
> 
> As a final note. This should be taken as a demonstration that lc and lem are deliverances of scripture. Since one has to assume them in order to proceed it constitutes proof only in the sense of implicit self reference along the lines of 2 Tim 3:16 or God swearing by himself.
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> Cheers
> 
> George


----------



## Don

> While most of your post in my view was merely gainsaying and not argument, I thought I would touch on this last objection since it seems to be the most substantive and, besides, I think the other objections have already been dealt with.




I will have to examine the rest of your post next week sometime after I take this last section of the CPA. 

However, you seem to have missed the point of my post and, in my view, it seems as though your dismissal is nothing more than a blanket assertion. 

I have tried to put what Aquascum and others have said into a reductio type conversation. Since you guys hold to an internalist (evidenced from the habit of asking people how they know things and if they don't know how, then they don't know it) and infallibilist constraint on knowledge, then it's legitimate for me to ask how you know all these things based upon your own views of Scripturalism. If it's all your opinion then fine, but why should I accept your opinion whether it's a confident opinion or not (the reasons of which would need to be deducible). 

Now with that said, maybe you could point me in the direction where all this has actually been addressed, including the critiques that have been posted. 

Thanks.


----------



## Magma2

> I have tried to put what Aquascum and others have said into a reductio type conversation. Since you guys hold to an internalist (evidenced from the habit of asking people how they know things and if they don't know how, then they don't know it) and infallibilist constraint on knowledge, then it's legitimate for me to ask how you know all these things based upon your own views of Scripturalism. If it's all your opinion then fine, but why should I accept your opinion whether it's a confident opinion or not (the reasons of which would need to be deducible).



Clearly from the above argument, and countless more could be adduced, everything is not mere opinion. I suppose the way to overcome Scripturalism is to demonstrate the Scriptures are fallible, but Anthony covered that already. Maybe that´s where Aquascum is headed after all?
After all, while axioms can't be proven, they can be disproven.

Sean


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> ...
> I have tried to put what Aquascum and others have said into a reductio type conversation. Since you guys hold to an internalist (evidenced from the habit of asking people how they know things and if they don't know how, then they don't know it) and infallibilist constraint on knowledge, then it's legitimate for me to ask how you know all these things based upon your own views of Scripturalism. If it's all your opinion then fine, but why should I accept your opinion whether it's a confident opinion or not (the reasons of which would need to be deducible).
> 
> Now with that said, maybe you could point me in the direction where all this has actually been addressed, including the critiques that have been posted.
> 
> Thanks.



You question has been dealt with already. It does not apply. I do not need to deduce from Scripture what you demand because the argument was an issue of rationality. Unless you want to argue against the laws of logic (which is itself impossible) then you don't have a valid objection. 

The Axiom can only be defeated by deducing from it a proposition that is contrary to the Axiom. That is the only way to show the Scripturalist system is incoherent. I need not deduce that requirement from Scripture because it is a question of logic, which is necessarily a pre-condition of any rational system. 

I don't need to deduce that there is no other means of knowledge. If there is, it needs to be shown it is more reliable than Scripturalism to carry any weight. But that still would not defeat Scripturalism.

I don't need to deduce the laws of logic, because all rational systems assume them. 

Read Sean's quote from Clark and Coghill. These also address your questions.

The extent of my opinion is this: The Scripture is the inerrant Word of God.


----------



## Don

> Clearly from the above argument, and countless more could be adduced, everything is not mere opinion. I suppose the way to overcome Scripturalism is to demonstrate the Scriptures are fallible, but Anthony covered that already. Maybe that´s where Aquascum is headed after all?
> After all, while axioms can't be proven, they can be disproven.
> 
> Sean




I never said that you guys thought *everything* was mere opinion! My post is based on assuming Scripturalism, internalism, and infallibilism are true and that things that can be deduced are classified as *knowledge*.

Anthony has covered no such thing. I have yet to see an argument that equates Scripturalism with Scripture. I can accept the infallibility of Scripture without accepting Scripturalism. But you guys need to argue that these are equivalent rather than continually stating it over and over (or quoting an irrelevant verse). And this argument needs to be deducible from Scripture. 

I'm not sure of what the relevance is of 'proving' an axiom, since to my knowledge no one has asked you to do that.


----------



## Don

> You question has been dealt with already. It does not apply. I do not need to deduce from Scripture what you demand because the argument was an issue of rationality. Unless you want to argue against the laws of logic (which is itself impossible) then you don't have a valid objection.




Another assertion Anthony. It's not as though 'issues of rationality' are actually agreed upon by logicians. Arguing against your assumption of what rationality entails is not equivalent to arguing against the laws of logic. 




> The Axiom can only be defeated by deducing from it a proposition that is contrary to the Axiom. That is the only way to show the Scripturalist system is incoherent. I need not deduce that requirement from Scripture because it is a question of logic, which is necessarily a pre-condition of any rational system.



Again, this is nothing more than you just telling me how it is. Ok Anthony, no it's not the only way it can be defeated. There. 




> I don't need to deduce that there is no other means of knowledge. If there is, it needs to be shown it is more reliable than Scripturalism to carry any weight. But that still would not defeat Scripturalism.



Huh? 



> I don't need to deduce the laws of logic, because all rational systems assume them.
> 
> Read Sean's quote from Clark and Coghill. These also address your questions.
> 
> The extent of my opinion is this: The Scripture is the inerrant Word of God.



I have read through both, but as of yet, I do not see any relevance. Even if I granted Mr. Coghill's deducing the laws of logic, I don't see what relevance it has to my objection as he has still already assumed the laws of logic in so doing. To me, this is nothing more than a bad case of eisogesis. Read below.

I'm not sure how Clark's quote is relevant either since I am speaking of deducing the laws of logic from Scripture prior to presupposing them. Even if it is the case that one comes to the Scripture already knowing logic and proves them via Scripture, I think it still misses the point as the laws of logic were already known intuitionally prior to Scripture and that would seem to make it apparent that knowledge can be obtained 'outside' of Scripture.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly from the above argument, and countless more could be adduced, everything is not mere opinion. I suppose the way to overcome Scripturalism is to demonstrate the Scriptures are fallible, but Anthony covered that already. Maybe that´s where Aquascum is headed after all?
> After all, while axioms can't be proven, they can be disproven.
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that you guys thought *everything* was mere opinion! My post is based on assuming Scripturalism, internalism, and infallibilism are true and that things that can be deduced are classified as *knowledge*.
> 
> Anthony has covered no such thing. I have yet to see an argument that equates Scripturalism with Scripture. I can accept the infallibility of Scripture without accepting Scripturalism. But you guys need to argue that these are equivalent rather than continually stating it over and over (or quoting an irrelevant verse). And this argument needs to be deducible from Scripture.
> 
> I'm not sure of what the relevance is of 'proving' an axiom, since to my knowledge no one has asked you to do that.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what Aquascum is doing when you says "the argument must be deduced from Scripture". What argument? The argument that Scripture is true? There is nothing else demanded by the Axiom. The argument that a incoherent system is internally contrary, and that must be shown to show Scripturalism in contrary? That's a matter of logic itself. Again, you keep asking for these things to be deduced from Scripture as if this was demanded by Scripturalism - they do not. 

And what is the connection with internalism and infallibilism? You've used these terms twice but made no connection to Scripturalism.

And if you accept that Scripture is inerrant, you should accept Scripturalism - which is the logical consequence of asserting Scripture is inerrant. Otherwise, you need to give an alternative and defended it.


----------



## Don

> And what is the connection with internalism and infallibilism? You've used these terms twice but made no connection to Scripturalism.



This has already been said, you didn't read my post. Infallibilism (as well as internalism) was dealt with over a few pages by Aquascum, so it would be hard to miss. 




> And if you accept that Scripture is inerrant, you should accept Scripturalism - which is the logical consequence of asserting Scripture is inerrant. Otherwise, you need to give an alternative and defended it.



No I shouldn't. Again, this is assertionism at its finest. I don't need an alternative. This is exactly what Cheung tried to say without much warrant. There is a reason why it's called a reductio, Anthony. 

Anyway, it's been fun. I have really spent more time than I need to on this, as I have other commitments (passing the CPA). 

See ya.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> I'm not sure how Clark's quote is relevant either since I am speaking of deducing the laws of logic from Scripture prior to presupposing them. Even if it is the case that one comes to the Scripture already knowing logic and proves them via Scripture, I think it still misses the point as the laws of logic were already known intuitionally prior to Scripture and that would seem to make it apparent that knowledge can be obtained 'outside' of Scripture.



It's irrational to try to deduce the laws of logic without presupposing them. Deduction is logical. Deduction is a formal process - the forms themselves have no content, they are patters of correct reason. Without content, they contain no knowledge. But although you "know" logic prior to knowing Scripture, you can not know anything else with logic itself. So the "outside" knowledge of logic stops at logic and gos not further. Scripture provides true content for logic to work with - ergo Scripturalism is a rational and coherent system.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Don_
> ...
> Anyway, it's been fun. I have really spent more time than I need to on this, as I have other commitments (passing the CPA).
> 
> See ya.



I pray you do well on you CPA. We can pick this up latter.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Don writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and please deduce the laws of logic from scripture as well without *PRESUPPOSING* them either before or while you are deducing them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While most of your post in my view was merely gainsaying and not argument, I thought I would touch on this last objection since it seems to be the most substantive and, besides, I think the other objections have already been dealt with.
> 
> First, it is quite impossible to say or write anything without presupposing the laws of logic. However, I think the question why not make logic another axiom in addition to the Scriptures is a good one, even if it wasn´t specifically the one you asked.
> 
> Clark answered this question as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.
> 
> For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God´s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God´s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God´s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.
> 
> As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of John´s Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God´s willing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No one said anything about making logic prior to or independent of God (as an aside, I reject the notion that we could possibly know that logic is God thinking. We have no reason to presuppose that logic is related in a certain fashion to God's essential nature.

So we have no reason to say that logic has existed as long as God has (if statement makes any sense  )

There is no reason to believe that God could not exist before and beyond logic. What is wrong with saying logic has existed as long as time has. Before time stretches the imagination as much as before logic and we do not reject that time is a creation.

The rest of Clark's statement is basically more of the same.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried to put what Aquascum and others have said into a reductio type conversation. Since you guys hold to an internalist (evidenced from the habit of asking people how they know things and if they don't know how, then they don't know it) and infallibilist constraint on knowledge, then it's legitimate for me to ask how you know all these things based upon your own views of Scripturalism. If it's all your opinion then fine, but why should I accept your opinion whether it's a confident opinion or not (the reasons of which would need to be deducible).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly from the above argument, and countless more could be adduced, everything is not mere opinion. I suppose the way to overcome Scripturalism is to demonstrate the Scriptures are fallible, but Anthony covered that already. Maybe that´s where Aquascum is headed after all?
> After all, while axioms can't be proven, they can be disproven.
> 
> Sean
Click to expand...


But the issue is how to get from scripturalism is true to not everything that cannot be deduced from scripture is mere opinion. Since the statement (or something equivalent to) "scripturalism is true" cannot be found or deduced from scripture, then it it cannot be know, so it is some sort of opinion, which can be accepted or rejected at will.

Also if you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove it is false either. For to prove something false, you must know something to be true and then say that the statement in question is inconsistent with the true statement and therefore false.

I hold the scriptures are inerrant and that scripturalism is nonsense.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Don_
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly from the above argument, and countless more could be adduced, everything is not mere opinion. I suppose the way to overcome Scripturalism is to demonstrate the Scriptures are fallible, but Anthony covered that already. Maybe that´s where Aquascum is headed after all?
> After all, while axioms can't be proven, they can be disproven.
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that you guys thought *everything* was mere opinion! My post is based on assuming Scripturalism, internalism, and infallibilism are true and that things that can be deduced are classified as *knowledge*.
> 
> Anthony has covered no such thing. I have yet to see an argument that equates Scripturalism with Scripture. I can accept the infallibility of Scripture without accepting Scripturalism. But you guys need to argue that these are equivalent rather than continually stating it over and over (or quoting an irrelevant verse). And this argument needs to be deducible from Scripture.
> 
> I'm not sure of what the relevance is of 'proving' an axiom, since to my knowledge no one has asked you to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what Aquascum is doing when you says "the argument must be deduced from Scripture". What argument? The argument that Scripture is true?
Click to expand...


The argument that believing that scripture is infallibly true entails the belief that scripturalism is true.



> And if you accept that Scripture is inerrant, you should accept Scripturalism - which is the logical consequence of asserting Scripture is inerrant. Otherwise, you need to give an alternative and defended it.



You are the one making the assertion that Inerrantism entails scripturalism. You are the one that needs to do the justifying.

CT


----------



## Magma2

> But the issue is how to get from scripturalism is true to not everything that cannot be deduced from scripture is mere opinion. Since the statement (or something equivalent to) "scripturalism is true" cannot be found or deduced from scripture, then it it cannot be know, so it is some sort of opinion, which can be accepted or rejected at will.



Isa 8:20; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.




> Also if you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove it is false either. For to prove something false, you must know something to be true and then say that the statement in question is inconsistent with the true statement and therefore false.



This is a non sequitur. While you cannot prove the Scriptures themselves are true, that doesn´t mean you cannot prove them false either. Per the WCF logical coherence is one of the evidences of the truthfulness of Scripture. If it could be demonstrated that the Scriptures were contradictory then we could know that one side of the contradiction must be and not may be false. Therefore, if the Christian system did not cohere then the axiom on which the entire system rests, the Scriptures, would be self-refuting not self-attesting. John said; "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Similarly no contradiction is of the truth. Truth is evidenced by the logical coherence of propositions. 




> I hold the scriptures are inerrant and that scripturalism is nonsense.



OK. Who cares? Hold to whatever you want. However, it appears from your replies that you belief is based on ignorance. I get the impression that you have had little or no interaction with Clark. I recommend the volume Christian Philosophy http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=145.

OTOH they say ignorance is bliss, but then I wouldn't trust them.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Just a silly comment here...

Every time I see the title of this thread I read the first word as "Aquaman". 

So what does the King of Atlantis have to say about all this?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> But the issue is how to get from scripturalism is true to not everything that cannot be deduced from scripture is mere opinion. Since the statement (or something equivalent to) "scripturalism is true" cannot be found or deduced from scripture, then it it cannot be know, so it is some sort of opinion, which can be accepted or rejected at will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isa 8:20; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Click to expand...


Umm.... your point would be??? I guess one question would be what do you think "speak according to" means here? If you think this verse proves scripturalism, then you would need to unpack it to show that such is the case.



> Also if you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove it is false either. For to prove something false, you must know something to be true and then say that the statement in question is inconsistent with the true statement and therefore false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a non sequitur. While you cannot prove the Scriptures themselves are true, that doesn´t mean you cannot prove them false either.
Click to expand...


If you would take a few seconds off from being Clark's pittbull, you could perhaps read and understand others in context. 

First off, what you can prove or not prove depends on how you define prove.

Next, my statement does not necessarily contradict what you have written above. That two contradictory statement cannot both be true is basic and unquestioned. However, you must first know what each proposition in question refers to. If you do not know this then you could not say that there is a contradiction. Next, you must know that what each refers to cannot exist at the same time. You also must know that 
all your background assumptions are true. Background assumptions are all the things that you have to assume to be true, in order for your proclamation of falsehood or truthood to make sense. For example lets say someone pointed out a seeming contradiction between two places in the Bible. One assumption is that the two sections are speaking with the same degree of precision (one could be using round numbers instead of exact) or that the two sections are both historical, instead of one historical and one poetic, etc.)



> Per the WCF logical coherence is one of the evidences of the truthfulness of Scripture.



I agree.



> If it could be demonstrated that the Scriptures were contradictory then we could know that one side of the contradiction must be and not may be false.



But the interesting thing is when can one say that such a thing has been demonstrated. As my initial statement claimed, at the very least you must know a number of things before you could demonstrate anything.



> Therefore, if the Christian system did not cohere then the axiom on which the entire system rests, the Scriptures, would be self-refuting not self-attesting. John said; "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Similarly no contradiction is of the truth. Truth is evidenced by the logical coherence of propositions.



I have no real issues with this statement either. It just seems that you do not realize how much goes into proving something.



> I hold the scriptures are inerrant and that scripturalism is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Who cares? Hold to whatever you want. However, it appears from your replies that you belief is based on ignorance.
Click to expand...


We can let the peanut gallery decide that 



> I get the impression that you have had little or no interaction with Clark. I recommend the volume Christian Philosophy http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=145.
> 
> OTOH they say ignorance is bliss, but then I wouldn't trust them.



At some point, I will have to get and interact extensively with that work, but that day probably won't be that soon, for you have certainly not convinced me that I am ignorant of the basic issues at stake.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> That's exactly what Aquascum is doing when you says "the argument must be deduced from Scripture". What argument? The argument that Scripture is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument that believing that scripture is infallibly true entails the belief that scripturalism is true.
Click to expand...


Well that was my conclusion, not my argument. And that was not the "argument" that Aquascum was demanding be deduced from Scripture. He wanted the the Cheung to deduce the axiom "knowledge comes from the propositions of Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom". But that statement is the axiom of the system and can not be deduced from the system without being circular.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> And if you accept that Scripture is inerrant, you should accept Scripturalism - which is the logical consequence of asserting Scripture is inerrant. Otherwise, you need to give an alternative and defended it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one making the assertion that Inerrantism entails scripturalism. You are the one that needs to do the justifying.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Well I think I already did - maybe if you'd like to address something specific in my prior arguments we can discuss it. However, I'd be interested in finding out what the alternative epistemologies are that anyone has to offer. Certainly those who object to Scripturalism must have some sort of solution to "how do we know? While Scripturalism may not be all we'd like it to be, it is more coherent and comprehensive than any alternatives that I've come across. 

Do you have any suggestions? ...

... anyone? ...

[hears lonely sound of crickets chirping]


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> That's exactly what Aquascum is doing when you says "the argument must be deduced from Scripture". What argument? The argument that Scripture is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument that believing that scripture is infallibly true entails the belief that scripturalism is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that was my conclusion, not my argument. And that was not the "argument" that Aquascum was demanding be deduced from Scripture. He wanted the the Cheung to deduce the axiom "knowledge comes from the propositions of Scripture and what can be deduced therefrom". But that statement is the axiom of the system and can not be deduced from the system without being circular.
Click to expand...


So the axiom of the scripturalist system is that scripturalism is true? So to counter all one has to do is say that by axiom of any other system, scripturalism is false?



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> And if you accept that Scripture is inerrant, you should accept Scripturalism - which is the logical consequence of asserting Scripture is inerrant. Otherwise, you need to give an alternative and defended it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one making the assertion that Inerrantism entails scripturalism. You are the one that needs to do the justifying.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think I already did - maybe if you'd like to address something specific in my prior arguments we can discuss it.
Click to expand...


Okay you can point it out. I dont remember reading anything about it, just the claim.



> However, I'd be interested in finding out what the alternative epistemologies are that anyone has to offer.



If scripturalism is true is entailed by the proposition that scripture is infallibly true, then there is no need to look for alternatives. If it is not entailed by it, then it is just a mere opinion. Which at best is just like all the other alternatives, while at worst (for you) is just false.



> Certainly those who object to Scripturalism must have some sort of solution to "how do we know?



Actually the relevant question at this juncture is "what do we know" and what must be known in order to get anywhere. I dont have to give you a blow by blow of how a car operates in order to be able to drive it.

Also most would just say that gaining knowledge from the senses (I saw it etc.) is just properly basic. Defeatable, yes but still properly basic.



> While Scripturalism may not be all we'd like it to be, it is more coherent and comprehensive than any alternatives that I've come across.
> 
> Do you have any suggestions? ...
> 
> ... anyone? ...
> 
> [hears lonely sound of crickets chirping]



You have yet to justify the claim that it is coherent let alone the only alternative.

CT


----------



## Magma2

> Isa 8:20; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
> 
> Umm.... your point would be??? I guess one question would be what do you think "speak according to" means here? If you think this verse proves scripturalism, then you would need to unpack it to show that such is the case.



The point is you asked how Scripturalism arrives at the proposition that not everything deduced from or explicitly set down in Scripture is mere opinion. 



> This is a non sequitur. While you cannot prove the Scriptures themselves are true, that doesn´t mean you cannot prove them false either.
> 
> If you would take a few seconds off from being Clark's pittbull, you could perhaps read and understand others in context.
> 
> First off, what you can prove or not prove depends on how you define prove.



First off, I´m hardly a pitbull, more like a Labrador. Second, I was using the word prove in the logical or philosophic sense. As in an argument which is both sound and valid.



> Next, my statement does not necessarily contradict what you have written above. That two contradictory statement cannot both be true is basic and unquestioned. However, you must first know what each proposition in question refers to. If you do not know this then you could not say that there is a contradiction. Next, you must know that what each refers to cannot exist at the same time. You also must know that all your background assumptions are true. Background assumptions are all the things that you have to assume to be true, in order for your proclamation of falsehood or truthood to make sense. For example lets say someone pointed out a seeming contradiction between two places in the Bible. One assumption is that the two sections are speaking with the same degree of precision (one could be using round numbers instead of exact) or that the two sections are both historical, instead of one historical and one poetic, etc.)



You said; "œif you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove it is false either." This is false. So, yes, your statement contradicts what I have written. 



> Per the WCF logical coherence is one of the evidences of the truthfulness of Scripture.
> 
> 
> I agree.



Well, that´s all that Scripturalism asserts. So what´s the beef? This is why Clark also refers to Scripturalism as the "œWestminister principle." 




> If it could be demonstrated that the Scriptures were contradictory then we could know that one side of the contradiction must be and not may be false.
> 
> 
> But the interesting thing is when can one say that such a thing has been demonstrated. As my initial statement claimed, at the very least you must know a number of things before you could demonstrate anything.



That´s true. You have to first understand the meaning of the propositions entailed in any seeming contradiction. Since we´re talking about Scripture, then exegesis and proper hermeneutics along with the illumination of the Holy Spirit are key to a correct understanding of any biblical proposition. Now, if your exegesis is sound and any two propositions of Scripture contradict each other "“ and no further exegesis will remove the contradiction "“ then we can know that the Scriptures are false in at least in one of the things it teaches. If that´s the case then the Scriptures fail and I´ll join you in looking for a better starting point than the Scriptures. Just as an aside, this is also why Van Tilianism is pure poison since it asserts at the outset that all Scripture is contradictory in which no amount of study can overcome.




> Quote:
> 
> Therefore, if the Christian system did not cohere then the axiom on which the entire system rests, the Scriptures, would be self-refuting not self-attesting. John said; "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Similarly no contradiction is of the truth. Truth is evidenced by the logical coherence of propositions.
> 
> 
> I have no real issues with this statement either.



Then what is your beef with Scripturalism?




> I hold the scriptures are inerrant and that scripturalism is nonsense.
> 
> 
> OK. Who cares? Hold to whatever you want. However, it appears from your replies that you belief is based on ignorance.
> 
> 
> We can let the peanut gallery decide that



Ad populum is a fallacy.



> I get the impression that you have had little or no interaction with Clark. I recommend the volume Christian Philosophy http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=145.
> 
> OTOH they say ignorance is bliss, but then I wouldn't trust them.
> 
> 
> At some point, I will have to get and interact extensively with that work, but that day probably won't be that soon, for you have certainly not convinced me that I am ignorant of the basic issues at stake.



While you´re waiting, I came across a very good summary by Dr. McMahon of Clark´s Intro to Christian Phil at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/GordonClark/McMahonSummaryIntroChristianPhil.htm


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Isa 8:20; To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
> 
> Umm.... your point would be??? I guess one question would be what do you think "speak according to" means here? If you think this verse proves scripturalism, then you would need to unpack it to show that such is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is you asked how Scripturalism arrives at the proposition that not everything deduced from or explicitly set down in Scripture is mere opinion.
Click to expand...


And my question to you was to unpack that verse in such a fashion as to defend the position of scripturalism. As it stands now, it looks that there are a few ways to understand that passage and some inconsistent with scripturalism.



> This is a non sequitur. While you cannot prove the Scriptures themselves are true, that doesn´t mean you cannot prove them false either.
> 
> If you would take a few seconds off from being Clark's pittbull, you could perhaps read and understand others in context.
> 
> First off, what you can prove or not prove depends on how you define prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, I´m hardly a pitbull, more like a Labrador. Second, I was using the word prove in the logical or philosophic sense. As in an argument which is both sound and valid.
Click to expand...


And as you know "some" people accept other types of arguments than strictly deductive ones. So again it comes down to what you mean by prove. If you wish to define all other proofs out of existence then, fine. We will just disagree.



> Next, my statement does not necessarily contradict what you have written above. That two contradictory statement cannot both be true is basic and unquestioned. However, you must first know what each proposition in question refers to. If you do not know this then you could not say that there is a contradiction. Next, you must know that what each refers to cannot exist at the same time. You also must know that all your background assumptions are true. Background assumptions are all the things that you have to assume to be true, in order for your proclamation of falsehood or truthood to make sense. For example lets say someone pointed out a seeming contradiction between two places in the Bible. One assumption is that the two sections are speaking with the same degree of precision (one could be using round numbers instead of exact) or that the two sections are both historical, instead of one historical and one poetic, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said; "œif you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove it is false either." This is false. So, yes, your statement contradicts what I have written.
Click to expand...


Alright, let me restate: "If you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove something false either." The problem with the previous statement was that I wrote it to imply that the proving true and proving false had to apply to the same statement.



> Per the WCF logical coherence is one of the evidences of the truthfulness of Scripture.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that´s all that Scripturalism asserts. So what´s the beef? This is why Clark also refers to Scripturalism as the "œWestminister principle."
Click to expand...


So all scripturalism asserts is that scripture coheres together? Okay I'm a vantillian scripturalist then 



> If it could be demonstrated that the Scriptures were contradictory then we could know that one side of the contradiction must be and not may be false.
> 
> 
> But the interesting thing is when can one say that such a thing has been demonstrated. As my initial statement claimed, at the very least you must know a number of things before you could demonstrate anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That´s true. You have to first understand the meaning of the propositions entailed in any seeming contradiction. Since we´re talking about Scripture, then exegesis and proper hermeneutics along with the illumination of the Holy Spirit are key to a correct understanding of any biblical proposition. Now, if your exegesis is sound and any two propositions of Scripture contradict each other "“ and no further exegesis will remove the contradiction "“ then we can know that the Scriptures are false in at least in one of the things it teaches.
Click to expand...


The problem here is when do you know that you have all the info necessary to verify or that the Bible is false in some proposition? "If your exegesis is sound" is a mighty big IF. Also how do you know if you are lacking some other knowledge that would change your exegesis of a passage?



> If that´s the case then the Scriptures fail and I´ll join you in looking for a better starting point than the Scriptures.



Who said I was looking for another starting point? The issue are what is and what is not consistent with that starting point.



> Just as an aside, this is also why Van Tilianism is pure poison since it asserts at the outset that all Scripture is contradictory in which no amount of study can overcome.



Van Til never said scripture is actually contradictory. He just made the obvious point that without exhaustive knowledge, one will run into problems or antimonies if they dig deep enough. We just have to trust God that he knows all and that if we obey his word we will be fine.




> Quote:
> 
> Therefore, if the Christian system did not cohere then the axiom on which the entire system rests, the Scriptures, would be self-refuting not self-attesting. John said; "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." Similarly no contradiction is of the truth. Truth is evidenced by the logical coherence of propositions.
> 
> 
> I have no real issues with this statement either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is your beef with Scripturalism?
Click to expand...


I have no problem with saying that scripture coheres. I can agree with that and say that there is more knowledge than what is explicit in scripture or can be deduced.



> I hold the scriptures are inerrant and that scripturalism is nonsense.
> 
> 
> OK. Who cares? Hold to whatever you want. However, it appears from your replies that you belief is based on ignorance.
> 
> 
> We can let the peanut gallery decide that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad populum is a fallacy.
Click to expand...


I was just putting the peanut gallery up against your authority claim of one.

CT


----------



## Magma2

[/quote]And my question to you was to unpack that verse in such a fashion as to defend the position of scripturalism. As it stands now, it looks that there are a few ways to understand that passage and some inconsistent with scripturalism.[/quote]

The meaning of Scripture is one, not manifold. If you think I´ve misunderstood or misapplied the verse, let´s see your argument. Otherwise, you just come across as a relativist.



> And as you know "some" people accept other types of arguments than strictly deductive ones. So again it comes down to what you mean by prove. If you wish to define all other proofs out of existence then, fine. We will just disagree.



I don´t care what some people accept. If the form of an argument is fallacious then it matters not one whit what some people accept. People accept all sorts of stupid things, why should formal fallacies be any exception.



> Alright, let me restate: "If you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove something false either." The problem with the previous statement was that I wrote it to imply that the proving true and proving false had to apply to the same statement.



And again your statement is false for the same reasons I previously gave. Your restatement appears to be just a repetition. Also, just to keep our eyes on the ball, while a Christian cannot prove the truth of his axiom, because there is nothing prior by which the truth of Scripture can be deduced (Heb 6:13b "œsince He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"), that doesn´t mean that one cannot prove anything whatsoever.




> Well, that´s all that Scripturalism asserts. So what´s the beef? This is why Clark also refers to Scripturalism as the "œWestminister principle."
> 
> 
> So all scripturalism asserts is that scripture coheres together? Okay I'm a vantillian scripturalist then



A Vantilian Scripturalist is an oxymoron = 




> The problem here is when do you know that you have all the info necessary to verify or that the Bible is false in some proposition? "If your exegesis is sound" is a mighty big IF. Also how do you know if you are lacking some other knowledge that would change your exegesis of a passage?



Are you also a deconstructionist? I don´t think sound exegesis is a big IF at all. I think most things in Scripture are quite easy to understand and the Westminster Divines concurred which is why they confessed the perspicuity of Scripture as well as the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.



> Who said I was looking for another starting point? The issue are what is and what is not consistent with that starting point.



That´s funny, I thought the issue at hand was that asserting the Scriptures as the axiomatic starting point to construct a biblical epistemology was untenable, self-refuting and incoherent?



> Just as an aside, this is also why Van Tilianism is pure poison since it asserts at the outset that all Scripture is contradictory in which no amount of study can overcome.
> 
> 
> Van Til never said scripture is actually contradictory. He just made the obvious point that without exhaustive knowledge, one will run into problems or antimonies if they dig deep enough. We just have to trust God that he knows all and that if we obey his word we will be fine.



I am well aware what Van Til and his followers have said and this is the death knell to all Christian thought. Without some method by which you can determine an apparent contradiction from a real one (something neither VT or any of his followers have supplied, quite the reverse actually) then the apparently contradictory turns out to be the really contradictory after all. For a further discussion of VT´s view of Scripture see The Evisceration of the Christian Faith at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 . 



> I have no problem with saying that scripture coheres. I can agree with that and say that there is more knowledge than what is explicit in scripture or can be deduced.



That´s fine, but just asserting there are additional basis for knowledge apart from God´s word doesn´t make it so. This is why I think Clark´s critics need to demonstrate their claims and show how one can know the truth, any truth, apart from revelation. No one has done this.



> Ad populum is a fallacy.
> 
> 
> I was just putting the peanut gallery up against your authority claim of one.



I realize what you were doing, but if everyone said that Clark´s "œdogmatism" was nonsense that doesn´t make it so. The collective opinion of the many remains just an opinion. Aquascum, while just parroting Sudduth, even repeating a number of Sudduth´s glaring errors, at least tried to stand beyond the crowd. I'll give him that much.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Magma2_


And my question to you was to unpack that verse in such a fashion as to defend the position of scripturalism. As it stands now, it looks that there are a few ways to understand that passage and some inconsistent with scripturalism.[/quote]

The meaning of Scripture is one, not manifold. If you think I´ve misunderstood or misapplied the verse, let´s see your argument. Otherwise, you just come across as a relativist.
[/quote]

My point here is that there is more nuance to scripture than you seem to wish to allow.

According (can and does) mean more than what is explicit or deducible. There is also that which the statement presupposes, and that which is consistent with said statement.

Your job would be to demonstrate that "according" only means that which is deducible or explicit.



> And as you know "some" people accept other types of arguments than strictly deductive ones. So again it comes down to what you mean by prove. If you wish to define all other proofs out of existence then, fine. We will just disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t care what some people accept. If the form of an argument is fallacious then it matters not one whit what some people accept. People accept all sorts of stupid things, why should formal fallacies be any exception.
Click to expand...


Here you just have to demonstrate why I (or others) cannot accept an informal arguments. If I know that the argument is informal aka not deductive then why cannot I accept it for what it is, (not deductive). You need to show why anyone has to be held to the standard of deductivity or else have to walk to plank.

All you have done thus far is assert that such is stupid. That is not going to cut it.



> Alright, let me restate: "If you cannot prove something true then you cannot prove something false either." The problem with the previous statement was that I wrote it to imply that the proving true and proving false had to apply to the same statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again your statement is false for the same reasons I previously gave. Your restatement appears to be just a repetition.
Click to expand...


For the most part it is, because you seem not to be comprehending.

One can know something without being able to prove it. For example, I can infallibly know that I am saved, without being able to prove it to you.



> Also, just to keep our eyes on the ball, while a Christian cannot prove the truth of his axiom, because there is nothing prior by which the truth of Scripture can be deduced (Heb 6:13b "œsince He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"), that doesn´t mean that one cannot prove anything whatsoever.



to prove something false, knowledge must exist prior to the proof. This all started because you wished to say that you could not know anything but use the law of non contradiction to prove something false. I refuted that and I really do not know where we are right now.




> Well, that´s all that Scripturalism asserts. So what´s the beef? This is why Clark also refers to Scripturalism as the "œWestminister principle."
> 
> 
> So all scripturalism asserts is that scripture coheres together? Okay I'm a vantillian scripturalist then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Vantilian Scripturalist is an oxymoron =
Click to expand...


Well a scripturalist of any sort is a nonsense, I was just playing along a bit.



> The problem here is when do you know that you have all the info necessary to verify or that the Bible is false in some proposition? "If your exegesis is sound" is a mighty big IF. Also how do you know if you are lacking some other knowledge that would change your exegesis of a passage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you also a deconstructionist? I don´t think sound exegesis is a big IF at all.
Click to expand...


The point here is the question as to what a contradiction in the Bible would look like. If you found what looked like a contradiction, would you say, "yep I have a contradiction or would you do more work"?

When everything comes together and your exegesis etc. cohere's then you are confident that you have it together, but when the opposite is true, is the problem you (and your lack of knowledge) or the problem the Bible?



> I think most things in Scripture are quite easy to understand and the Westminster Divines concurred which is why they confessed the perspicuity of Scripture as well as the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.



Scripture does interpret itself and most thing are easy, but even scripture says that some things are harder than others. In those harder things, do you just throw up the white flag and say contradiction or say, I just do not understand this.



> Who said I was looking for another starting point? The issue are what is and what is not consistent with that starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That´s funny, I thought the issue at hand was that asserting the Scriptures as the axiomatic starting point to construct a biblical epistemology was untenable, self-refuting and incoherent?
Click to expand...


Well I guess you thought wrong. The issue is if scripturalism is the summary statement of the Biblical epistemology and worldview. I disagree that it is.



> Just as an aside, this is also why Van Tilianism is pure poison since it asserts at the outset that all Scripture is contradictory in which no amount of study can overcome.
> 
> 
> Van Til never said scripture is actually contradictory. He just made the obvious point that without exhaustive knowledge, one will run into problems or antimonies if they dig deep enough. We just have to trust God that he knows all and that if we obey his word we will be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am well aware what Van Til and his followers have said and this is the death knell to all Christian thought.
Click to expand...


Prove it, and I do not want mere opinion, I want explicit scripture or that deducible from scripture.



> Without some method by which you can determine an apparent contradiction from a real one (something neither VT or any of his followers have supplied, quite the reverse actually) then the apparently contradictory turns out to be the really contradictory after all.



Because I cannot explicate an apparent contradiction, doesnt turn it into a real contradiction, it just spells out my lack of exhaustive knowledge. Which I never claimed in the first place. Fortunately for us, the Christian worldview does not need anyone to have exhaustive knowledge except God.

For your argument to work, you have to claim access to exhaustive knowledge.



> For a further discussion of VT´s view of Scripture see The Evisceration of the Christian Faith at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 .



VT's view of scripture is consistent with sufficiency and inerrancy and all the rest.



> I have no problem with saying that scripture coheres. I can agree with that and say that there is more knowledge than what is explicit in scripture or can be deduced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That´s fine, but just asserting there are additional basis for knowledge apart from God´s word doesn´t make it so.
Click to expand...


Asserting does not make anything so, just like asserting that there is no knowledge that is not explicit or deducible from the pages of scripture. The issue is being able to account for everything that the Bible says and takes for granted (aka presupposes). Scripturalism cannot do this.



> This is why I think Clark´s critics need to demonstrate their claims and show how one can know the truth, any truth, apart from revelation. No one has done this.



The problem is that you do not get to set the rules of engagement. You are assuming an internalist view of knowledge. Which is fine, but you are not going to get anywhere by just asserting that it is true and any forms of externalism is false.

There is also the issue of general revelation as well as special revelation.

I do believe that revelation is crucially important but we disagree over the places where this revelation is found as well as what has to be true in order to get ahold of this revelation.





> Ad populum is a fallacy.
> 
> 
> I was just putting the peanut gallery up against your authority claim of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize what you were doing, but if everyone said that Clark´s "œdogmatism" was nonsense that doesn´t make it so.
Click to expand...


And you saying that I am ignorant does not make it so. So I guess we are square.



> The collective opinion of the many remains just an opinion.



Just as the collective opinion of just you remains just an opinion.



> Aquascum, while just parroting Sudduth, even repeating a number of Sudduth´s glaring errors, at least tried to stand beyond the crowd. I'll give him that much.



Standing against the crowd gets you no brownie points, being correct gets you all the points that you want to have.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Also, just to keep our eyes on the ball, while a Christian cannot prove the truth of his axiom, because there is nothing prior by which the truth of Scripture can be deduced (Heb 6:13b "œsince He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"), that doesn´t mean that one cannot prove anything whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to prove something false, knowledge must exist prior to the proof. This all started because you wished to say that you could not know anything but use the law of non contradiction to prove something false. I refuted that and I really do not know where we are right now.
> 
> ...
> CT
Click to expand...


Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean. Then all you need to do is say that, if these propositions are _hypothetically_ true, then (by demonstration) they lead to a contradiction. So "knowledge" does not need to exist prior to a proof that something is false. The idea is to show that proposition _A_ and _B_ can not both be true because they are contraditory or contrary.

But what is also interesting is that a "contradition" requires _two_ propositions. A single proposition can not be a contradition. And one proposition can not imply it's own contradition (with the exception of the liars paradox and that leads to an infinate regression). But the point is that since Scripturalism has only one axiom, one can not validly deduce a contradition from it - therefore it can not be an incoherent system.


----------



## Civbert

Vincent Cheung just posted a good article on his blog regarding some of the criticisms of his philosophy. It addresses many of the criticisms posted in this thread, although some indirectly. So since that is the topic, here it is:




> The Fatal Maneuver
> Posted by Vincent Cheung on March 1, 2006
> 
> 
> There is a fatal maneuver in debate where if you can show that your opponent's position contradicts itself or makes itself impossible, then you have effectively destroyed his position and all that follows from it. It is a powerful move. It checkmates your opponent. However, if it is illegitimately used, it can backfire and inflict a fatal blow against the position of the one who uses it.
> 
> My system of philosophy and method of apologetics is rightly called "biblical" or "presuppositional." I begin with revelation and deduce the rest of the system from it. From this basic principle, the system can be adapted to respond to any objection as well as to destroy any opposing system. The system is constructed upon revelation and then uses deduction to derive the information inherent in revelation. From the start, it excludes irrational and impossible epistemologies such as those that place any reliance on intuition and sensation.
> 
> One prominent school of "presuppositional" apologetics protests that this surely goes too far. It admits that induction is fallacious, at least on its own, but then it is somehow redeemed when we operate under biblical presuppositions. It admits that sensation cannot yield knowledge, at least by itself, but then it can function as a reliable way to acquire knowledge once biblical principles are assumed. Or, it says that the unbeliever can use induction and sensation with good effect, but only that he cannot "account" for this. I have already critiqued this incoherent and unbiblical school of apologetics in a number of places, and it is not my main purpose to do it again here. But for the rest of this discussion, we need to keep in mind that its adherents have never shown that or how biblical presuppositions can make what is inherently irrational and illogical become rational and logical. It is just an unjustified assertion on their part.
> 
> Yet my point concerns something else, and that is how this school of apologetics attempts to refute mine, and how this backfires against them. One frequent objection is that if we must begin from the Bible, then surely we must first use our senses to even read the Bible. I have already answered this several times in several places, and there has been no successful attempt at a rebuttal. Among other things, this objection begs the question, and really ignores my position in the first place. This is because if I am correct, then we really do not need to use our senses (in the sense intended by my opponents) to read the Bible. I could respond to the objection just like I could to any empirical atheist "” I could push the debate into a purely mental world (as in a dream) just by suggesting it. From there, I can re-establish the physical world by my first principle, but what has happened to the empiricist, whether Christian or not?
> 
> Because I have answered the objection, it has failed to damage me. However, now that my opponents have stated the objection, and stated it as something that is consistent with their position, then they must answer it themselves. Because they have stated that one must use his senses to know what the Bible says, now they must show either that our senses are infallible, or if our senses are fallible, that there is an infallible way of telling in which instances they are correct and in which instances they are incorrect. If they cannot do this, then they cannot read the Bible, so that their entire system "” their whole Christian faith "” collapses, and it does so just as easily as empirical atheism, or any non-Christian religion or philosophy.
> 
> Some of them try to justify sensation as a reliable way to obtain knowledge. To argue for empiricism apart from Scripture is impossible, and they acknowledge this. And so, seemingly consistent with their own position, they argue for the basic reliability of sensation from Scripture. But what would it take to establish their position from Scripture? They acknowledge that our senses are fallible, and so they are not interested in supporting empiricism by arguing that the senses are infallible. However, if the senses are fallible, then they must establish from Scripture an infallible method by which to distinguish instances in which the sense are correct and instances in which they are wrong. But if they have a method at all, and if their method is fallible, then we still need to infallibly know how fallible it is and when it is fallible; otherwise, the whole thing collapses into skepticism again. They have not even come close to establishing any of this. At best, they have only shown that the Bible says that somebody saw or heard something, or that revelation testifies to the accuracy of a particular sensation or a particular set of sensations. But what they need is a theory of epistemology concerning sensation.
> 
> Because they insist on empiricism but fail to justify it, then by applying the objection against me, they have completely shut themselves out of the Bible. In attempting to perform a fatal maneuver against my position, they have killed their own. In fact, unless they can answer their own objection, they cannot even have an objection against me, since according to them, they would need the reliability of the senses to even read or hear about my position in the first place. Therefore, if I were to take their position seriously, I would have to say that their entire system falls apart, that there is no way they could know anything that is in the Bible, that they have never heard the gospel, and so that they cannot even be Christians at all. But since I do not take them seriously, and since I can explain their lives with my position, I can be more charitable to them than their own position allows.
> 
> As it is, any non-Christian can confront adherents of this school of apologetics and apparently bring down the entire Christian system using only this point. It is true that most non-Christians will not do this, because most non-Christians have empiricism as an integral part of their belief systems, so that they will usually not attack what they themselves believe. However, if a non-Christian finds himself backed into a corner, he can always bring this up to ensure mutual destruction. Thus I declare that this other school of presuppositional apologetics a complete failure. To the extent that it adheres to Scripture in its various parts, of course it is superior to non-Christian systems, but this is irrelevant in the construction of a philosophy since it fails at the very beginning, so that it cannot even get to those scriptural parts, and if non-Christians ever awake to this, it will prove to be a total disaster for these believers in debate and evangelism.
> 
> If anyone disagrees with the above, let him prove "” not just assert "” how by sensation he manages to read even one word from the Bible. Logically demonstrate how it happens "” establish every premise and show that every step proceeds by necessary inference "” and I will concede the whole debate on this issue. Anything else that you say is irrelevant "” you have asserted the necessity of sensation, as something that you need even before you read the Bible, so now you must establish it.
> 
> If you are unable to do this but insist on holding to your position, then let me offer you one piece of advice. You might never encounter a non-Christian who will challenge the reliability of sensation, but if you ever run into someone who does, know that the answer is to reject sensation and stand on revelation alone. Many people are interested in defending an idol theologian, but I am interested in the cause of Christ. I cannot stop you if you must remain in your false and dishonest position because of your loyalty to a particular personality or school of thought. But remember what I am telling you. One day you might need it. Not every non-Christian that you debate will give you the same pass on this issue that you give to yourself.
> 
> Then, there is another objection that has to do with my view on divine sovereignty, and how it relates to metaphysics and epistemology. I affirm that God must be active in facilitating and controlling all human thoughts, whether true or false, biblical or heretical. The adherents of this other school of presuppositional apologetics once again tries to perform a fatal maneuver against me. They suggest that according to my view, I could be deceived in affirming my view. First, this is just outright stupid, since the Bible says that God can send evil spirits to convince people of error. So no matter how it happens, God is the one who decrees that someone would be deceived. Second, they demonstrate that they really have no idea how to perform this fatal maneuver, since it again backfires against them. If I am deceived in the way that the objection suggests (that is, by my own explanation of how one comes to believe falsehood), then it actually proves my position. If I am deceived in the way that I say one is deceived, then I am in fact not deceived. To illustrate, if God sends a demon to "deceive" someone into thinking that God does not send demons to deceive, then God does send demons to deceive. Likewise, if God causes me to believe the "falsehood" that it is God who causes one to believe falsehood, then God does cause one to believe falsehood, and I am in fact not deceived. In other words, my position cannot be demonstrated as self-refuting in the manner attempted by the objection.
> 
> The fatal maneuver of showing self-contradiction in your opponent's position can be a powerful and effective move in debate. Just make sure that the opponent's position is in fact self-refuting and that your objection does not backfire against you. See to it that this fatal maneuver is not fatal just for you. Of course, if it can backfire to show incoherence in your own position, then your position is wrong and not worth defending in the first place, as the above have shown.
> 
> And if you still disagree, here is another exercise. Show this article to any non-Christian with more than a sixth grade education and tell him to apply what he reads here. Now see if you can still defend your faith against him using your brand of "presuppositional" apologetics.



It's worth going to the original post since it includes additional links to related articles.


----------



## Magma2

> One prominent school of "presuppositional" apologetics protests that this surely goes too far. It admits that induction is fallacious, at least on its own, but then it is somehow redeemed when we operate under biblical presuppositions. It admits that sensation cannot yield knowledge, at least by itself, but then it can function as a reliable way to acquire knowledge once biblical principles are assumed. Or, it says that the unbeliever can use induction and sensation with good effect, but only that he cannot "account" for this. I have already critiqued this incoherent and unbiblical school of apologetics in a number of places, and it is not my main purpose to do it again here. But for the rest of this discussion, we need to keep in mind that its adherents have never shown that or how biblical presuppositions can make what is inherently irrational and illogical become rational and logical. It is just an unjustified assertion on their part.





Great point and all too common. Ironically, this is a problem that plagues people who consider themselves presuppositionalists. Just an aside, last summer I took my 14 year old daughter to hear an interesting presentation by someone from Answers in Genesis. I´m not that familiar with them, but their method seems to consist of taking revelation and then make scientific observations "œfit" the biblical proposition. Their argument is basically scientific hypothesis X is better and more naturally explained by biblical proposition A than by secular assumption B. While I got the impression that the presenter failed to see that scientific observation doesn´t _arrive_ at any conclusion, rather as their method suggests, conclusions are imposed on observation in order to explain them, it was still a very effective presentation. I think if these scientists got their epistemological ducks in a row their presentation could be devastating. While sitting there I kept thinking of Dr. Robbins´ piece; The Scientist as Evangelist . For what it's worth I sent the guy some links to books by Dr. Clark and told him he needs to read them. My guess is he won't, but nothing ventured nothing gained.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Also, just to keep our eyes on the ball, while a Christian cannot prove the truth of his axiom, because there is nothing prior by which the truth of Scripture can be deduced (Heb 6:13b "œsince He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"), that doesn´t mean that one cannot prove anything whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to prove something false, knowledge must exist prior to the proof. This all started because you wished to say that you could not know anything but use the law of non contradiction to prove something false. I refuted that and I really do not know where we are right now.
> 
> ...
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean.
Click to expand...


Can you "understand without knowledge of what the terms mean?" Or can you just have opinions about what they mean? At a certain point, for you to get anywhere you are going to have to know something.



> Then all you need to do is say that, if these propositions are _hypothetically_ true, then (by demonstration) they lead to a contradiction. So "knowledge" does not need to exist prior to a proof that something is false. The idea is to show that proposition _A_ and _B_ can not both be true because they are contraditory or contrary.



But again if you do not know what the propositions mean then you couldnt know that they are contradictions. To know that you have a contradiction presupposes that you know what the propositions mean and that those propositions cannot exist at the same time. If you do not know both then you can't claim to know that you have a contradiction.



> But what is also interesting is that a "contradition" requires _two_ propositions. A single proposition can not be a contradition. And one proposition can not imply it's own contradition (with the exception of the liars paradox and that leads to an infinate regression). But the point is that since Scripturalism has only one axiom, one can not validly deduce a contradition from it - therefore it can not be an incoherent system.



The problem for you is that (at least certain) propositions can be split and unpacked making multiple propositions. This can occur because the terms used are ambigious or they have hidden presuppositions, that could be unacceptable.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Also, just to keep our eyes on the ball, while a Christian cannot prove the truth of his axiom, because there is nothing prior by which the truth of Scripture can be deduced (Heb 6:13b "œsince He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"), that doesn´t mean that one cannot prove anything whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to prove something false, knowledge must exist prior to the proof. This all started because you wished to say that you could not know anything but use the law of non contradiction to prove something false. I refuted that and I really do not know where we are right now.
> 
> ...
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you "understand without knowledge of what the terms mean?" Or can you just have opinions about what they mean? At a certain point, for you to get anywhere you are going to have to know something.
Click to expand...


I should have noted this first, but the point Sean was making is the epistemological axioms are _logically_ prior to the knowledge they infer, not _temporally_. The difference is important. No knowledge is logically prior to the axioms of epistemology that one holds. 

Epistemology is not about the temporal order of knowledge acquisition, but the logical order of knowledge justification. What truths are logically _a prior_ truths to justify a proposition is knowledge? And what is logically _a priori_ to that truth? Continue until you come to the axioms of your epistemology. The axiom is the truth one is assuming that justifies all other truths you believe you know.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Then all you need to do is say that, if these propositions are _hypothetically_ true, then (by demonstration) they lead to a contradiction. So "knowledge" does not need to exist prior to a proof that something is false. The idea is to show that proposition _A_ and _B_ can not both be true because they are contradictory or contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again if you do not know what the propositions mean then you couldnt know that they are contradictions. To know that you have a contradiction presupposes that you know what the propositions mean and that those propositions cannot exist at the same time. If you do not know both then you can't claim to know that you have a contradiction.
Click to expand...

We may be confusing knowledge and understanding. To find a contradiction requires understanding of the formal relationships involved. I do not even need to know what the propositions mean as long as I correctly understand their relationships. The terms must be used without equivocation - but I do not need to fully understand the meaning of the terms of propositions to show that two propositions are contradictory. 

For example: "all _A_ are _B_", and "some _A_ are not _B_", is a contradiction. What does _A_ or _B_ mean? It doesn't matter. The contradiction is found in the form of the statements, not in the meaning of _A_ and _B_.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> But what is also interesting is that a "contradiction" requires _two_ propositions. A single proposition can not be a contradiction. And one proposition can not imply it's own contradiction (with the exception of the liars paradox and that leads to an infinite regression). But the point is that since Scripturalism has only one axiom, one can not validly deduce a contradiction from it - therefore it can not be an incoherent system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem for you is that (at least certain) propositions can be split and unpacked making multiple propositions. This can occur because the terms used are ambiguous or they have hidden presuppositions, that could be unacceptable.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Sure, almost any proposition can be unpacked into multiple prior propositions. The terms of the proposition are themselves symbols of the propositions that define them. But ambiguity can not be shown with a single proposition, so one would have to demonstrate with additional uses of a term that _a particular person_ was using the term ambiguously. However, this still does not say anything about axioms. Since axioms are logical prior to all other propositions that are deduced from them in the system, then one can not say the terms of the axiom are ambiguous without presuming that the axiom is not an axiom. Because the _definition_ of the terms would then be logically prior to the proposition that is the axiom. And _that_ would be the fallacy of begging the question. 

I think the key here is logical verses temporal priority. If you mix them up, you'll go in circles. You have to start somewhere or you can not justify "knowing" anything. The question returns to "what are your axiom(s)" of your epistemology?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> Also, just to keep our eyes on the ball, while a Christian cannot prove the truth of his axiom, because there is nothing prior by which the truth of Scripture can be deduced (Heb 6:13b "œsince He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself"), that doesn´t mean that one cannot prove anything whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to prove something false, knowledge must exist prior to the proof. This all started because you wished to say that you could not know anything but use the law of non contradiction to prove something false. I refuted that and I really do not know where we are right now.
> 
> ...
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you "understand without knowledge of what the terms mean?" Or can you just have opinions about what they mean? At a certain point, for you to get anywhere you are going to have to know something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should have noted this first, but the point Sean was making is the epistemological axioms are _logically_ prior to the knowledge they infer, not _temporally_. The difference is important. No knowledge is logically prior to the axioms of epistemology that one holds.
Click to expand...


Okay, but the point is if you can know that something is a contradiction without knowing "logically and temporally" what the terms mean and what if they can exist at the same time.



> Epistemology is not about the temporal order of knowledge acquisition, but the logical order of knowledge justification. What truths are logically _a prior_ truths to justify a proposition is knowledge?



Alright again but that does nothing to buttress your case.



> And what is logically _a priori_ to that truth? Continue until you come to the axioms of your epistemology. The axiom is the truth one is assuming that justifies all other truths you believe you know.



Fine and dandy, but the issue is being able to call something contradictory without knowing what the terms mean. You cannot do it.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Then all you need to do is say that, if these propositions are _hypothetically_ true, then (by demonstration) they lead to a contradiction. So "knowledge" does not need to exist prior to a proof that something is false. The idea is to show that proposition _A_ and _B_ can not both be true because they are contradictory or contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again if you do not know what the propositions mean then you couldnt know that they are contradictions. To know that you have a contradiction presupposes that you know what the propositions mean and that those propositions cannot exist at the same time. If you do not know both then you can't claim to know that you have a contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We may be confusing knowledge and understanding. To find a contradiction requires understanding of the formal relationships involved.
Click to expand...


Alright and to understand the formal relationships, you must know what the terms mean and the if they are mutually exclusive.

You can know in the abstract the deductive form, but before you can claim a contradiction, you have to say, "I know the propositions in this case, fit this form". If you cannot say that then you cannot claim that you have found a contradiction. (Well you could claim it but something else could just as justifiably make the counter claim)



> I do not even need to know what the propositions mean as long as I correctly understand their relationships.



And you cannot understand the relationship without knowing what the propositions mean.

For example,
Prop. 1: I have a right hand
Prop. 2: I have a left hand
Claim: I have a contradicted myself because you can only have one or the other hand but not both.

That is what you have to swallow if you do not claim that knowing meaning is necessary to claim contradiction has been found.



> The terms must be used without equivocation - but I do not need to fully understand the meaning of the terms of propositions to show that two propositions are contradictory.



So you need to understand (aka know) to some extent (perhaps less than fully)? My only claim was that you need to know something (we can later discuss how much)

At this point, your argument is dead. 



> For example: "all _A_ are _B_", and "some _A_ are not _B_", is a contradiction. What does _A_ or _B_ mean? It doesn't matter. The contradiction is found in the form of the statements, not in the meaning of _A_ and _B_.



But you have to know the meaning if you are to claim that the argument fits the form. If you do not know that the props fit the form, then you cannot know that you have found a contradiction.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> But what is also interesting is that a "contradiction" requires _two_ propositions. A single proposition can not be a contradiction. And one proposition can not imply it's own contradiction (with the exception of the liars paradox and that leads to an infinite regression). But the point is that since Scripturalism has only one axiom, one can not validly deduce a contradiction from it - therefore it can not be an incoherent system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem for you is that (at least certain) propositions can be split and unpacked making multiple propositions. This can occur because the terms used are ambiguous or they have hidden presuppositions, that could be unacceptable.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, almost any proposition can be unpacked into multiple prior propositions. The terms of the proposition are themselves symbols of the propositions that define them. But ambiguity can not be shown with a single proposition, so one would have to demonstrate with additional uses of a term that _a particular person_ was using the term ambiguously. However, this still does not say anything about axioms. Since axioms are logical prior to all other propositions that are deduced from them in the system, then one can not say the terms of the axiom are ambiguous without presuming that the axiom is not an axiom. Because the _definition_ of the terms would then be logically prior to the proposition that is the axiom. And _that_ would be the fallacy of begging the question.
Click to expand...


Or you can assume that the axiom is true and show that one cannot deduce everything that they claim that they can. Which is the method of choice in this case. One could also show that the way the axiom is being used by the "particular people" assumes something prior. No one has to beg anything.



> I think the key here is logical verses temporal priority. If you mix them up, you'll go in circles. You have to start somewhere or you can not justify "knowing" anything. The question returns to "what are your axiom(s)" of your epistemology?



Or put another way, what are the axioms of the Biblical epistemology. And that is exactly what this conversation is about.

CT


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> I think the key here is logical verses temporal priority. If you mix them up, you'll go in circles. You have to start somewhere or you can not justify "knowing" anything. The question returns to "what are your axiom(s)" of your epistemology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or put another way, what are the axioms of the Biblical epistemology. And that is exactly what this conversation is about.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


The axiom of biblical epistemology (a.k.a. Scripturalism) is "all Scripture is true".


----------

