Aquascum's objections to Scripturalism

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Well I think I already did - maybe if you'd like to address something specific in my prior arguments we can discuss it.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 =

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean.

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

Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean.

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.

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.

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

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

Not correct. All you need are propositions. You do not need to "know" them as knowledge. You just need to understand what they mean.

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.

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.

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.

We may be confusing knowledge and understanding. To find a contradiction requires understanding of the formal relationships involved.

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

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.

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

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