Must Clarkians use some Emperical Analysis & Inductive Reasoning?

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God as distinct from Scripture is not made the axiom of this argument [as it is in your arrangement above]. Undoubtedly this twist will seem strange to many theologians. It will seem particularly strange after the previous emphasis on the mind of God as the origin of all truth. Must not God be the axiom? For example, the first article of the Augsburg Confession gives the doctrine of God, and the doctrine of the Scripture hardly appears anywhere in the whole document. In the French Confession of 1559, the first article is on God; the Scripture is discussed in the next five. The Belgic Confession has the same order. The Scotch Confession of 1560 begins with God and gets to the Scripture only in article nineteen. The Thirty-Nine Articles begin with the Trinity, and Scripture comes in articles six and following. If God is sovereign, it seems very reasonable to put him first in the system.

But several other creeds, and especially the Westminster Confession, state the doctrine of Scripture at the very start. The explanation is quite simple: our knowledge of God comes from the Bible. We may assert that every proposition is true because God thinks it so, and we may follow Charnock in all his great detail, but the whole is based on Scripture. Suppose this were not so. Then “God” as an axiom, apart from Scripture, is just a name. We must specify which God. The best known system in which “God” was made the axiom is Spinoza’s. For him all theorems are deduced from Deus sive Natura. But it is the Natura that identifies Spinoza’s God. Different gods might be made axioms of other systems. Hence the important thing is not to presuppose God, but to define the mind of the God presupposed. Therefore the Scripture is offered here as the axiom. This gives definiteness and content, without which axioms are useless.

Thus it is that God, Scripture, and logic are tied together. The Pietists should not complain that emphasis on logic is a deification of an abstraction, or of human reason divorced from God. Emphasis on logic is strictly in accord with John’s Prologue and is nothing other than a recognition of the nature of God. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony and Sean,

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

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

OK.

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

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

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

The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent.

Poor choice of an axiom.

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

There is nothing that tells me otherwise.

If this is your epistemic axiom, and it doesn't say it is true and consistent, then you are correct.

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

However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true.

But you can't know this if your axiom does not say so. You have no knowledge prior to the axiom.

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

Notice, this requires prior knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must already know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge.

Like I said, if ***** is your epistemic axiom, you can not have knowledge that is logically prior to it by definition.

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

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

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

 

[Davidius]

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello CC,

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

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

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

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

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

Where does premise 2 come from?

Brian

 

[JohnV]

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello JohnV.

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

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

Brian

 

[Magma2]

Hello CC,

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

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

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

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

Where does premise 2 come from?

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

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


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

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

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

 

[JohnV]

A man is justified by faith alone

I have faith that all wheels are round

:. I am justified.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Sean,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

 

[Davidius]

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

Premise 1: All the propositions in the Bible are true. (By the way, I would like to note that this is not the axiom.

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

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

Romans 3:28.


Thanks for playing.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Sean,

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

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

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

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

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

So, where did it ('A man is justified by faith alone' is a proposition in the Bible) come from?

Romans 3:28.

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

Thanks for playing.

You bet bud.

Brian

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for pointing that out.

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

A geometer, an analytic philosopher [which is probably where Brian might be classified], or a Spinozist will doubtless consider the preceding construction [the construction of the axiom of Scripture] to be disturbingly sloppy. Euclid and Spinoza carefully enumerated their axioms and as carefully deduced their theorems. But theology books as not written ordine geometrico demonstrata; nor has the axiom or set of axioms been clearly formulated. If the set of axioms is the aggreate of all the sentences in the Bible, the number is far too great for any neat Euclidian system.

. . . Yet the difficulty with theology is not precisely the number of axioms. The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms. The peculiarity is in the opposite direction. What annoys Euclid and Spinoza [and evidently Brian] is that this theology can operate on a single axiom. The single axiom is: The Bible is the Word of God. But though single, it is fruitful because there is embedded in it the law of contradiction, plus the nature of God . . . plus thousands of propositions thus declared true.

On this latter point the form of deduction can be maintained. From the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the word of God.

In the next place, as would not be the case if each Biblical proposition were singly and strictly regarded itself as an axiom, the truths of Scripture can be arranged in patterns of logical subordination. The doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints are far from being an illogical and disjointed aggregation. The opponents of this theology have never charged it with being illogical; the standard objection is that it is too logical. [87,88]

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony and Sean,

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



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

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

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

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

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

Sola Scriptura.

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

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

Mission accomplished.

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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

P(1): All Scripture is true.

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

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

 

[Civbert]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Just to help along the Bible/Scripture issue:

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

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission accomplished.

Mission Impossible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

....

This is valid. However, where does your premise 2 come from?

...
I agree that "man is justified by faith" is a proposition of Scripture.

OK Brian,

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

You agree the following is a valid argument:

let S = Scripture
let T = True
let P = a Proposition of Scripture

P1: All(ST)
P2: All(PS)
.: C: All(PT)​

Your objection is I can not deduce P2 from P1.

Is that it?

 

[Civbert]

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

Later friend.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Sean,

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

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

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

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

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

This is certainly possible.

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

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

Brian

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Matthew,

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

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

Sincerely,

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Magma2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, do you mean this quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian view is that God created Adam as a rational mind. The structure of Adam’s mind was the same as God’s. God thinks that asserting the consequent is a fallacy; and Adam’s mind was formed on the principles of identity and contradiction. This Christian view of God, man, and language does not fit into any empirical philosophy. It is rather a type of a priori rationalism. Man’s mind is not initially a blank. It is structured. In fact, an unstructured blank is no mind at all. Nor could any such sheet of white paper extract any universal law of logic from finite experience. No universal and necessary proposition can be deduced from sensory observation. Universality and necessity can only be a priori.

This is not to say that all truth can be deduced from logic alone. The seventeenth-century rationalists gave themselves an impossible task. Even if the ontological argument be valid, it is impossible to deduce Cur Deus Homo, the Trinity, or the final resurrection. The axioms to which the apriori forms of logic must be applied are the propositions God revealed to Adam and the later prophets. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=16

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

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

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

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