Must Clarkians use some Emperical Analysis & Inductive Reasoning?

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Sean,

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

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Civbert]

Brian,

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

I will repeat it here:

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

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

Is that it?
​

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

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

How do you justify premise 2?

Brian

 

[Civbert]

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

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

and

px = I (Scripture)

:. A (Scripture is True) -> px is True​

P2 is justified by direct implication from the Axiom because the Axiom is defined by p1 through pn.

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

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Cross posting. My prior post may answer your questions.

Hello Anthony,

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

This is sloppy. If what you are trying to say is "All propositions of Scripture are Scripture," then that that is what you should say.

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


....

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

How do you justify premise 2?

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

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

 

[Civbert]

'Jesus is Messiah' is Scripture

can be rewritten:

Scripture -> "Jesus is Messiah"

it is a direct implication.

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

For the Clarkian Axiom, to assume Scripture is to assume 'Jesus is Messiah' among other things.

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony,



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

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

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

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

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

Brian

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Anthony,

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

Brian

 

[Civbert]

Anthony,

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

Brian

Brian,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

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

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

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

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

I have defined Scripture as the propositions of the Bible.

This still does not get you there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Magma2]

Hello Anthony,

Clark purposefully avoided making the set of all propositions derivable from Scripture via deductive argumentation his axiom.

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

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

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

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony,


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

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

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

REPLY TO GEORGE I. MAVRODES

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

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

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

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

 

[Magma2]

Anthony. Good post.

Hello Anthony,

Clark purposefully avoided making the set of all propositions derivable from Scripture via deductive argumentation his axiom. Rather, he claimed to be able to deduce this set of propositions from the axiom.

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

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Gentlemen,

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

I am enjoyng the discussion. Thank you both.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Civbert]

Hello Gentlemen,

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

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