See this essay on Math and the Bible: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=55
Why is it a problem for reformed people to believe that God is sovereign in the area of epistemology as He is in soteriology? It seems like they adopt an arminian view of autonomy when it comes to knowledge though they vigorously defend God's sovereignty in salvation.
Also, you say "Provide me with the axiom" and from this axiom derive a theorem which you say is a proposition of Scripture. Well, first of all any axiomatic statement that I would provide would already be a proposition of Scripture so I don't really understand what you're getting at.
Thank you for your patience.
Clark said he had one axiom, namely, “The Bible is the word of God.” From this he thought he could deduce syllogistically all of the propositions of the Bible. Do you agree that this properly represents Clark’s position?
(By the way, in prior posts in this thread, these words were quoted directly from Clark). If this is Clark’s position, then any deduction he provides that concludes to a proposition of Scripture contains premises not part of the axiom. This is fatal for any axiomatic system. In the case of Scripturalism, it means that all propositions in Scripture cannot be properly called justified knowledge.
By the way, I do not have any problem saying that God is the ontological foundation for epistemology. My beef is that Scripturalism does not provide us with what it claims it does.
Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?
Jim said:He didn't say that he could deduce all the propositions of Scripture from that statement. That is absurd.
Gordon Clark said:The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms…this theology can operate on a single axiom. The single axiom is: The Bible is the Word of God. But though single, it is fruitful because there is embedded in it the law of contradiction, plus the nature of God…plus thousands of propositions thus declared true.
On this latter point the form of deduction can be maintained. From the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the Word of God.
In the next place, as would not be the case if each Biblical proposition were singly and strictly regarded itself as an axiom, the truths of Scripture can be arranged in patterns of logical subordination.
Why does affirming that God is sovereign in our processes of knowing mean that all justified knowledge is exclusively found in Scripture?
Please read it and abandon your present course of thinking because it is to misunderstand Clark's position.
Clark said:This criticism, so it seems to me, proceeds on the assumption that the "Bible" is just a word - a sound in the air, to use a nominalistic phrase. Apparently Mavrodes thinks that I would be better off technically if I made every verse a separate axiom. To me this seems like more machinery, which can be obviated by referring to them all under one name, the Bible.
Clark said:There are two reasons why this seems to be a misunderstanding. In the earlier part of this reply, I argued that Mavrodes treated the Axiom as if the Bible were a mere word without content. Obviously from a word, nothing can be inferred. But such a nominalistic procedure is clearly not intended. Similarly, the Confession, when it says that all things necessary for the glory of God can be deduced from Scripture, does not use Scripture as an empty word. The Confession goes further, as I did not, and defines what it means by Scripture. The canonical list therefore is not a theorem deduced from the Axiom; it is a part of the Axiom itself in that it is the definition of its chief term. Hence the related objections fall away.
Since neither Sean, Anthony, me and Clark himself cannot make you able or willing to understand Clark's position I see no point in continuing this discussion.
PS, I will read your full analysis of the Clark/Mavrodes interaction if you post it.