Scripturalism Revisited
- Thread starter Brian Bosse
- Start date
- Status
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Civbert,
It does not matter. Your mistake is a formal issue. Let 'S' stand for 'Scripture'; let 'P' stand for 'is the word of God'; let 'Q' stand for 'Jesus is the Christ'. You are going from from "All S is P" immediately to "All Q is P"* and calling it valid. You are not even using the rule of subalternation which allows one to validly conclude "Some S is P" from "All S is P".
Sincerely,
Brian
*"'Jesus is the Christ' is the word of God" is a universal affirmative statement and not a particular statement.
It does not matter. Your mistake is a formal issue. Let 'S' stand for 'Scripture'; let 'P' stand for 'is the word of God'; let 'Q' stand for 'Jesus is the Christ'. You are going from from "All S is P" immediately to "All Q is P"* and calling it valid. You are not even using the rule of subalternation which allows one to validly conclude "Some S is P" from "All S is P".
Sincerely,
Brian
*"'Jesus is the Christ' is the word of God" is a universal affirmative statement and not a particular statement.
The problem you face as a result of adopting the idealist worldview is that propitiation, etc., are time/space realities. They are not mere ideas. Your worldview might very well be able to account for the concept, but it cannot account for the historical manifestation, 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10. Your idealism better suits the demythologising program of Bultmann and co., than the historicism of conservative evangelicalism.
Concerning your quotations of realism, yes, there will be an intramural discussion between transcendental and immanentist strains, but that does not detract from the vital difference it has with idealism, or for that matter with anti-realism.
I'm a Scripturalist! Of course I can account for 1 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Tim. 1:10. Even if I could not account for any other "historical manifestation", I can account for all Scriptural occurrences.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
When I say it does not matter what I am meaning to convey is that it is beside the point. My second to last post prior to this one drove what is the point home. I used both your Logic Classroom site and Clark's book not to mention Aristotle himself to show the error in your logical reasoning. I wish you would just comment on that post. Here is the one main point made in two different ways:
(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?
(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?
Sincerely,
Brian
When I say it does not matter what I am meaning to convey is that it is beside the point. My second to last post prior to this one drove what is the point home. I used both your Logic Classroom site and Clark's book not to mention Aristotle himself to show the error in your logical reasoning. I wish you would just comment on that post. Here is the one main point made in two different ways:
(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?
(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?
Sincerely,
Brian
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
By refusing to answer the pertinent questions, you make my point. Scripturalists are unable to present explicit valid deductive inferences from the one axiom to a single proposition of Scripture such that the proposition would be considered knowledge rightly justified. At this point, as your friend I will play along even though I think it will not be productive.
It depends on how the term is defined. I believe Clark uses the WCF's definition, which lists sixty-six books. In an earlier post of yours you stated that the list did not depend on a connotative definition. If this were in fact the case, then this list of books is completely arbitrary. However, the Westminster Assembly did not construct this list arbitrarily. There were definite rules followed by which different books were determined to be in the list. So, to say that the definition is not connotatively dependent is historically incorrect. It is not just simply a list. In fact, to say so is a rejection of the special nature of these books; namely, that these books are recognized as being the inerrant word of God. They are the word of God not because man put them into a list and called it the word of God, which your position leads to if this list is simply an arbitrary list. Therefore, the connotative definition rules what is to be included and not included in this list. With all of that said, this is all a side issue. No matter how you define your terms, you still cannot present a valid inference rightly called knowledge from the one axiom.
Quid Pro Quo - it is now your turn.
(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?
(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?
Sincerely,
Brian
By refusing to answer the pertinent questions, you make my point. Scripturalists are unable to present explicit valid deductive inferences from the one axiom to a single proposition of Scripture such that the proposition would be considered knowledge rightly justified. At this point, as your friend I will play along even though I think it will not be productive.
It depends on how the term is defined. I believe Clark uses the WCF's definition, which lists sixty-six books. In an earlier post of yours you stated that the list did not depend on a connotative definition. If this were in fact the case, then this list of books is completely arbitrary. However, the Westminster Assembly did not construct this list arbitrarily. There were definite rules followed by which different books were determined to be in the list. So, to say that the definition is not connotatively dependent is historically incorrect. It is not just simply a list. In fact, to say so is a rejection of the special nature of these books; namely, that these books are recognized as being the inerrant word of God. They are the word of God not because man put them into a list and called it the word of God, which your position leads to if this list is simply an arbitrary list. Therefore, the connotative definition rules what is to be included and not included in this list. With all of that said, this is all a side issue. No matter how you define your terms, you still cannot present a valid inference rightly called knowledge from the one axiom.
Quid Pro Quo - it is now your turn.
(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?
(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?
Sincerely,
Brian
We shall see.
OK. So even if the meaning of Scripture is denotative or connotative, you agree that the Scriptures are the sixty-six books listed in the WCF. Is that correct?
I'm not done yet, please be patient and answer the question. Do you agree that the Scriptures are the 66 books listed in the WCF?Quid Pro Quo - it is now your turn.
This is the part that needs expounding upon. How is propositional revelation (information) transferred to the human mind? Do we read propositions and translate them into a mental image as some suggest? What is your theory?
In other words, how do images (i.e. words on a page) result in abstract ideas?
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony and Jeff,
All Scripture is those writings comprising of the sixty-six books making up the Protestant Bible. This last universal affirmative statement is another proposition different from the one axiom. It is not derived from the one axiom. Rather, it is in addition to the one axiom.
Jeff, I apologize, but this question just does not interest me. This is not to say that your question is not important, but it just is not pertinent. What is pertinent is that the inductive exercise of Biblical exegesis intimately involves sense perception even when one introduces the work of the Holy Spirit.
Sincerely,
Brian
Anthony said:
All Scripture is those writings comprising of the sixty-six books making up the Protestant Bible. This last universal affirmative statement is another proposition different from the one axiom. It is not derived from the one axiom. Rather, it is in addition to the one axiom.
Jeff said:
Jeff, I apologize, but this question just does not interest me. This is not to say that your question is not important, but it just is not pertinent. What is pertinent is that the inductive exercise of Biblical exegesis intimately involves sense perception even when one introduces the work of the Holy Spirit.
Sincerely,
Brian
OK. So you agree that Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. And I'll assume that you agree that the books are the words, sentences, propositions, etc that they contain. Correct?
Now then, if Scripture = the 66 books of the Protestant Bible = the words, sentences, propositions, etc that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible contain.
Then:
"All Scripture is knowledge" has exactly the same meaning as:
"All the words, sentences, propositions, etc that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible contain is knowledge.
Are you with me so far?
If P = p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn,
then All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X is the exact the same as all P is X.
Nothing has been added or subtracted.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
I am going to list the mounting number of propositions. I begin with the one axiom:
Axiom: All Scripture is the word of God.
Proposition 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Proposition 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Proposition 3: All Scripture is knowledge.
Anthony’s Valid Syllogism
Premise 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Premise 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Conclusion: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Anthony’s Invalid Syllogism
Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Conclusion: All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is knowledge.
Not only is the above argument invalid, but we have three additional propositions that are not derived from the one axiom that must be accounted for. So, I guess I am not with you so far.
We have four different propositions. One is “All P is X,” another is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X,” another is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn),” and the last one is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” Now to go from “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X” to “All P is X”, the required additional proposition is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn).” If you wanted to go from “All P is X” to “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X,” then the additional proposition needed is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” And if you wanted to go to the equivalence of the two propositions, then you would have to have both of the other propositions.
Now, will you reciprocate?
(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?
(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?
Brian
I am going to list the mounting number of propositions. I begin with the one axiom:
Axiom: All Scripture is the word of God.
Proposition 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Proposition 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Proposition 3: All Scripture is knowledge.
Anthony’s Valid Syllogism
Premise 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Premise 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Conclusion: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Anthony’s Invalid Syllogism
Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Conclusion: All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is knowledge.
Not only is the above argument invalid, but we have three additional propositions that are not derived from the one axiom that must be accounted for. So, I guess I am not with you so far.
We have four different propositions. One is “All P is X,” another is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X,” another is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn),” and the last one is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” Now to go from “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X” to “All P is X”, the required additional proposition is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn).” If you wanted to go from “All P is X” to “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X,” then the additional proposition needed is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” And if you wanted to go to the equivalence of the two propositions, then you would have to have both of the other propositions.
Now, will you reciprocate?
(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?
(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?
Brian
Can you? How do you account for the fact that the New Testament stakes its claim on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that this fact is established on the basis of eye-witness, Acts 1:3? If in your idealist world no person can know anything by means of sight, how did the disciples know Jesus Christ was raised from the dead?
Brian,
No need to apologize, but I do disagree that it is pertinenet to the discussion at hand. If the knowledge that "Jesus Christ is Lord" or any other biblical proposition does not directly come from scripture (i.e. deduced) than it must come from some other place. In other words, I guess I am asking, what is the role of induction in coming to a knowledge of any given biblical proposition? Is it probable that "Jesus Christ is Lord"? Are you certain that this is the case? For as any student of logic can tell you, certainty is not the goal of induction, but rather probabliity.
[Lamb Chop]
These are the threads that never end.
They just go on an on my friend.
Somebody said if A then B not knowing what it was.
And they'll continue saying P forever just because...
[/Lamb Chop]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0
These are the threads that never end.
They just go on an on my friend.
Somebody said if A then B not knowing what it was.
And they'll continue saying P forever just because...
[/Lamb Chop]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0
I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself but why is it when we discuss the Scipturalism of Scripturalism that we have to constantly get into logical notation? Isn't it possible to argue for it apart from using P, A, and B (unless used as letters in a word).
I think it comes with the territory. A system built on logical deduction needs to be precise, and those wishing to refute it will need to be every bit as precise in order to show its (apparant) inconsistency. Using symbolic notation, while it may be confusing for those who aren't as familiar with logic, is often far easier to see the formal fallacies in a person's reasoning.
But hey, what do I know?
(trying to lighten the mood if you can't tell)
Christ spoke to them. And the Spirit testified to them that it was true. And you do not know it except that the Scriptures tell you. You did not witness it.
[bible]Act 1:3[/bible]
Correct, I am depending upon the testimony of others who witnessed it; but your worldview rules out the possibility that they witnessed the risen Jesus, and therefore undermines the testimony upon which I am depending.
Brian,
Look at the meaning of the sentences. If you don't get the meaning correct, you can not correctly analysis the logic. When I say "All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible." It is the same as "All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible" and "All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is Scripture". I.e. A is B and B is A. That is the nature of a definition. If B is the definition of A, then A is B and B is A.
That is the same proposition.
That is a definition of the term P. It is a proposition, but the effect of a definition is you can substitute the definition for the word defined WITHOUT CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSITION. You are not creating a new proposition by subsituting (p1, p2, p3…, pn) for P.
Not yet. Now the next step.
"All P is X" is logically equivalent to "All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X" because the defintion P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn). This is the same proposition, not a new one. It means the same thing.
Now we can use the direct implication from the A form to the I form.
"All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X"
Therefore "p3 is X".
Why, because p3 is Some (p1, p2, p3…, pn).
To put it in short:
* All P is X,
* therefore p3 is X.
The word "one" and "uno" and "1" are the same words. I can switch these in a sentence and mean the same thing. The same is true for definitions.
No, I argued from All S is P to Some S is P. The Some S is a subset of All S. Any verse of Scripture is "Some Scripture".
Words have meaning, and a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence.
All Scripture is knowledge implies Jesus is the Christ is knowledge because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture.
You depend on their written testimony and the Spirit, and they depended on the spoken words of Christ and the Spirit. They did not simply believe what they say, they believed because of the regenerating power of the Spirit. Simply seeing was not enough. They had to believe also. You don't just "know what you see" - You have to understand what you are seeing, and that understanding has to be correct, and you have to believe it. "Seeing is not believing" as the empiricist would have it.
This is why I like revelation more broadly as an axiom rather than JUST the propositions contained in the scriptures. As long as it can be classified as revelation from God, who is to doubt it? I can't believe even Clark would have a problem with this.
He doesn't. In fact, he makes the point that very point.
In order to believe the Scripture I have to believe they "saw" the resurrected Jesus. I agree with you that there is a direct act of faith in Scripture needed in order to believe the resurrection, etc.; but belief in the reliability of the senses follows indirectly as a result of believing the Scriptures.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
The Standard
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The subject term in this syllogism is ‘Socrates’, the middle term is ‘man’ (‘men’), and the predicate term is ‘mortal.’ This syllogism is a first figure AAA syllogism. Sometimes you see it as AAA-1. According to the Scholastic mnemonic device, this syllogism is commonly referred to as Barbara. The reason for this is that if you look at the vowels in the name it tells you the type the categorical propositions are that make up the syllogism. Other names are Celarent, Darii, Ferio, Cesare, Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, etc… All logicians since Aristotle taught that one could not go directly from the major premise of this syllogism to the conclusion. In other words, it is considered invalid to go from “All men are mortal” directly to “Socrates is mortal.” Rather, one needed the minor premise “Socrates is a man” to validly draw the conclusion.
The Abstract Version of the Standard
Major Premise: All M is P.
Minor Premise: All S is M.
Conclusion: All S is P.
At this point, we have the same syllogism as above where we have substituted ‘S’ for the subject term, ‘P’ for the predicate term, and ‘M’ for the middle term. This is the abstract version of the AAA-1 syllogism. Again, to go from “All M is P” to “All S is P” requires a minor premise. There is no direct implication according to all logicians since Aristotle.
Anthony’s Direct Derivation
Premise 1: All Scripture is the word of God.
Conclusion: “Jesus is the Christ” is the word of God.
According to the rules of logicians from Aristotle onward, they would say that both the premise and the conclusion are universal affirmative statements, i.e. A statements. Just as “Socrates is a man” and “Socrates is mortal” are both universal affirmative statements so is “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God” a universal affirmative statement. In fact, one technically could write “All Socrates is mortal” or for that matter “All ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God.” The English may be poor, but logically it is most precise. Anthony, if you doubt this, then please contact Dr. Elihu Carranza and ask him. I have no doubt that he will confirm everything I have said here.
One of the consequences of this is that the immediate inference from Premise 1 to the conclusion is an inference from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. Stated negatively, the inference is not an instance of the rule of subalternation.
The Abstract Version of Anthony’s Direct Derivation
Premise 1: All M is P.
Conclusion: All S is P.
At this point, we have the same direct derivation as above where we have substituted ‘S’ for ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ ‘P’ for ‘is the word of God,’ and ‘M’ for ‘Scripture.’ No logician from Aristotle onward would say that this is improper. In fact, they would say this is the proper procedure for formal analysis. Once again, Anthony, if you think this is wrong, then please ask Dr. Elihu Carranza.
One of the consequences of this is that we have three terms. From Aristotle onward, all logicians would say that there is no valid direct implication from the premise to the conclusion. If you look carefully at your argument you will see that premise 1 and the conclusion take the same form as the AAA-1 syllogism’s premise 1 and conclusion. As has already been mentioned, all logicians since Aristotle taught that one could not go directly from the major premise of this syllogism to the conclusion. If one could go directly from the premise to the conclusion, then all of these logicians were wrong. Not only that, the argument form AAA-1 would be completely unnecessary. That is to say, Barbara is nothing more than an exercise in redundancy. I think you may have already said this, Anthony. Doesn't it cause you to give pause that this is where you end up? Talk about kicking against the goads!
I think I have done all that I can here. You seem to be willing to do anything you can to hold onto your Scripturalism...even if it means going against the teachings of the worlds greatest logicians for the last two millenia. If you have the least bit of respect for what little I know about logic, then please run this by Dr. Carranza. I suspect you trust him more than me. What have you got to lose? Oh, yeah...Scripturalism.
Your Weary Friend,
Brian
The Standard
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The subject term in this syllogism is ‘Socrates’, the middle term is ‘man’ (‘men’), and the predicate term is ‘mortal.’ This syllogism is a first figure AAA syllogism. Sometimes you see it as AAA-1. According to the Scholastic mnemonic device, this syllogism is commonly referred to as Barbara. The reason for this is that if you look at the vowels in the name it tells you the type the categorical propositions are that make up the syllogism. Other names are Celarent, Darii, Ferio, Cesare, Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, etc… All logicians since Aristotle taught that one could not go directly from the major premise of this syllogism to the conclusion. In other words, it is considered invalid to go from “All men are mortal” directly to “Socrates is mortal.” Rather, one needed the minor premise “Socrates is a man” to validly draw the conclusion.
The Abstract Version of the Standard
Major Premise: All M is P.
Minor Premise: All S is M.
Conclusion: All S is P.
At this point, we have the same syllogism as above where we have substituted ‘S’ for the subject term, ‘P’ for the predicate term, and ‘M’ for the middle term. This is the abstract version of the AAA-1 syllogism. Again, to go from “All M is P” to “All S is P” requires a minor premise. There is no direct implication according to all logicians since Aristotle.
Anthony’s Direct Derivation
Premise 1: All Scripture is the word of God.
Conclusion: “Jesus is the Christ” is the word of God.
According to the rules of logicians from Aristotle onward, they would say that both the premise and the conclusion are universal affirmative statements, i.e. A statements. Just as “Socrates is a man” and “Socrates is mortal” are both universal affirmative statements so is “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God” a universal affirmative statement. In fact, one technically could write “All Socrates is mortal” or for that matter “All ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God.” The English may be poor, but logically it is most precise. Anthony, if you doubt this, then please contact Dr. Elihu Carranza and ask him. I have no doubt that he will confirm everything I have said here.
One of the consequences of this is that the immediate inference from Premise 1 to the conclusion is an inference from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. Stated negatively, the inference is not an instance of the rule of subalternation.
The Abstract Version of Anthony’s Direct Derivation
Premise 1: All M is P.
Conclusion: All S is P.
At this point, we have the same direct derivation as above where we have substituted ‘S’ for ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ ‘P’ for ‘is the word of God,’ and ‘M’ for ‘Scripture.’ No logician from Aristotle onward would say that this is improper. In fact, they would say this is the proper procedure for formal analysis. Once again, Anthony, if you think this is wrong, then please ask Dr. Elihu Carranza.
One of the consequences of this is that we have three terms. From Aristotle onward, all logicians would say that there is no valid direct implication from the premise to the conclusion. If you look carefully at your argument you will see that premise 1 and the conclusion take the same form as the AAA-1 syllogism’s premise 1 and conclusion. As has already been mentioned, all logicians since Aristotle taught that one could not go directly from the major premise of this syllogism to the conclusion. If one could go directly from the premise to the conclusion, then all of these logicians were wrong. Not only that, the argument form AAA-1 would be completely unnecessary. That is to say, Barbara is nothing more than an exercise in redundancy. I think you may have already said this, Anthony. Doesn't it cause you to give pause that this is where you end up? Talk about kicking against the goads!
I think I have done all that I can here. You seem to be willing to do anything you can to hold onto your Scripturalism...even if it means going against the teachings of the worlds greatest logicians for the last two millenia. If you have the least bit of respect for what little I know about logic, then please run this by Dr. Carranza. I suspect you trust him more than me. What have you got to lose? Oh, yeah...Scripturalism.
Your Weary Friend,
Brian
This is the wrong construction. You are forcing my statements into the wrong argument form - and you have ignored the most important thing I said.
Read carefully what I posted:
Notice that last part is "because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture".
Do you deny that "Jesus Christ" is "some Scripture"????
A short answer would be appreciated.
I'm sorry about that. It seems that the more carefully I explain it, the more confusing it seems. But really, it's all quite simple.
Scripturalism says that all the Scriptures are God's Word, and are therefore knowledge. If it's Scripture, you know it's true because it's God's Word. It's quite simple.
But the attempt to defeat Scripturalism takes a lot of hard work and complication. It takes a lot of complex reasoning to take something simple and turn it into something that doesn't make sense. And the more complex the reasoning gets, the more prone to error it is. Working with propositions and argument forms to critique a position only works as long as the propositions and forms actually retain the same meaning of the arguments and sentences given.
With formal logic, you take an authors natural (informal) language and translate it into propositions and argument forms that convey the exact meaning the author's words and arguments. You don't simply parse the given sentences into subject, predicate, and the copula. You have to form propositions that convey the complete meaning the author intends. Often this will look very different than the natural sentence - but the meaning will be the same.
- Status
