Scripturalism Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking maybe if we went back to step one...

An example would be that all men in Italy are Italian (the A form), therefore some men, those that live in Rome, are Italian (the I form).

Civbert, your example is not valid. The A proposition, “All men in Italy are Italian,” leads to the I proposition, “Some men in Italy are Italian.” No more and no less. You have added additional information to your I statement. Not only did you do this here, but you made the very same mistake in the next more pertinent example.

Let's say you have the following: a large bag of red marbles. Now reach into the bag and pull out a handful. What color are those marbles?

Logic says that if "all the marbles in the bag are red", then "the handful I pull out of the bag" must necessarily be red". This is correct reasoning using simple logic. That's what the implication of the 'All a is b' form to the 'Some a is b form' means.

Notice that I used a lot of words in my conclusion that are not in my first sentence. "the handful", "pull out", etc. I also could make the marbles more complicated. Maybe some have blue dots, and some have numbers, and some are smaller, and some are larger. But they are all "red" marbles in the basic sense of being primarily red.

So now I can pull out the marble with the number 3, and the marble that has stripes, and the marble that is big with yellow dots. Very complex with all that information. But the logic is still the same. I know those marbles will be red, because all the marbles in the bag are red. This is still perfectly formal valid deductive logic.

Now the Scripturalism principle is that same. All Scripture is knowledge, therefore "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge. I am not adding any new information to the premise "All Scripture is knowledge". And I can pull out any verse or proposition from Scripture and say, by the rules of logic that it is knowledge. The logic is completely valid and sound and formally correct. It may be difficult to "formalize" the reasoning, but the principle is simple. The "Jesus is the Christ" marble is knowledge because I pulled that proposition directly out of the Scripture bag, and my premise is everything in the Scripture bag is knowledge. That is a legitimate deduction by direct implication from the single premise.

I hope I've done a better job this time around. Does anyone else not follow this reasoning? Did anything I say cause any problems?
 
Hello Anthony,

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.

You say that I am somehow misrepresenting you by forcing statements into wrong argument forms. It is certainly is not my intention to do so, and I will deal with the argument form you say you are using. But first, I want to go back and visit the histry in this thread. Here is what I have deemed to be the key implication in this discussion:

Premise 1: All Scripture is the Word of God.
Conclusion: "Jesus is the Christ" is the Word of God.

You are the one that initially stated it, and when I pointed out that it was not valid and needed another proposition to make it valid you said…

The implication is valid…it's an immediate implication. No middle term is required.

This is not ambiguous. This is the immediate contention. So, I am not sure what your beef is. You may have changed your position, and that is fine. But you have never given us any indication that you have made a change. In fact, you have yet to concede one point. So, I think it is unfair to cry foul at this point in the discussion. Now, let's consider what it is that you say is your main point.

All Scripture is knowledge implies Jesus is the Christ is knowledge because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture.

This is a syllogism. (Note: you have explicitly argued against then need for a syllogism as will be pointed out in a moment.) Let’s make explicit your argument.

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premsie 2: 'Jesus is the Christ' is some Scripture.
Conclusion: 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.

This is not a valid syllogism. You have four terms: ‘Scripture,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ and ‘some Scripture’. Here is the argument you are intending to make…

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: 'Jesus is the Christ' is Scripture.
Conclusion: 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.

This is a valid syllogism, and it was presented to you in an earlier post. (Note: premise 2 cannot be accounted for by the one axiom. It's justification lies in the arena of Biblical exegesis, which is fundamentlly an inductive process.) Your earlier response to me concerning this syllogism was...

You don't need a syllogism. The conclusion follows by direct implication from Premise 1. The construction of the syllogism is just machinery clanging as Clark might say.

I am at a loss, Anthony. When I initially presented this argument, you stated that it was not needed. The minor premise was unecessary. So began the debate. Now you want to go back and say that this is in fact your argument. Your position is bordering on incoherency. Perhaps, you will hear someone like Dr. Carranza? I do not seem to have the ability to convince you.

Your Friend,

Brian
 
Hello Anthony,

If you are still confused ... well I don't know what to say.

It is not that I am confused. I am amazed at how you are unmoved by plain reasoning. These issues are very elementary, and you do not grasp them. Your understading of logic is not what I thought it was. In fact, not one argument you have presented in this whole thread has been in proper valid form. Not one! Every syllogism or immediate inference you have listed has been formally invalid. Yet, you are unmoved by any of this. That is why I am appealing to you to contact Dr. Carranza. Maybe, you will listen to him?

I guess I should have been prepared for this. As I started out in this thread, the Scrupturalist is unable to present one valid deduction that can be rightly called knowledge from the one axiom. You have illustrated this better than I would have imagined. What saddens me is that you still desperately cling to your tradition. If you think this is nothing but charged rhetoric then go back and deal with my prior posts. Point out what you agree with, and point out where you think my logic is flawed. Stand up and stake out your position. Make it clear for everyone to see. Tell them where I am wrong and where you are right.

Sincerely,

Brian
 
Hello Anthony,

If you are still confused ... well I don't know what to say.

It is not that I am confused. I am amazed at how you are unmoved by plain reasoning. ...

Please interact with the post I referred to. I was hoping that you'd read and comment on that particular post directly. Otherwise, I have no idea if you really understand my argument.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=297877&postcount=62

I noticed that you are not using the "Quote" button which automatically adds a link back to the original post and quotes the whole post. Perhaps you are missing my argument because of that.

P.S. Would anyone else like to comment on the post linked above? Really I think it's very clear and I see no flaws in the logic formally or informally.
 
Last edited:
Hello Anthony,

Please interact with the post I referred to.

I will do so. However, I would appreciate it if you would show the same courtesy.

Let's say you have the following: a large bag of red marbles. Now reach into the bag and pull out a handful. What color are those marbles?

The marbles will be red.

Logic says that if "all the marbles in the bag are red", then "the handful I pull out of the bag" must necessarily be red". This is correct reasoning using simple logic. That's what the implication of the 'All a is b' form to the 'Some a is b form' means.

This is not correct. Here is what is going on:

Major Premise: All marbles in (from) the bag are red.
Minor Premise: All marbles in my hand are marbles in (from) the bag.
Conclusion: All marbles in my hand are red.

This involves three universal statements. The rule of subalternation is not being used.

Notice that I used a lot of words in my conclusion that are not in my first sentence. "the handful", "pull out", etc. I also could make the marbles more complicated. Maybe some have blue dots, and some have numbers, and some are smaller, and some are larger. But they are all "red" marbles in the basic sense of being primarily red.

Ok, fine. It still does not change the fact that there are two premises needed to draw the conclusion.

So now I can pull out the marble with the number 3, and the marble that has stripes, and the marble that is big with yellow dots. Very complex with all that information. But the logic is still the same. I know those marbles will be red, because all the marbles in the bag are red. This is still perfectly formal valid deductive logic.

Let’s make the “perfectly formal valid deductive logic” explicit by putting everything into proper logical form.

Major Premise: All marbles in (from) the bag are red.
Minor Premise: All marbles in my hand are marbles in (from) the bag.
Conclusion: All marbles in my hand are red.

This is the valid argument. If you do not have the minor premise, then the argument is invalid.

Now the Scripturalism principle is that same. All Scripture is knowledge, therefore "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge. I am not adding any new information to the premise "All Scripture is knowledge". And I can pull out any verse or proposition from Scripture and say, by the rules of logic that it is knowledge. The logic is completely valid and sound and formally correct.

I refer you to the posts #43, #59 and #63 where I in a somewhat thorough manner demonstrate your error.

It may be difficult to "formalize" the reasoning, but the principle is simple.

It is not difficult to formalize the reasoning. I have been formalizing it all along.

The "Jesus is the Christ" marble is knowledge because I pulled that proposition directly out of the Scripture bag, and my premise is everything in the Scripture bag is knowledge. That is a legitimate deduction by direct implication from the single premise.

You have now contradicted yourself, again. In a previous post you said, “All Scripture is knowledge implies Jesus is the Christ is knowledge because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture” Notice the two premises and conclusion. Here they are…

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture.
Conclusion: Jesus is the Christ is knowledge.

Technically, this is not a valid argument (you have four terms); however, this is not my main concern here. (Note: in this whole thread, this is the closest you have come in terms of actually presenting a formally valid argument. You still fall short, but your reasoning is on the right track. Too bad it contradicts what you have been saying all along.) The main point is that you claim this syllogism is “the most important thing” you have said. So, the most important thong that you have said is that the way you go from premise 1 to the conclusion is through premise 2. However, in the above quote you say that this is not what you are doing. Rather, the implication is direct from “the single premise.” Your position is now incoherent.

Ok, I have interacted with your post as you requested. Will you do the same for me? Just concern yourself with this post and post #59.

Thanks,

Brian
 
Quick reply until later. Brian, I think what this comes down to is a disagreement of what entails a valid direct implication. Later I will list a few points that you have not conceded, but that I believe you agree with. Also, your translation of my arguments into propositional form are incorrect. And finally, I have also provided the deduction of "Jesus is the Christ is knowledge" in correct propositional form at the end of this post: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=296997&postcount=22

I think I know what you are trying to say, but it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripturalism: you believe the Scripturalist must deduce the propositions of Scripture from the term "Scripture". But the denotative definition of Scripture includes all the propositions of Scripture. The propositions of Scripture are implied directly by the meaning of the word Scripture. I've shown this repeatedly. You have agreed with this definition. You have not said terms have no meaning.

Also, the deductive principle of Scripturalism applied to the propositions of Scripture. The axiom of Scripturalism says that all Scripture and what ever can be deduced therefrom is knowledge. The axiom is the assumption of the truth of Scripture. I don't have to deduce the Scriptures, I am assuming them as the denotative definition of Scripture. The foundation of Scripturalist knowledge is the propositions of Scripture.

And just to be clear: I did not deduce: "Jesus is the Christ". I deduced: "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge.
 
Hello Anthony,

Brian, I think what this comes down to is a disagreement of what entails a valid direct implication.

Yes.

Also, your translation of my arguments into propositional form are incorrect.

Maybe, but I have quoted your arguments and have presented the analysis. So far, you have not directly interacted with any of this.

And finally, I have also provided the deduction of "Jesus is the Christ is knowledge" in correct propositional form at the end of this post….

I commented on this explicitly in post #63. You still have not responded to it.

I think I know what you are trying to say, but it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Scripturalism…

The problem is not my understanding of Scripturalism. My claim has been all along that the Scripturalist is unable to provide a valid argument from the one axiom to any proposition of Scripture in such a manner that it is rightly called knowledge. You say you have presented such arguments, but I have rebutted your presentations (see posts #43, #59, #63 and now #69).

…you believe the Scripturalist must deduce the propositions of Scripture from the term "Scripture".

First off, propositions are not deduced from terms. Propositions are deduced from other propositions according to rules of form, i.e. formal logic. Secondly, I believe that the Scripturalists must deduce the propositions of Scripture from the one axiom as Gordon Clark stated.

But the denotative definition of Scripture includes all the propositions of Scripture. The propositions of Scripture are implied directly by the meaning of the word Scripture. I've shown this repeatedly. You have agreed with this definition. You have not said terms have no meaning.

The issue has nothing to do with how you define your terms whether it be connotatively or denotatively. The issue has everything to do with how you form your argument. Every argument you have presented has been invalid in one way or another.

The axiom of Scripturalism says that all Scripture and what ever can be deduced therefrom is knowledge.

According to Clark, the one axiom is “The Bible alone is the word of God.” Referring to another proposition as “the axiom of Scripturalism” could cause confusion. I agree that the Scripturalist defines knowledge as those propositions properly deduced from the one axiom. However, this definition of knowledge is not the axiom. It happens to be another proposition not derived from the one axiom.

I don't have to deduce the Scriptures, I am assuming them as the denotative definition of Scripture.

You are contradicting Gordon Clark himself. He said that the reason he picked the one axiom rather than making every proposition of Scripture its own axiom was that every proposition of Scripture could be deduced via a syllogism from the one axiom. This comes from his Introduction to Christian Philosophy.

And just to be clear: I did not deduce: "Jesus is the Christ". I deduced: "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge.

You have yet to validly deduce “Jesus is the Christ,” “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God,” or “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is knowledge.” The deduction you provided for “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is knowledge” was in the form of an invalid syllogism (see post #63 where this is explained).

Anthony, is the term ‘Scripture’ and the term ‘Jesus is the Christ’ identical? That is to say, do they relate to each other in the same manner as ‘bachelor’ relates to ‘unmarried man’? Or, would you say their relation is more like ‘men’ is to ‘Socrates’?

Your Friend,

Brian
 
Hello Anthony,

Brian, I think what this comes down to is a disagreement of what entails a valid direct implication.

Yes.

Also, your translation of my arguments into propositional form are incorrect.

Maybe, but I have quoted your arguments and have presented the analysis. So far, you have not directly interacted with any of this.

I commented on this explicitly in post #63. You still have not responded to it.

The post I referred to and provided a link to was #22:
Now if you want me to very strictly to formally deduce 'Jesus is the Christ' from the axiom of Scripturalism - it would take the following form:

Knowledge is the meaning of: (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21)) and what can be deduced therefrom.

Therefore, Jesus is the Christ is knowledge.

You claim to have responded to this in post #63 is incorrect.

However, in post #23 you did reply with:
The conclusion you want to draw is: “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is knowledge.” So, your subject term is ‘Jesus is the Christ’ and your predicate term is ‘knowledge.’ What is the middle term and what are the missing premises?

There are no middle terms needed with a direct implication. I explained that in post #27.

I could have written:
  • (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21)) is knowledge.
  • Therefore, Jesus is the Christ is knowledge.

The meaning of the argument is the same. The form is correct. The direct implication is valid.

Perhaps you were confused by the word order in the premise:
  • The subject is: (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21)),
  • and the predicate is knowledge.

That is the A form "All a is b".


And the conclusion is I form "Some a is b":
  • Jesus is the Christ is the subject
  • is knowledge is the predicate.

Notice that "Jesus is the Christ is explicate in the subject of the premise. It is literally spelled out.

When P is predicated of all of subject S, then P is predicated of some of subject S.

If all Scripture is knowledge, then "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge.
 
Hello Anthony,
...

The issue has nothing to do with how you define your terms whether it be connotatively or denotatively. The issue has everything to do with how you form your argument. Every argument you have presented has been invalid in one way or another.
Not at all. The problem has been your construction of my arguments. This shows you have still not understood me. Perhaps I have not been clear - but that does not mean I have given and invalid argument. You should know that it is the logician's job to correctly translate informal language into the correct propositional forms. You have failed to do this.

According to Clark, the one axiom is “The Bible alone is the word of God.” Referring to another proposition as “the axiom of Scripturalism” could cause confusion. I agree that the Scripturalist defines knowledge as those propositions properly deduced from the one axiom. However, this definition of knowledge is not the axiom. It happens to be another proposition not derived from the one axiom.

Actually, the definition of "knowledge" is also part of the axiom. Terms imply their definitions.

I don't have to deduce the Scriptures, I am assuming them as the denotative definition of Scripture.

You are contradicting Gordon Clark himself. He said that the reason he picked the one axiom rather than making every proposition of Scripture its own axiom was that every proposition of Scripture could be deduced via a syllogism from the one axiom. This comes from his Introduction to Christian Philosophy.
If Clark said "via syllogism" I'd be surprised. But if he did, it would have been a technical foul. But it is clear from my reading of Clark that he means that it is that since Scripture includes the propositions found therein, then it is just a technical detail to produce them via logical implication.

And just to be clear: I did not deduce: "Jesus is the Christ". I deduced: "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge.

You have yet to validly deduce “Jesus is the Christ,” “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God,” or “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is knowledge.” The deduction you provided for “‘Jesus is the Christ’ is knowledge” was in the form of an invalid syllogism (see post #63 where this is explained).

See post #70 where I explain again why it is valid.

Anthony, is the term ‘Scripture’ and the term ‘Jesus is the Christ’ identical? That is to say, do they relate to each other in the same manner as ‘bachelor’ relates to ‘unmarried man’? Or, would you say their relation is more like ‘men’ is to ‘Socrates’?

More like 'Socrates" to 'men'. "Jesus is the Christ" is an explicate member of "Scripture".
 
Hello Anthony,

The post I referred to and provided a link to was #22:

Yes, I know this and I have dealt with this explicitly. I will do so in an even more pedantic manner hoping that you will actually respond to my analysis. Here is the quote in post #22:

(1) Now if you want me to very strictly to formally deduce 'Jesus is the Christ' from the axiom of Scripturalism - it would take the following form:
(2)Knowledge is the meaning of: (3)(In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21)) and what can be deduced therefrom. (4) Therefore, Jesus is the Christ is knowledge.

In (1) you say that in a very strict manner you are going to formally deduce “Jesus is the Christ”. However, the conclusion you reach is not “Jesus is the Christ,” but “Jesus is the Christ is knowledge.” These are two different propositions. Whatever it is that you did, you did not formally deduce “Jesus is the Christ.” Also in (1) you say that your deduction would be from the “axiom of Scripturalism.” The one axiom is “All Scripture is the word of God.” Whatever it is that you did, you did not use this one axiom. Lastly, you state that the very strict formally deduced argument would take a particular form. We will now look at that form.

(2) begins with “Knowledge is the meaning of:…” This is not in proper logical form. Proper logical form in the realm of Aristotelian categorical propositions is a proposition that takes one of the following forms: (A) All S is P; (I) Some S is P; (O) Some S is not P; (E) No S is P (or All S is not P). So, maybe you meant something like this: All knowledge is the meaning of…? Let’s assume that is what you meant.

(3) is the balance of the predicate term of the proposition started in (2). So, here is what the initial proposition looks like:

All knowledge is the meaning of: (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21)), and what can be deduced therefrom.

Since we are speaking about a technically precise formal deduction, we should identify your terms. The subject term is “knowledge.” We will label this ‘M’. The predicate term is “the meaning of: (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. ... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Gen 1:1-Rev 22:21)), and what can be deduced therefrom.” We will label this ‘P’. At this point we have a universal affirmative statement of the following form: All M is P.

(4) Your conclusion is “Jesus is the Christ is knowledge.” Technically, this sentence is properly stated “All ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is knowledge.” The subject term is ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ which we will label ‘S’, and the predicate term is ‘knowledge,’ which we have already labeled ‘M’. So, we have a conclusion of the following form: All S is M.

With all of this said, the formal argument you have presented is:

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

This is not a valid argument. In fact, this argument is so bad that there isn't a premise one could add to make it valid! Also, it does not even use the one axiom (All Scripture is the word of God). Anthony, this argument is horrible. I taught a logic class at a local Christian school. I would have failed any student that presented this to me. Now concerning this argument, you have commented elsewhere on it calling it “the most important thing said.” Here is what you said is so important:

(6) All Scripture is knowledge implies Jesus is the Christ is knowledge because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture.(7)

This is a syllogism. Let’s make explicit your argument.

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premsie 2: (All) 'Jesus is the Christ' is some Scripture.
Conclusion: (All) 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.

This is not a valid syllogism. You have four terms: ‘Scripture,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ and ‘some Scripture’. Also, this premise 1 is different from your premise above. You have switched the position of the terms. With that said, this is the closest you have come in all of this thread in presenting a valid formal argument. It is very close to being correct, and it is a good argument. However, it undermines your position that the inference from premise 1 to the conclusion is direct.

The problem has been your construction of my arguments. This shows you have still not understood me.

The problem with this complaint is that I have explicitly laid out my constructions using the very words you used. Why not quote those sections and point out what exactly is my error? It sure would help us get to the bottom of things.

You should know that it is the logician's job to correctly translate informal language into the correct propositional forms.

I do know this. However, I no longer think you understand what proper logical form is.

Actually, the definition of "knowledge" is also part of the axiom. Terms imply their definitions.

The axiom is: All Scripture is the word of God. Notice, this is in proper logical form. The subject term (S) is ‘Scripture.’ The Predicate term (P) is ‘the word of God.’ I do not see ‘knowledge’ in either of these terms. If you want to infer knowledge from this, then you will need additional propositions.

If Clark said "via syllogism" I'd be surprised. But if he did, it would have been a technical foul. But it is clear from my reading of Clark that he means that it is that since Scripture includes the propositions found therein, then it is just a technical detail to produce them via logical implication.

I am not at home to provide the direct quote, but if you want it I will be more than happy to quote it tonight. What logical rule did Clark break that created this “technical foul?”

Brian said:
Anthony, is the term ‘Scripture’ and the term ‘Jesus is the Christ’ identical? That is to say, do they relate to each other in the same manner as ‘bachelor’ relates to ‘unmarried man’? Or, would you say their relation is more like ‘men’ is to ‘Socrates’?
Anthony said:
More like 'Socrates" to 'men'. "Jesus is the Christ" is an explicate member of "Scripture".

Every logician from Aristotle onward claimed that a minor premise was needed to go from “All men are mortal” (All M is P) to “Socrates is mortal” (All S is P). Your position says that it is valid to go directly from “All Scripture is the word of God” (All M is P) to ‘“Jesus is the Christ’ is the word of God” (All S is P). So, you are at odds with every logician since Aristotle. Another way to phrase this using your terminology is as follows: You are implying that if a term is an "explicate member of" another term, then it is valid to immediately (directly) conclude from the proposition containing the latter term to the proposition containing the explicate member as long as both predicates are the same. This is the "rule" you are arguing for. 'Socrates' is an "explicate member of" 'man'. So, one should be able to immediately conclude to "Socrates is mortal" from "All men are mortal." However, all logicians from Aristotle onward disagree with you. What do say to this?

Brian
 
Last edited:
Hello Board,

At the beginning of this thread I claimed that when asked to be very explicit the Scripturalist would not be able to validly derive one proposition of Scripture that could rightly be called knowledge from the one axiom "All Scripture is the word of God". At the time I thought the discussion would go a different direction than it did. The direction it went surprised me. Essentially, Anthony presented the following argument...

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge. (Note: he flipped back and forth on this. Sometimes he used "All knowledge is Scripture". He also is not using the one axiom.)
Conclusion: 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.

Regarding this argument, Anthony claims it is valid to conclude directly from premise 1 to the conclusion. In other words, it is an immediate inference. His thinking is along these lines: 'Jesus is the Christ' is an explication of 'Scripture.' That is to say, 'Jesus is the Christ' is one of the propositions that make up the set of propositions properly called 'Scripture'. Therefore, whatever is true of this set is true for any individual of this set. Since 'Jesus is the Christ' is an individual proposition of the set, and since all the propositions of this set are considered knowledge, then 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge. This line of thinking is excellent. The problem for Anthony, however, is that the logically proper formulation of this argument is a syllogism along these lines:

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: 'Jesus is the Christ' is Scripture.
Conclusion: 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.

Notice, it is not an immediate implication from premise 1 to the conclusion. Another proposition is needed. To support this, I have used an exact parrallel to this argument. It is as follows...

Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

From Aristotle onward, all logicians have required premise 2 to make the deduction valid. Yet, Anthony's position necessarily entails that this is not correct. He says one can go directly to the conclusion from premise 1. So, is Anthony correct and all logicians since Aristotle wrong? I seriously doubt this. In the end, Scripturalism fails to achieve the solutions to epistemological difficulties it wishes to overcome. I appreciate what it is trying to do. In fact, I am even sympathetic towards their goal. However, it falls considerably short.

Sincerely,

Brian
 
At the beginning of this thread I claimed that when asked to be very explicit the Scripturalist would not be able to validly derive one proposition of Scripture that could rightly be called knowledge from the one axiom "All Scripture is the word of God". At the time I thought the discussion would go a different direction than it did. ...

Brian,

I thing you give a reasonable description of my position - enough so that I think you basically understand it.
Essentially, Anthony presented the following argument...

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge. (Note: he flipped back and forth on this. Sometimes he used "All knowledge is Scripture". He also is not using the one axiom.)
Conclusion: 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.
The point to note though is I am always using the meaning of the "one axiom".
Regarding this argument, Anthony claims it is valid to conclude directly from premise 1 to the conclusion. In other words, it is an immediate inference. His thinking is along these lines: 'Jesus is the Christ' is an explication of 'Scripture.' That is to say, 'Jesus is the Christ' is one of the propositions that make up the set of propositions properly called 'Scripture'. Therefore, whatever is true of this set is true for any individual of this set. Since 'Jesus is the Christ' is an individual proposition of the set, and since all the propositions of this set are considered knowledge, then 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge. This line of thinking is excellent. ....
Thank you. It seems you understand my position. But ...
.... The problem for Anthony, however, is that the logically proper formulation of this argument is a syllogism along these lines:

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: 'Jesus is the Christ' is Scripture.
Conclusion: 'Jesus is the Christ' is knowledge.

Notice, it is not an immediate implication from premise 1 to the conclusion. Another proposition is needed. ...
That is a proper formulation, but misses the point. The conclusion "Jesus is the Christ" is knowledge follows immediately from the claim that "all Scripture is knowledge".

Recall the axiom - "All Scripture is the word of God". What are the implications of this statement? What is meant by this? Understanding this is important because unless you do, no "formulation" you present will matter. But I think the meaning is reasonably clear, and so are the implications - if all Scripture is the Word of God, then is must be true. And if we believe it, then we can rightly claim it as the foundation of knowledge. We can rightly say that knowledge is what ever God reveals to us in Scripture, and whatever we can (by good and necessary consequences) deduce from Scripture.

Basically, it means that Scripture is knowledge.

And if we look at the implications of "Scripture is knowledge", we know that by immediate implication, all propositions of Scripture are knowledge.

Notice that I am using syllogistic reasoning to explain an immediate implication - if A and B, then C. Does this invalidate "immediate implication"? No. It is simply an explanation of how "immediate implication" works. (BTW. When I say "immediate implication" and "direct implication", I mean the same thing.)

If one predicates Y of all of X, then the predicate Y applies to each and every member of X. That is why one my say if all A is B, then some A is B. It's important to understand the concept.

In a way, Brian goes on to illustrate this in his "exact parallel" argument:

... To support this, I have used an exact parallel to this argument. It is as follows...

Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

From Aristotle onward, all logicians have required premise 2 to make the deduction valid. Yet, Anthony's position necessarily entails that this is not correct. He says one can go directly to the conclusion from premise 1. So, is Anthony correct and all logicians since Aristotle wrong? I seriously doubt this. ...

Appeal to authority? That doesn't work, especially when you fail to understand what most logicians, from Aristotle onward have understood - the the syllogism is based on the principle of direct implication. Lets look at carefully at the argument.
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Why does the syllogism work? Why does Premise 1 and Premise 2 imply the Conclusion? First we have predicated mortality to "all men". And we know that whatever we predicate of the whole, applies to each and every member of the subject.

Draw a large circle, and label it "Mortal". Everything that falls within with circle is mortal.
Code:
Mortal(                   )

Now draw a smaller circle within the larger circle and call it "Men". What can we say about "Men". Well by "immediate implication" we can say that they are all mortal.
Code:
Mortal( Men(            ) )

Now lets draw a smaller circle within "Men" and label it "Socrates". The immediate implication of this is that Socrates is a man. That is what Premise 2 means.
Code:
Mortal( Men( Socrates() ) )

But now notice that there is no way to draw the circle for "Socrates" outside of the circle for "Mortal". So Socrates must also be mortal by direct/immediate implication because he is a member of "Men" - for whatever is predicated of the whole ("Men"), is predicated of each and every member of the whole ("Socrates").

So you see how immediate implication underlies syllogistic reasoning.


Now lets look at "Jesus is the Christ". Only we are going to work from the inside out.

We know the "Jesus is the Christ" is Scripture because it is explicit in Scripture.
Code:
Scripture( "Jesus is Christ"() )

Now let's predicate "knowledge" of Scripture. Basically, we are claiming that since Scripture is the Word of God, it is true and ought to be believed.
Code:
Knowledge( Scripture( "Jesus is Christ"() ) )

Immediately we see that "Jesus Christ" is knowledge because of the principle of direct implication ("all A is B" logically implies "some A is B" for whatever is predicated of the whole, is predicated of each and every member of the whole.

We can formulate this with a syllogism, but that is working backward. The syllogism is validated by the principle (rule) of direct implication.

So there we are. If one understands "direct implication", specifically the rule that "all A is B" logically implies "some A is B", then one can see that "Jesus is Christ" is knowledge follows from a Scripture is knowledge. :judge:

...

Thank you. Thank you very much. [using best Elvis impersonation] :cheers:
 
Last edited:
Hello Anthony,

Appeal to authority?

Yep. I am making a shameful appeal to authority. :eek: I would like you to stake out your position concerning these "authorities" explicitly. You came close in the last thread, but not quite. Here are the positions:

Anthony's Position

It is an immediate inference from "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal".

All Logicians from Aristotle Onward

It is not an immediate inference from "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal".

These positions are contradictory. So, one is right and the other is wrong. (They cannot be both right, and they cannot be both wrong.) Is it your position that all of the "authorities" are wrong? I would like a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. Thanks!

Your Friend,

Brian
 
Hello Anthony,

Appeal to authority?

Yep. I am making a shameful appeal to authority. :eek: I would like you to stake out your position concerning these "authorities" explicitly. You came close in the last thread, but not quite. Here are the positions:

Anthony's Position

It is an immediate inference from "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal".

All Logicians from Aristotle Onward

It is not an immediate inference from "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal".

These positions are contradictory. So, one is right and the other is wrong. (They cannot be both right, and they cannot be both wrong.) Is it your position that all of the "authorities" are wrong? I would like a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. Thanks!

Your Friend,

Brian

Now a 'false dilemma'?!

Brian, to put it bluntly, I think you are wrong and Aristotle is right. You have merely claimed Aristotle agrees with you, which is a "appeal to authority". I disagree with your claim. If anything, the authority is on my side. :)
 
Hello Anthony,

Now a 'false dilemma'?!

I presented you with a contradiction. This means you must agree with one of the propositions and disagree with the other. Now, you may not agree with me as to who supported what proposition, but you necessarily must take sides as to the truth or falisty of the propositions themselves. I am going to press the matter. Here are three propositions:

P1: It is an immediate inference from "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal".
P2: It is not an immediate inference from "All men are mortal" to "Socrates is mortal".
P3: Aristotle taught P2 as being true.

What is the truth status of each of these propositions?

You have merely claimed Aristotle agrees with you, which is a "appeal to authority".

Fine. We will clear this all up after you give your answers.

I disagree with your claim. If anything, the authority is on my side.

Cool. Once we get your answers and compare them to my answers, then we can take our answers and present them directly to Dr. Carranza. You do not have to do anything here other than answer the questions. I will contact Dr. Carranza, and ask him permission to publish his response. By the way, my answers are as follows:

P1: False
P2: True
P3: True

Sincerely,

Brian
 
So Socrates must also be mortal by direct/immediate implication because he is a member of "Men" - for whatever is predicated of the whole ("Men"), is predicated of each and every member of the whole ("Socrates").

So you see how immediate implication underlies syllogistic reasoning.

Anthony,

You are arguing that "Socrates is mortal" is proven by the proposition "All men are mortal" alone. But, notice you said that Socrates is must be mortal, *because* he is a man. You are implicitly relying on a premise without making it explicit. You should have said Socrates must be mortal, because all men are mortal, in order to stick with your argument of direct implication.

The argument is not valid because it could be true that all men are mortal and false that Socrates is mortal if Socrates is not a man. So you must make explicit the hidden premise.
 
So Socrates must also be mortal by direct/immediate implication because he is a member of "Men" - for whatever is predicated of the whole ("Men"), is predicated of each and every member of the whole ("Socrates").

So you see how immediate implication underlies syllogistic reasoning.

Anthony,

You are arguing that "Socrates is mortal" is proven by the proposition "All men are mortal" alone. But, notice you said that Socrates is must be mortal, *because* he is a man. You are implicitly relying on a premise without making it explicit. You should have said Socrates must be mortal, because all men are mortal, in order to stick with your argument of direct implication.

The argument is not valid because it could be true that all men are mortal and false that Socrates is mortal if Socrates is not a man. So you must make explicit the hidden premise.


My point wasn't to prove ""Socrates is mortal", but that that direct implication underlies syllogistic reasoning.
 
Hello Anthony,

I am still waiting for your three answers. If you are not going to give them, then please just let me know.

Thanks,

Brian
 
Hello Anthony,

I am still waiting for your three answers. If you are not going to give them, then please just let me know.

Thanks,

Brian

There a difference between the arguments:
  • 'All Men are Mortal' therefor 'Socrates is Mortal' "
  • and 'All Scripture is Knowledge' therefore 'Jesus is the Christ is Knowledge'.

The difference in the nature of the subjects in the premise and the conclusion.

With 'Men', we do not have a definition the includes 'Socrates' denotatively as a member.

With 'Scripture', we have a definition that denotatively includes 'Jesus is the Christ' as a member. When we say 'Scripture' in the argument above, we mean all the propositions found within the 66 books of the Bible - which includes 'Jesus is the Christ'.


Now we can form an argument more directly similar to the argument for 'Jesus is Christ is Knowledge' using the Socrates example.

We start with the premise: 'Joe, John, Jim, and Socrates' are Mortal'. One direct implication is 'Socrates is Mortal'.
 
Hello Anthony,

There a difference between the arguments: 'All Men are Mortal' therefor 'Socrates is Mortal' " and 'All Scripture is Knowledge' therefore 'Jesus is the Christ is Knowledge'.

Fine. We can argue that later. Are you going to give me your three answers?

Brian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top