I was thinking maybe if we went back to step one...
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?
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?