Hello Board,
While we are waiting on Sean's derivation I thought I would share a little of another conversation I am having with him.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sean I think the hang up for you…is that this a_priori is not along with or in addition to the one axiom. |
I think this is a fair assessment of my "hang up."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sean Clark's point is that we would not be able to even speak of an a_priori were it not asserted in verbal revelation, which brings us right back to his one axiom. |
You are missing the key point. You must
begin with
apriori knowledge to derive any knowledge from Scripture. They key question is this, "Is this
apriori knowledge justified apart from Scripture?" Your answer is "no." This means that either the
apriori knowledge is not justified at all, or it is justified by Scripture. Let's consider these two possible cases:
Case 1 (the
apriori knowledge is not justified)
If this
apriori knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize
apriori knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility.
Case 2 (the
apriori knowledge is justified by Scripture)
How do we know that
apriori knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that
apriori knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize
apriori knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify
apriori knowledge must use
apriori knowledge. This means you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. It is along the lines of arguing that A is justified because of B, and when asked what justifies B, you respond with A. It is a vicious circle.
Clearly, neither case 1 nor case 2 are desirable options, and as such it refutes your claim that there is no knowledge justified apart from Scripture. Consider the following argument.
1. Prove A:
Apriori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
2. Assume ~A:
Apriori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is not justified apart from Scripture.
3. ~A-->(Case 1 or Case 2)
4. ~(Case 1 or Case 2)
5. ~~A by the logical law of
Modus Tollens.
6. A by the Law of Negation.
Q.E.D.
I have just provided a proof for knowledge that is justified apart from Scripture. The proof is the valid proof form called
Reductio Ad Absurdum. So, if you think it is unsound, which premise is false?
Sincerely,
Brian