The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Magma2 · #44 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Why not quote Clark instead of screaming ever louder: "You're misrepresenting him!" The only person I've seen quoting Clark extensively is Brian. Why is that?

Because you haven’t been paying attention.

I’m sorry Rich, but I have been enormously patient with Brian. You forget that besides being a continuation from another thread, he began this thread by titling it “Scripturalism refuted,” then after crafting his poorly constructed straw man, he wrote; “The Scripturalist will not be able to overcome these objections even though they will try. You will see that in some cases Scripturalists will go to such lengths to justify their position that they will embrace irrationalism.” Well, so far, this claim has just been nothing more than bravado and chest thumping.

FWIW and I understand your general dislike for me and Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism in general, but in fairness I think you ought to cut me some slack.

So, before bowing out because you are correct and I am out of patience with Brian, why don’t we recap Brian’s refutation which hangs on only 2 central objections.

First, Brian claims:

Quote:

Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must already be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and a priori categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and a priori categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge.

This is false, per the citation I provided Clark refutes Brian’s distortion as follows:

Quote:

If the Christian had to avoid the a priori because Kant put it to a non-Christian use, and for the same reason had to deny a blank mind because of Aristotle and Hume, he would have no alternative left. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the image of God in man, a doctrine learned from Scripture, is an assertion of an a priori or innate equipment [notice, it is an assertion “learned from Scripture” [not the assertion of a separate axiom as Brian maintains]. As such it will receive emphasis. But only as such, for so precarious are arguments otherwise based that there would be little confidence in the existence of an a priori and no possibility of identifying its forms, were it not asserted in verbal revelation.

Next, Brian maintains; “Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems.” Yet, for Clark "the bible is the Word of God" is not a single axiomatic proposition standing in Euclidean isolation as Brian incorrectly maintains, it is intended to stand for and include ALL the thousands of propositions and commands entailed in all 66 books of the bible. Brian refuses to abandon his flimsy straw man in spite of a link Anthony providing on a number of occasions where Clark states clearly corrects Marvrodes for making the exact same error Brian is making now.

For example, had Brian taken the time to read Clark’s reply he would have read:

Quote:

In Part I [of Mavroades criticism of Clark] we read that the Axiom "can be written on the back of a calling card." A bit later the author says, "The Axiom contains no information whatever as to the specific content of the Bible." And because of this Mavrodes concludes that no useful information can be deduced from it. Doubtless it is in this connection that he twice complains that "Not a single example is given anywhere of the deduction of any theorem."

Of course, in What Do Presbyterians Believe, I have indicated (without using standard-form categorical syllogisms) the deduction of various doctrines from Scriptural statements. What Mavrodes seems to mean, however, is that I have not deduced the several verses from the Axiom.

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.

. . . suppose we make the following list: David was King of Israel; hydrogen is a chemical element; and Jim likes peanuts. With these as axioms what can be deduced? Granted, Jim likes peanuts implies that Jim likes peanuts; but, point one, there is no explicit assertion that the axiom is true, and the implication remains valid even when the proposition is false; and, point two, nothing in addition to the three axioms can be deduced, for no two of them imply anything.

If, following the suggestion of the critique, we assert "David was King implies that Jim likes peanuts," we may get more theorems than on the previous scheme; but here the axioms have become absurd (if the words retain their ordinary meanings), and as before the theorems are only the axioms over again.

In such a random list of axioms and therefore in the theorems that repeat them, there is no distinction between axiom and theorem; nor is there a distinction between theorem and theorem. If such a set of random propositions can be axiomatized in an indefinite number of ways, then either or both of two consequences follow: each proposition implies each other, so that they are all equivalent in meaning, for which reason justification and sanctification are synonymous; and, since any doctrine can be axiomatic, the doctrine of the Trinity could be no more basic to the limited atonement than the principle of Presbyterian government is basic to the eternal decree.

Another flaw in Mavrodes' easy and trivial axiomatization, or perhaps the same flaw in different words, comes to the surface in his statement, "If Christian doctrine is true, as I believe it is, then there are indefinitely many sets of true axioms which entail it." This statement appears false to me, at least on the assumptions that Christian doctrine means all thirty-three chapters of the Westminster Confession, that these many propositions are not identical in meaning, and that the word entail is a synonym for imply. On these conditions I would like to know some of the indefinite number of axioms that imply the first chapter of the Confession. To simplify: The Axiom (Scripture is the word of God) implies that David was King; but how can David's being King imply that all Scripture is true?

. . . Mavrodes gives the impression that he wishes to deduce several propositions from a different foundation. Near the end of Part II he has this syllogism: "God ordained that David should be a King of Israel; God brings to pass whatever he ordains; therefore David was a King of Israel." To which syllogism he appends the remark "This axiom set [the two premises] does not include Clark's Axiom. . . making no reference at all to the Bible." So? There would indeed have been no reference to the Bible, had he argued: Nebuchadnezzar ordained David to be King; whatever Nebuchadnezzar ordains comes to pass. But where else than in the Bible can we get the information that God ordained David? Once again, if the foundation be removed, nothing of Christianity remains.

I honestly fail to see how Clark’s position could be clearer. Clark even refers to the axiom of Christianity in his reply to Mavrodes as “the Westminister Principle,” which should be obvious from the above that, like the Confession, Clark starts with the doctrine of Scripture as his axiom. Even in ordinary discussion if someone were to say, “I believe the Bible is true” he is not saying that the single proposition is true yet the thousands of propositions contained within the Bible are somehow false, so I confess it is a complete mystery why Brian, who clearly isn't an idiot, remains incapable of grasping this?

Beyond that, I previously cited Clark in defense of the Westminister Principle from another work as follows:

Quote:

God as distinct from Scripture is not made the axiom of this argument [as it is in your arrangement above]. Undoubtedly this twist will seem strange to many theologians. It will seem particularly strange after the previous emphasis on the mind of God as the origin of all truth. Must not God be the axiom? For example, the first article of the Augsburg Confession gives the doctrine of God, and the doctrine of the Scripture hardly appears anywhere in the whole document. In the French Confession of 1559, the first article is on God; the Scripture is discussed in the next five. The Belgic Confession has the same order. The Scotch Confession of 1560 begins with God and gets to the Scripture only in article nineteen. The Thirty-Nine Articles begin with the Trinity, and Scripture comes in articles six and following. If God is sovereign, it seems very reasonable to put him first in the system.

But several other creeds, and especially the Westminster Confession, state the doctrine of Scripture at the very start. The explanation is quite simple: our knowledge of God comes from the Bible [another clear statement that the Bible is the Word of God is NOT to be understood as a proposition in isolation from the CONTENTS of Scripture]. We may assert that every proposition is true because God thinks it so, and we may follow Charnock in all his great detail, but the whole is based on Scripture. Suppose this were not so. Then “God” as an axiom, apart from Scripture, is just a name. We must specify which God. The best known system in which “God” was made the axiom is Spinoza’s. For him all theorems are deduced from Deus sive Natura. But it is the Natura that identifies Spinoza’s God. Different gods might be made axioms of other systems. Hence the important thing is not to presuppose God, but to define the mind of the God presupposed. Therefore the Scripture is offered here as the axiom. This gives definiteness and content, without which axioms are useless.

Thus it is that God, Scripture, and logic are tied together. The Pietists should not complain that emphasis on logic is a deification of an abstraction, or of human reason divorced from God. Emphasis on logic is strictly in accord with John’s Prologue and is nothing other than a recognition of the nature of God.

As if all that wasn’t clear enough to have convinced any rational person that Brian could not be more wrong when he asserts: “Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems,” I previously provided this citation from Clark:

Quote:

A geometer, an analytic philosopher [which is probably where Brian might be classified], or a Spinozist will doubtless consider the preceding construction [the construction of the axiom of Scripture] to be disturbingly sloppy. Euclid and Spinoza carefully enumerated their axioms and as carefully deduced their theorems. But theology books as not written ordine geometrico demonstrata; nor has the axiom or set of axioms been clearly formulated. If the set of axioms is the aggreate of all the sentences in the Bible, the number is far too great for any neat Euclidian system.

. . . Yet the difficulty with theology is not precisely the number of axioms. The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms. The peculiarity is in the opposite direction. What annoys Euclid and Spinoza [and evidently Brian] is that 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. The doctrine of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints are far from being an illogical and disjointed aggregation. The opponents of this theology have never charged it with being illogical; the standard objection is that it is too logical. [87,88]

For Clark, when someone says (1) The Bible alone is the Word of God and (2) All the propositions in the Bible are true, they are saying the same thing. As Clark argued and which Brian for some bizarre reason has persisted in simply ignoring, Clark’s chosen axiom while "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."

So, Rich, when you ask me “Why not quote Clark” I have done so and pervasively.

OTOH you are right I am losing my patience and patience is without question one of the fruits of the Spirit I may be lacking in despite of spending days carefully citing from Clark’s works and discussing what Clark said.

Regardless, I am done here playing with Brian’s little straw man.