Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  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)
__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member -
Trinity Reformed Church -
RPCNA
"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism"
(The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98) Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?