Hello Civ, Sean and Matthew,

For the sake of discussion, let's assume as our axiom that Scripture is the Word of God. Let's also assume that the teachings of Scripture (i.e., derived theorems from our axiom) provide an accounting for the laws of logic as well as man's innate equipment to reason, and many other things. I believe Matthew's point is that whatever method of reasoning we use to deduce (?) our theorems from our axiom will involve some type of empirical analysis as well as inductive reasoning amongst other things.

Matthew, is this in fact your point? If so, Civ and Sean, how would you answer this? I have my own answer, but will wait to see how Civ and Sean answer.

Sincerely,

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

I will run with this, but it is only for the sake of the argument. Let it be known that I follow the traditional reformed view of general and special revelation, and so I understand Scripture to build on nature. Grace does not destroy but renews creation.

I will expect a justified account as to how the laws of logic are derived from Scripture. This will mean you will need to not only quote Scripture but show why you believe the particular Scripture you are quoting is (a) canonical, (b) interpreted correctly and systematically. I want to see no borrowing from empiricism at all. If you can manage it, you have won me.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

This is my take. Scripture is not the words and sentences written in the NKJV or the Greek or whatever language. Scripture is the propositional truths that God has revealed to us through verbal revelation. I think this has come up before, but when I speak of the truths and propositions of Scripture, I'm not talking about any particular set of marks on paper or sound vibrations. I'm talking about the very propositional truths that we must have as our axiom in order to have knowledge.



Regarding Analysis:

The does not try to escape "the inevitability of "analysis"" but presumes analysis. More importantly it assumes the working of the Holy Spirit so that when we hear and read the bible, we are able to understand and believe the Scriptures. As Sean noted twice not, Scripturalism does not discount closed induction for analyzing the Bible to help us understand what Scripture says, but only the working of the Spirit guarantees we may rightly determine God's Word.



Regarding Logic:

I know you said "let assume that the teachings of Scripture "provide an accounting for the laws of logic". But I see Rev. Winzer did not accept this. So let me give a quick proof that Scripture accounts for the laws of logic.

The laws of logic are derived from Scripture by the impossibility of the contrary.

P1: If Scripture is not logical, then Scripture is unintelligible.
P2: Scripture is intelligible.
C: Therefore Scripture is logical.




Regarding Empirical Analysis and Reading:

As far as the use of empirical analysis to understand Scripture - this is confusing reading for empiricism (as if reading proved empiricism). Empiricism says that one can take a blank mind without a priori knowledge, and add sensations and images and derive knowledge. Reading the Bible requires a priori knowledge - knowledge that can not be accounted for using empiricism. So reading is not empiricism - in fact, by it self it disproves empiricism.


Other Comments:

I wanted to point out the Clark was arguing against worldly philosophies that give no place to God in knowledge. He was arguing for a Christian epistemology versus the epistemologies of the world. Those who are opposing Clark's Scripturalism have effectively assumed most of Clark's presuppositions by agreeing that the Scriptures and what can be deduce therefrom are knowledge. They also agree with the necessity of the Spirits role in knowledge. They are effectively agreeing that God and logic are both essential requirements for knowledge. So when the try to counter Clark's arguments, they are in effect defending worldly philosophies - because the object of Clark's arguments are worldly philosophies (empiricism, rationalism, logical positivism, etc).

I don't think this is intentional, but this is the effect. If Clark's arguments are wrong, then we must accept empiricism and rationalism and other anti-Christian philosophies. Now if it is the case that those who object to Clark's Christian Philosophy are not trying to defend the worldly alternatives, then they are merely splitting hairs. They already agree with 95% of Scripturalism if they are rejecting worldly philosophies.

It's also my opinion that attempts to blend worldly epistemologies into Christianity undermines the validity of the premise that the Scriptures alone are the Word of God.

*****

Sorry if I got off track.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

To get back on track - we can use closed induction and other means of analysis to try to understand the Bible so we can know the Scriptures (the meaning of the sentences and words in the Bible). We use well understood hermeneutic principles - let the Bible interprets the Bible - and no external sources have precedence over Scripture, the Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

But when we say "knowledge is Scripture and what we can deduce therefrom", this presumes the inerrant and infallible Word of God is in mind. This is why we can only say something is justified true belief if we determine it by "good and necessary consequences" from the Scriptures. We can not use inductions from the known infallible truths of God's Word, less we commit a logical fallacy (i.e. it's not "good and necessary consequences" if it is induction).

Would all agree with the inerrancy and infallibility of the Word of God?

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Maybe I'm not following you? I don't consider other senses of the word "all" false either, but I can't deduce from Scripture's use of the word "all" unlimited atonement either. As I demonstrated if "to know" is to be understood in the same sense then the Scriptures contradict themselves and it would follow the Scriptures are not true. One side of the contradiction is necessarily false, even if we can't know which one.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

Please don't take this wrong Rev. Winzer, but are you for real? Above is a demonstration of the laws of logic derived from Scripture (as Clark pointed out in his Logic all other logical laws are implied by lc), no borrowing from empiricism at all. How could it be otherwise since no one observes logic. Logic is part of the a_prori endowment we all have as creatures made in God's image. Further, if the architecture of God's mind is logic (John 1:1), then the laws of logic are not a product of empirical observation. Consequently, the underlying notion of your objection is absurd on the face of it. Further, per the above proof 1 John 2:21 is canonical and the above interpretation is correct and systematic.

If you can find a flaw in his argument why don't you point it out so I can pass it along to George Macleod for his edification? Instead you cite tradition and insinuate the above demonstration somehow failed to accomplish its task. What kind of argument is this? FWIW you should have been won long ago.

The Scriptures do not "build on nature," as if the truths of Scripture are somehow a derivation of nature, they explain nature. The Scriptures are by definition supernatural. I have to say I am amazed by those who contend inductive and probabilistic arguments derived from empirical observations (or, would that be imposed upon since you can’t get propositions from non-propositions) somehow yield true propositions simply because they are Christians or hold to the "Reformed Tradition."

I don't think too many would disagree that the apex of empiricism is found in the sciences, physics being the most logical and rigorous. Science is the crowning jewel of empiricism (even though empiricism as a philosophic pursuit ended not in knowledge but skepticism). The methods of science, which, if nothing else, are meticulous, raises the art of observation to its most exacting expression. In spite of all this, anyone who has spent any time studying the philosophy of science will see that science is not a cognitive enterprise at all. The pretense of scientists and non-scientists over a century ago is long gone. Karl Popper and other great minds, both believers and unbelievers alike, demonstrated long ago science never arrives at final truths. Science - at its best - provides only conjectures; educated guesses and refutations of these same guesses. Nothing more.

Science provides the perfect example of those who are always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. So why is it that only Christians are foolish enough to confuse the probabilistic and fallible conclusions of empirical investigations with infallible eternal truths? I confess this is baffling.

Rant over.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

Steve, have you read WCF XXVIII Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation?

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

(1.) How do you know the Greek words mean "truth" and "falsehood?" There is no inspired and infallible lexicon. (2.) How do you know 1 John 2:21 is not an interpolation by some well meaning orthodox Christian? There is no inspired and infallible list of original texts. (3.) How do you know 1 John itself is an original part of the Bible? There is no inspired and infallible list of canonical books. Your knowledge of the law of non contradiction is naively built upon the work of faithful men who have received, preserved and translated the Scriptures for you.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

This is as bold an attack on traditional Bible-belief as any theological liberal attempted. It amounts to this -- the Bible is not the Word of God; the Bible contains the Word of God; the Bible is the vehicle through which the Word of God comes to us. Sir, the more you defend your unbiblical definition of knowledge the more you stray from the reformed faith. I hope better things of you.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

WCF 18:2, "This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption."

How many more truths are you going to deny, Civbert? I find it hard to believe the moderators have not stepped in and called you to account for your equivocating subscription to the doctrinal standards of this board.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Yes. An assurance. Not knowledge (justified true belief) which requires epistemic certainty.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Infallible! You can't get more certain or justified than that.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Nonsense. That does not follow. It amonts to exactly what I said, the Scriptures are not the ink and paper. Please read what I wrote and interact with it . Which part do you not disagree with? The ink and paper are the medium, not the message. Is that so difficult?

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Assurance. Infallible assurance. Not infallible knowledge. There's a reason the did not use the word knowledge. The WCF is very carefully worded.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Yes it is, and you don't seem to understand the precision of its language. In fact, as much as it may hurt you to hear this, you seem deficient on the very basics of theology. Puritan theology speak of assurance as a reflexive act of faith. The assurance is knowledge. Read some theological books, please, and stop twisting the Christian faith to suit your perverse philosophy.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

You mean which part do I not agree with? All of it. I could quote WCF 1:5 and a host of reformed writers, but what would be the point? I'm sure you would have some ingenious way of making them fit your mould.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I know this got a bit confusing but the Poll took on a very distinct debate that needed to be moved to provide some clarity. This is the problem with an epistemic discussion because it changed from "What are all of your thoughts about epistemology?" to "Defend Clarkian's use of empericism and inductive reasoning..."

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Per silly point #1 please see the thread Rich started "What is this" (Clarkians: what is this?) and scroll down to the citation I provided by J.P. Moreland who is not a "Clarkian" by any stretch of the imagination. Assuming you just don't want to continue playing your pointless games, perhaps you will see that meaning is not tied to any culturally determined linguistic tokens, including those used by the Greeks.

Per silly point #2: for the same reason Abraham knew it was God talking and not Satan when he was told to sacrifice his son.

Per silly point #3: To ask someone to prove an axiom, in this case the axiom of the Christian system, is even sillier than your points 1 & 2.

Seeing you forgot. Your challenge was:

Your objection was answered directly and in accordance with every one of your *conditions.* When you're done playing games, let me know. Maybe you'll even win me.

__________________
Sean Gerety
Member
Calvary Presbyterian, PCA
Norfolk, VA

“I don't really like disconcerting people. Although often when I try to be normal I disconcert anyway." Robert Wyatt

This is a good discussion but to all sides - let's moderate the sarcasm and scoff.

A soft answer turns away wrath. (Is that an axiom )

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?