Scripturalism Refuted - Page 2

Magma2 · #41 (**permalink**) 05-04-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems.

Are you for real Brian? I've provided a number of citations from Clark's writings which PROVE you are wrong. Did you just not read them? How about Clark's reply to Mavordes which Anthony supplied I think on more than one occasion in this thread?

You say Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms (or, more accurately part of the axiom of Scripture), but rather as theorems.

OK, prove it!

I'm pretty sure I have all of Clark's published works. Provide the complete citations and include reference and page number.

I think that is an extremely reasonable request before anyone spends even 5 more minutes answering what could now be rightly considered your incorrigible and dishonest nonsense.

Thanks in advance.

Brian Bosse · #42 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 01:20 AM

Hello Sean,

Quote:

You say Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms (or, more accurately part of the axiom of Scripture), but rather as theorems.

I did not say what was in your parenthesis. I did say that Clark construed the individual propositions for Scripture to be theorems. ‘Theorems’ is to be understood in the axiomatic sense of a proposition derived from other axioms or theorems. You have asked me to prove this. Here is what Clark says in An Introduction to Christian Philosophy on page 88…

Quote:

The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms…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.

These last two paragraphs provide support for my position. Clark clearly thinks it is neither desirable nor necessary to make the “thousands of Biblical propositions” an aggregate set of axioms. It is not desirable because it does not allow one to arrange the truths of Scripture “in patterns of logical subordination.” It is not necessary because through deduction, syllogistically each of these thousands of propositions can be proved true. These propositions derived syllogistically from the axiom are properly called theorems.

Sincerely,

The Incorrigible, Dishonest and Nonsensical One.

(Note: You really should spend more time putting forth rational argumentation and less time making disparaging remarks about me.)

Semper Fidelis · #43 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Sincerely,

The Incorrigible, Dishonest and Nonsensical One.

(Note: You really should spend more time putting forth rational argumentation and less time making disparaging remarks about me.)

I fully agree Sean. Conduct yourself like the rational person you purport yourself to be. I'm quite weary of the insults to people on this board.

Brian, unlike me at times, has been extremely patient and has not returned the myriad of ad hominems with anything but reasoned responses. Every time you return his challenges with charged rhetoric you merely reinforce the title of this thread.

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?

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.

Brian Bosse · #45 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 02:19 PM

Hello Sean,

Now that you have decided that you are "done here playing with Brian’s little straw man," I will offer some final observations for your consideration.

(1) I have provided explicit arguments for my claims.
(2) You seem not to interact with these arguments but rather simply assert that I am wrong. You may provide quotations, but you offer no argumentation against my position as to how these quotations undermine my position. Even then, you fail to explain how the quotes I have used to support my position where misconstrued. My last post was a perfect example of this. I provided the "proof" you were looking for. I quoted Clark's own words, and then commented on them arguing that they support my position. You never interacted with it. This seems to be your modus operendi.
(3) You now are running away from this discussion claiming that the reason for doing so is because you are losing patience. I guess the reason you are losing patience is because you think I am acting in an unreasonable manner. I have tried to be reasonable. But, if this is not a good situation for you, then please do what you feel is necessary.

All in all, I am not surprised. As an amateur logician, I try to make my arguments as explicit as possible so that people can directly interact with my arguments. I have presented numerous categorical syllogisms and even a reductio ad absurdum argument or two. If my arguments are unsound, then it is easy for the opponent to point to the premise that is not true in those arguments. Sean, you have never done so. Rather, you resort to charged rhetoric. I think the reason you have not done so is because either, (A) you are just not knowledgeable about formal argumentation, or (B) you have no rebuttal to my formal arguments.

Anthony, on the other hand is knowledgeable about formal argumentation, and does interact with my arguments. I will wait for Anthony to respond. I find him to be much more reasonable and less personal. You might learn from him.

Sincerely,

Brian

Magma2 · #46 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

(1) I have provided explicit arguments for my claims.

Based on a dishonest and disingenuous twisting of what Clark said as anyone can see per the many quotes I provided.

Quote:

(2) You seem not to interact with these arguments but rather simply assert that I am wrong.

It was enough to point out that your entire "refutation" is fallacious and is a straw man argument. Something I thought even armature logician like you would recognize.

Quote:

I quoted Clark's own words, and then commented on them arguing that they support my position. You never interacted with it. This seems to be your modus operendi.

What was there to interact with? I had already provided the entire quotation from which your cut and paste job was taken plus many more demonstrating your complete misreading of Clark which is without any justification at all. I certainly don't mind someone trying to refute Scripturalism, I welcome it, but I would think they should first have a working understanding of what it is they're refuting. Sadly, you don't have a clue.

Let me put it this way, if your reading of Clark were even remotely correct then I would refute Scripturalism too. Frankly, my 15 year old daughter would be able to refute Scripturalism.

FWIW I'm happy to let anyone read the quotes I've provided and decide for themselves who is telling the truth.

Quote:

(3) You now are running away from this discussion claiming that the reason for doing so is because you are losing patience.

If you find some vindication in playing the victim, be my guest. It won't make your so-called "refutation of Scripturalism" any less fallacious, misinformed and irrational.

Quote:

Anthony, on the other hand is knowledgeable about formal argumentation, and does interact with my arguments.

All the best with Anthony.

Semper Fidelis · #47 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magma2

Based on a dishonest and disingenuous twisting...

...Something I thought even armature logician like you would recognize.

...Sadly, you don't have a clue.

...Frankly, my 15 year old daughter would be able to refute Scripturalism.

...misinformed and irrational.

Sean,

You are now suspended for one month. If you decide you desire to return to the PuritanBoard at that point then you will not be permitted even one more thread like this.

Brian Bosse · #48 (**permalink**) 05-05-2007, 06:15 PM

Hello Sean,

I guess you just can’t get enough of me.

Earlier, you asked me for proof that Clark viewed the propositions of Scripture as theorems derived from the axiom. I provided what you wanted, and you ignored it. Will you deal with it now? I repeat the argument by beginning with Clark’s words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon H. Clark

The thousands of Biblical propositions need not be construed as an immense set of axioms…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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian

These last two paragraphs provide support for my position. Clark clearly thinks it is neither desirable nor necessary to make the “thousands of Biblical propositions” an aggregate set of axioms. It is not desirable because it does not allow one to arrange the truths of Scripture “in patterns of logical subordination.” It is not necessary because through deduction, syllogistically each of these thousands of propositions can be proved true. These propositions derived syllogistically from the axiom are properly called theorems.

Sean, you must necessarily disagree with my commentary on Clark here. So, provide me with some Clarkian exegesis, especially on the last two paragraphs of his quote. If Clark was not making the point I said he was making, then what was Clark actually saying?

Your Dishonest, Disingenuous, Clueless, Misinformed Victim.

P.S. I posted this prior to seeing the post where Sean was banned. As such, he will not be able to reply for awhile. Anthony may well chime in.

Civbert · #49 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 10:45 AM

I'm trying to get caught up, and this is the first reply to my last post so I started here. But I can't get past the first sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Board,

I provided a valid proof for apriori knowledge being justified apart from Scripture.

I looked but did not see this proof. Could you quote the proof and add a link.

Civbert · #50 (**permalink**) 05-07-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Clark did not understand the individual propositions and commands of Scripture as axioms, but rather as theorems. A theorem is a derived proposition from prior theorems or axioms. Clark proposed “the Axiom” because he thought he could validly deduce the propositions and commands from the axiom. He was mistaken.

I covered this before. You have made a mistake in your understanding of Clark. Your reading is uncharitable. The correction is as trivial as is the processes of deducing A from (A & B & C & D). It's the rule of simplification:

If (A & B & C & D) are true, then A is true.

Clark did not think he could deduce the propositions of Scripture from the sentence "The Bible is the Word of God" as if each term was merely a sound. He intends the reader to understand that the propositions of Scripture are the content of the Bible.

So the logical is trivial: If X is a propositions of Scripture, then X is true.

Brian Bosse · #51 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 01:26 AM

Hello Anthony,

Quote:

I looked but did not see this proof. Could you quote the proof and add a link.

I am not sure how to provide a link directly to the post. It is found on the previous page. Here is the quote...

Quote:

You (Sean) are missing the key point. You must begin with a priori knowledge to derive any knowledge from Scripture. They key question is this, "Is this a priori knowledge justified apart from Scripture?" Your answer is "no." This means that either the a priori knowledge is not justified at all, or it is justified by Scripture. Let's consider these two possible cases:

Case 1 (the a priori knowledge is not justified)

If this a priori knowledge is not justified, then all derivations based on this unjustified knowledge are unjustified. Since, all derivations of Scripture utilize a priori knowledge, then all derivations of Scripture are unjustified under this scenario. You deny this possibility.

Case 2 (the a priori knowledge is justified by Scripture)

How do we know that a priori knowledge is justified by Scripture? Your answer is that a priori knowledge is derivable from Scripture, and this justifies it as being knowledge. Yet, all derivations of Scripture utilize a priori knowledge. So, the derivation used to justify a priori knowledge must use a priori 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: A priori knowledge used in derivations of Scripture is justified apart from Scripture.
2. Assume ~A: A priori 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.

If this proof is unsound, which premise is false and why?

Quote:

I covered this before. You have made a mistake in your understanding of Clark. Your reading is uncharitable. The correction is as trivial as is the processes of deducing A from (A & B & C & D). It's the rule of simplification: If (A & B & C & D) are true, then A is true.

First off, in what sense is my reading uncharitable? I understand Clark's axiom to be the universal affirmative statement "The Bible is the Word of God." You understand his statement to be the conjunction of all the propositions of the Bible. My critique does not hinge on either understanding. So, in what sense am I being uncharitable? It may be mistaken, but it is not uncharitable.

Let me remind you why this is even a topic. I claimed that all of the propositions of Scripture were theorems of Clark's system. Sean, who now refers to me as a dishonest liar, asked me to prove this. My argument is simply that the individual propositions of Scripture are derived from the axiom in Clark's system. Clark said so himself when he said that "from the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the Word of God." (This is true no matter how one construes the axiom.) By definition, this makes the propositions of the Bible theorems of the system. Do you disgaree with this?

Sincerely,

Brian

SolaGratia · #52 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 02:21 AM

"One can only know full truth about God by being" God himself which no one can.

JohnV · #53 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 12:58 PM

1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Theogenes · #54 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 01:54 PM

Here's a Scripturalist "Blast from the past". It's a quote from Samuel Bolton
(1606-1654) from his book, "The Arraignment of Error", p262.
"The Scripture is not only the revealer of divine truth, but of all divine truth. Not that there is no more divine truth than what is revealed in the Word, but that there is no more for us; there is no more to be believed and obeyed than what God has revealed in His Word"

Civbert · #55 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

I am not sure how to provide a link directly to the post. It is found on the previous page. Here is the quote...

Brian, you don't really think that's a proof of a priori knowledge do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

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.

Step 4 begs the question. Do you recall how you gave someone a hard time about the TAG argument when the first premise of the argument actually assumed the conclusion being proven. Anything can be proven using that technique. You have not proven a priori is logically necessary, you have assumed it is necessary.

Your argument for step 4 is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

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.

Notice that you have switched "deduction" for "derivation". And when I asked you to deduce a simple proposition without using Scripture, using a priori forms you gave this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Premise: God is a being who is omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful. (Axiom 1)
Conclusion A: A being who is not omniscient, omnipotent and always truthful is not God. (Law of Contraposition)
Q.E.D.

You are merely assuming your axiom, no deducing any new proposition. And you did not deduce any propositions from a priori forms or ideas. I can assume A and deduce not-not-A. But that all. If your axiom can not logically produce any knowledge, what good is it? Your a priori knowledge can not justify any knowledge. As an axiom, you could get as much knowledge from assuming "all dogs have four legs".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

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. ...

Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

... 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.

Isn't it. But that's what you have done here. The Scripturalist can justify a priori forms post temporori. This is not begging the question, it a logical consequence of assuming the axiom of Scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

[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.

Ergo step 4 begs the question. You have not proven ~(Case 1 or Case 2).

Civbert · #56 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

... My argument is simply that the individual propositions of Scripture are derived from the axiom in Clark's system.

I understood your argument to be that one could not deduce the propositions of Scripture from the Axiom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Clark said so himself when he said that "from the one axiom it follows syllogistically that such and such a sentence in Scripture is true because it is the Word of God." (This is true no matter how one construes the axiom.) By definition, this makes the propositions of the Bible theorems of the system. Do you disgaree with this?

Of course I agree with that: the propositions of the Bible logical follow from assuming the truth of the Bible. A implies A.

What has not been shown is the logical necessity of a priori knowledge, or how one can deduce anything from it, not the least of which includes the propositions of Scripture.

Brian Bosse · #57 (**permalink**) 05-08-2007, 03:47 PM

Hello Anthony!

Do you still love me?

Quote:

Brian, you don't really think that's a proof of a priori knowledge do you?

Yes, I do. It may not be sound, but I think it would fall under the category of ‘proof’. Maybe, you are asking if I really believe that it is sound? If so, then yes, I think it is sound, or I would not have presented it. Maybe, you are asking if I thought it was proof for justified a priori knowledge apart from Scripture rather than some other conclusion? If so, yes, this clearly can be seen from the conclusion. It is a proof for justified knowledge apart from the Bible.

Quote:

Step 4 begs the question...You have not proven a priori is logically necessary, you have assumed it is necessary.

I am looking forward to your analysis that demonstrates this.

Quote:

Notice that you have switched "deduction" for "derivation".

I am using them as synonyms. You can assume they mean the same thing and interchange them. A logical derivation is the same as a logical deduction.

Quote:

You are merely assuming your axiom, no deducing any new proposition.

This is where you are mistaken. You are failing to distinguish between axioms and theorems. You asked me to derive (deduce) some proposition from my system, and you granted me the laws of logic. Well, my system has as one of the axioms the proposition “God is a God who is omniscient, omnipresent,…” I did exactly what you asked me to. I deduced a new proposition from this axiom using the laws of logic. If this somehow is not proper, then you undermine all axiomatic systems including Clark’s.

Quote:

And you did not deduce any propositions from a priori forms or ideas.

Sure I did. I deduced a proposition based on the a priori idea of contraposition.

Quote:

Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving...The Scriptura