Hello Anthony and Jeff,

All Scripture is those writings comprising of the sixty-six books making up the Protestant Bible. This last universal affirmative statement is another proposition different from the one axiom. It is not derived from the one axiom. Rather, it is in addition to the one axiom.

Jeff, I apologize, but this question just does not interest me. This is not to say that your question is not important, but it just is not pertinent. What is pertinent is that the inductive exercise of Biblical exegesis intimately involves sense perception even when one introduces the work of the Holy Spirit.

Sincerely,

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

OK. So you agree that Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. And I'll assume that you agree that the books are the words, sentences, propositions, etc that they contain. Correct?

Now then, if Scripture = the 66 books of the Protestant Bible = the words, sentences, propositions, etc that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible contain.

Then:

"All Scripture is knowledge" has exactly the same meaning as:

"All the words, sentences, propositions, etc that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible contain is knowledge.

Are you with me so far?

If P = p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn,

then All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X is the exact the same as all P is X.

Nothing has been added or subtracted.

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

Hello Anthony,

I am going to list the mounting number of propositions. I begin with the one axiom:

Axiom: All Scripture is the word of God.

Proposition 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.

Proposition 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.

Proposition 3: All Scripture is knowledge.

Anthony’s Valid Syllogism

Premise 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Premise 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Conclusion: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.

Anthony’s Invalid Syllogism

Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge.
Premise 2: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
Conclusion: All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is knowledge.

Not only is the above argument invalid, but we have three additional propositions that are not derived from the one axiom that must be accounted for. So, I guess I am not with you so far.

We have four different propositions. One is “All P is X,” another is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X,” another is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn),” and the last one is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” Now to go from “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X” to “All P is X”, the required additional proposition is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn).” If you wanted to go from “All P is X” to “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X,” then the additional proposition needed is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” And if you wanted to go to the equivalence of the two propositions, then you would have to have both of the other propositions.

Now, will you reciprocate?

(1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you?

(2) The implication you want to draw would make the syllogistic argument form Barabara unnecessary. This form allows one to go from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement where the second universal affirmative statement is simply an instance of the first universal statement. Aristotle, Clark, and all logicians felt that this argument form was needed to make the inference valid. In other words, they did not think one could validly go directly from a universal statement to a universal instance of that statement. However, this is what you want to claim is valid. So, is everyone but you wrong?

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

Can you? How do you account for the fact that the New Testament stakes its claim on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that this fact is established on the basis of eye-witness, Acts 1:3? If in your idealist world no person can know anything by means of sight, how did the disciples know Jesus Christ was raised from the dead?

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Brian,

No need to apologize, but I do disagree that it is pertinenet to the discussion at hand. If the knowledge that "Jesus Christ is Lord" or any other biblical proposition does not directly come from scripture (i.e. deduced) than it must come from some other place. In other words, I guess I am asking, what is the role of induction in coming to a knowledge of any given biblical proposition? Is it probable that "Jesus Christ is Lord"? Are you certain that this is the case? For as any student of logic can tell you, certainty is not the goal of induction, but rather probabliity.

__________________
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?

[Lamb Chop]
These are the threads that never end.

They just go on an on my friend.

Somebody said if A then B not knowing what it was.

And they'll continue saying P forever just because...
[/Lamb Chop]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http:...?v=HNTxr2NJHa0

__________________
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?

I didn't know you were such a talented singer Rich! In fact, come to think of it, I still don't!

Yuk yuk yuk.

__________________
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?

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).

__________________
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?

If Pumpkin, then Asparagus and Beans. My order for roast lunch.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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?

Christ spoke to them. And the Spirit testified to them that it was true. And you do not know it except that the Scriptures tell you. You did not witness it.

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

Correct, I am depending upon the testimony of others who witnessed it; but your worldview rules out the possibility that they witnessed the risen Jesus, and therefore undermines the testimony upon which I am depending.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Brian,

Look at the meaning of the sentences. If you don't get the meaning correct, you can not correctly analysis the logic. When I say "All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible." It is the same as "All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible" and "All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is Scripture". I.e. A is B and B is A. That is the nature of a definition. If B is the definition of A, then A is B and B is A.

That is the same proposition.

That is a definition of the term P. It is a proposition, but the effect of a definition is you can substitute the definition for the word defined WITHOUT CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSITION. You are not creating a new proposition by subsituting (p1, p2, p3…, pn) for P.

Not yet. Now the next step.

"All P is X" is logically equivalent to "All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X" because the defintion P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn). This is the same proposition, not a new one. It means the same thing.

Now we can use the direct implication from the A form to the I form.

"All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X"

Therefore "p3 is X".

Why, because p3 is Some (p1, p2, p3…, pn).

To put it in short:
* All P is X,
* therefore p3 is X.


The word "one" and "uno" and "1" are the same words. I can switch these in a sentence and mean the same thing. The same is true for definitions.

No, I argued from All S is P to Some S is P. The Some S is a subset of All S. Any verse of Scripture is "Some Scripture".

Words have meaning, and a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence.

All Scripture is knowledge implies Jesus is the Christ is knowledge because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture.

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

You depend on their written testimony and the Spirit, and they depended on the spoken words of Christ and the Spirit. They did not simply believe what they say, they believed because of the regenerating power of the Spirit. Simply seeing was not enough. They had to believe also. You don't just "know what you see" - You have to understand what you are seeing, and that understanding has to be correct, and you have to believe it. "Seeing is not believing" as the empiricist would have it.

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

This is why I like revelation more broadly as an axiom rather than JUST the propositions contained in the scriptures. As long as it can be classified as revelation from God, who is to doubt it? I can't believe even Clark would have a problem with this.

__________________
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?

He doesn't. In fact, he makes the point that very point.

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

In order to believe the Scripture I have to believe they "saw" the resurrected Jesus. I agree with you that there is a direct act of faith in Scripture needed in order to believe the resurrection, etc.; but belief in the reliability of the senses follows indirectly as a result of believing the Scriptures.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."