Scripturalism Refuted

[Magma2]

Yet per (2) I can account for (1) an omniscient, infallible God who always tells the truth and (3) that man has the requisite abilities to receive this revelation… It seems positively stupid to posit 3 unprovable axioms when 2 of yours can be demonstrated from the one axiom of Scripture.

You say you can. So, prove it. Please make explicit your accounting of (1) and (3) from (2). To make it easier on you, just account for (1).

OK Brian. Just so I'm sure you're not kidding, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

You said: (1) There exists a God who is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth.

Now you want me to provide an account from Scripture that

1. God is omniscient.

2. God is infallible.

3. God always tells the truth.

Have I got it?

For what it's worth, even the crassest atheists I've ever met have never questioned that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is (said to be) omniscient, infallible and tells the truth.

So before I start wheeling out the verses in support of each premise, I would like to be sure you haven't lost your mind or are actually a member of the atheist web.



I have to say this has been one weird day. Manata compared Gordon Clark to a meth dealer complete with myself and Dr. Robbins as his pushers. Now I have a man who claims to be a Christian asking me to provide a biblical account for God's omniscience, infallibility and truthfulness. Just a really bizarre day.

 

[MW]

But either way, one cannot just see Christ and be saved.

But there is such a thing as historical faith, whereby a person knows and accepts the facts of the gospel record, but does not put his trust in them, and therefore is not saved.

 

[Magma2]

Seeing now that Brian has asked me to demonstrate from Scripture that God is omniscient, I think the time has come for the Moderators to change the name of this sad farce. I recommend:

Scripturalism Refuted . . . Not!

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Sean,

Now you want me to provide an account from Scripture that 1. God is omniscient. 2. God is infallible. 3. God always tells the truth. Have I got it?

Not quite. You claimed to be able to derive these three propositions strictly from the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God". So, I grant to you that the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God" is true. Now, go ahead and from this derive the three propositions above.

Brian

 

[Brian Bosse]

I am having trouble posting. Sorry.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Board,

While we are waiting on Sean's derivation I thought I would share a little of another conversation I am having with him.

I think the hang up for you…is that this a_priori is not along with or in addition to the one axiom.

I think this is a fair assessment of my "hang up."

Clark's point is that we would not be able to even speak of an a_priori were it not asserted in verbal revelation, which brings us right back to his one axiom.

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

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.

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. 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: 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.

I have just provided a proof for knowledge that is justified apart from Scripture. The proof is the valid proof form called Reductio Ad Absurdum. So, if you think it is unsound, which premise is false?

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Magma2]

Now you want me to provide an account from Scripture that 1. God is omniscient. 2. God is infallible. 3. God always tells the truth. Have I got it?

Not quite. You claimed to be able to derive these three propositions strictly from the proposition "The Bible is the Word of God".

What a farce. I thought you were blowing wind. Thanks for confirming it once again Brian. After explaining repeatedly that the axiom of Scripture -- what Clark meant by "the bible is the Word of God" -- is not a single axiomatic proposition standing in Euclidean isolation, it is intended to stand for and include ALL the thousands of propositions and commands entailed in all 66 books of the bible, you still refuse to engage Clark's Scripturalism. Instead you continue to foolishly fight a straw man you've concocted in your own mind.

If you are now granting that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth, then my job is done.

I realize Anthony was hoping against hope we'd get past your misunderstanding, my hope is now that whatever illusions Anthony had concerning you are now dashed. It should be clear to all that your "misunderstanding" is as intentional as it is willful. You have made precisely zero effort in even trying to understand, much less correctly state, your opponents position even if only to shoot it down.

Consequently, your so-called "refutation" is exposed as the farce it is.

Pitiful.

 

[Civbert]

Brian,

I think you are using a different definition of "justified". Of course a prior forms and ideas are justified in the sense of cause and effect. But you have not justified them from being deduced from a priori propositions. And keeping that definition of justification in mind (deduction from the a priori), innate forms and ideas can not justify additional propositions without specific content. What ideas? Forms are empty so you need ideas. What are they?

Your still mixing temporal and logical priority. If something must be placed in time before another for man to know, such as God "existence" and man's innate forms, ideas, capacity for reason, etc, then you are speaking of temporal priority. However, your uses of "justification" is not the logical necessity sense, but cause and effect sense. You are saying that this must be true (in time) before man can "know". A causes B.

Now I'm using justified in relation to logical priority. Not A causes B, but that A implies B. B is necessarily true if A is true. This is dealing with the states of things. How they have meaning in relationship to other things. All A is B, Some A is B, No A is B, Some A is not B. These are relationships regrading predication and meaning. For me to justify B, I need to show B is implied by my Axiom.

Now it's clear that the Clarkian Axiom is the Bible. And when I say "Bible" I mean (and we accept what other people say they mean) the 66 books of the protestant Bible as defined by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and this logically implies every verse. And when I say the Bible is the Word of God, then this logically implies also that all the propositions of the Bible are true. Each and every proposition of the Bible is true.

And so with reason, we can say that anything clearly propounded in Scripture, or anything that can be deduced from Scripture, by good and necessary consequences is also true. So from this one Axiom, we can demonstrate a great deal of knowledge. Not the least of which is "Jesus is Messiah" and "all men are sinners" and "David was king of Israel". We can also demonstrate the laws of logic, that man has innate ideas and the capacity for abstract reasoning, and God is omniscient.

This is the logical justification (epistemic certitude) for knowledge. This has nothing to do with time. No one is denying the temporal priority of your premises for one to know as a process. But the the epistemic justification of the truth of a proposition has nothing to do with time. A true proposition is true for all times, places, and people. And we can only justify this truth by showing it is deducible from Scripture. Not deducible from the "word" Scripture, but from the propositional content of Scripture.

 

[Civbert]

Brian,

Deduce any A from a priori knowledge apart from Scripture.

No hypothetical syllogisms because that's just begging the question. I'm not asking you to justify "knowledge" in the abstract, but merely a single concrete proposition. Consider the laws of logic as given, and also your innate ability for abstract thought.

I can think of one famous example.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Board,

I provided a valid proof for apriori knowledge being justified apart from Scripture. The conclusion contradicts Sean’s and Anthony’s position. Consequently, they necessarily must think my proof is unsound. If my proof is unsound, then at least one of the steps in the proof is false. I asked them which one was false. They never answered this question.

Sean claimed to be able to deduce that God is omniscient, infallible and always truthful from the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God.” I granted to him that this proposition was true. He has yet to provide the deduction. Rather, he chooses to use charged rhetoric such as “farce,” “foolish” and “pitiful,” when he should be putting forth rational argumentation.

…the axiom of Scripture…is not a single axiomatic proposition standing in Euclidean isolation, it is intended to stand for and include ALL the thousands of propositions and commands entailed in all 66 books of the bible…

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.

If you are now granting that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth, then my job is done.

I do grant that the Scriptures teach that the God of the Bible is omniscient, infallible and always tells the truth. However, I do not grant that this can be derived from the axiom alone. You claimed you could do this. The fact that you have not yet provided a justified derivation speaks volumes.

Now I'm using justified in relation to logical priority. Not A causes B, but the A implies B…for me to justify B, I need to show B is implied by my Axiom.

Two things here: (1) To define logical justification as “B is logically justified by A if and only if A implies B” smacks of arbitrariness, and even then it fails to get you where you want to be. For example, you agreed that a priori knowledge is necessary to get knowledge from Scripture. One could say that if we have a priori knowledge, then we can derive knowledge from Scripture. This is logically represented as “If A, then B.” If we go with your definition of logical priority, then this a priori knowledge is logically prior to being able to know anything from Scripture. Consider the difficulty in your attempt at defining this concept called “logical justification.” I explained in another earlier post that A → B is not the logical representation for A being the necessary precondition for B. Rather, it is B → A. Although it is found in many logic texts, I realize you may not find this intuitively obvious; so, I will provide an illustration. The compound element called water requires hydrogen. If we have water, then we have hydrogen. Notice, the consequence of this implication (hydrogen) is the precondition for the antecedent (water). The point in all of this is that the idea of “logical justification” is vague at best, and you have not done an adequate job of making your so called distinction between it and temporal justification. Is temporal justification somehow not some type of logical justification? (2) Even if we were to grant this definition, you still fall into the situational case 2 that I described in my earlier post. I repeat the argument here: “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.” Also, if you cannot justify your derivation from Scripture, then you cannot justify the a priori. The idea being that any derivation from an unjustified foundation is itself unjustified. One reason why Clark went the route he did was to avoid this objection by positing an axiom. In the end, Clark failed to overcome this objection because the axiom is insufficient to accomplish what he wanted.

And when I say the Bible is the Word of God, then this logically implies also that all the propositions of the Bible are true... So from this one Axiom, we can demonstrate a great deal of knowledge.

Anthony, this has never been demonstrated by you. You say you can, but when asked to make this explicit you fail to deliver the goods. Again, please provide me with an explicit derivation that is justified knowledge that “Jesus is Messiah.” All I am asking you to do is to apply the very laws of logic espoused by Clark to this issue. If you cannot do so, then this should say something to you. Provide me with a formal proof, not informal rhetoric.

Deduce any A from a priori knowledge apart from Scripture. No hypothetical syllogisms because that's just begging the question. I'm not asking you to justify "knowledge" in the abstract, but merely a single concrete proposition. Consider the laws of logic as given, and also your innate ability for abstract thought.

I am happy to do this as you will see in a moment. But I want you to realize my critique is on your claim to be able to do X. It is not pertinent to this discussion whether or not I can do X. Now, let me do X.

If you remember earlier, I provided what I called my three axioms. You are granting to me axiom 3, and not allowing me axiom 2. However, I have axiom 1. I do not have to remind you of the nature of axioms, and as such axiom 1 can be used in my derivations independently from Scripture.

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.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Magma2]

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]

Hello Sean,

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…

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]

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]

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.

For what it's worth 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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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]

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]

(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.

(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.

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.

For what it's worth I'm happy to let anyone read the quotes I've provided and decide for themselves who is telling the truth.

(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.

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

All the best with Anthony.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

Hello Anthony,

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...

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?

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]

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

 

[JohnV]

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]

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]

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?

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:

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:

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".

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.

... 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.

[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]

... 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.

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]

Hello Anthony!

Do you still love me?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Again begging the question. This is not a given, it is what you are supposed to be proving...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…You have not proven ~(Case 1 or Case 2).

Anthony, you apparently do not understand the argument. Let me make it more explicit.

Anthony’s Position: For all ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified knowledge if and only if ‘x’ is derived from Scripture. (Note: The axiom itself is not included in this.)
Agreed Upon Proposition: All derivations from Scripture require a priori knowledge.
Key Question: Is this required a priori knowledge justified?
Key Issue: If it is not justified, then all derivations from Scripture are not justified because all derivations based upon unjustified premises are themselves unjustified.
Possible Cases Given Anthony’s Position: Case 1 – the a priori knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are unjustified leading to the conclusion that all derivations are unjustified because of the “Key Issue.” You reject this claim on the basis that you think derivations of Scripture are justified. This leaves you with case 2.

Case 2 - The a priori knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are justified. According to “Anthony’s Position” and the “Agreed Upon Proposition”, then this justified a priori knowledge requires justification. This justification must be a derivation from Scripture which itself requires a priori knowledge that is justified. This leads to a new key question: Is the requireda priori knowledge used to justify a priori knowledge itself justified? This situation leaves us two options: (1) continue this regression which leads to absurdity (an infinite regression) and leaves the question unanswered and therefore unjustified, or just arbitrarily stop and beg the question. Either option fails to justify the a priori knowledge used in the derivation.

This is my justification for my step 4 in my Reductio Ad Absurdum proof. I think it is well founded, and as such my proof is sound.

 

[Civbert]

Hello Anthony!

Do you still love me?

Of coarse I do.

.... 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. ...

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

But not really anything new. And the "a priori" idea of contraposition was a given. Of course you can use logic in your deductions, I couldn't ask you to deduce anything if you were not allowed to use logic. But the proposition you deduced was still not anything more that saying A implies not-not-A. And that was based on a different axiom. The thing is, you can deduce anything much more than that from your axioms. And your additional axioms can be justified by Scripture. This is why there is only one axiom required - Scripture.

Anthony, you apparently do not understand the argument. Let me make it more explicit.

Anthony’s Position: For all ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified knowledge if and only if ‘x’ is derived from Scripture. (Note: The axiom itself is not included in this.)
Agreed Upon Proposition: All derivations from Scripture require a priori knowledge.

This is were we disagree in part. When I speak of justifying a proposition, I mean deducing it from the an a priori truth (which is ultimately Scripture). But here you are talking about the process of "knowing" rather than answering the question if a proposition is justified of knowledge. We are talking about two different things. One is a temporal process, wherein one needs to be equipped with the ability of abstract thinking and from this a process of becoming aware of and believing a proposition. The second is justified knowledge because a proposition is in a logical state of being deducible from Scripture. When I speak of a proposition being justified, I need only show it is deducible from Scripture. That all. I'm not looking at the process of learning, reading, hearing, or the pre-existing laws of logic or the fact that I'm able to think abstractly. These are process issues having to do with action of "knowing". No of these things are denied by Scripturalism. But neither are these things in mind when one is trying to justify knowledge.

Key Question: Is this required a priori knowledge justified?

They are justified a posteriori - from Scripture.

Key Issue: If it is not justified, then all derivations from Scripture are not justified because all derivations based upon unjustified premises are themselves unjustified.

If true then all knowledge is unjustified since all knowledge is justified from axioms which can not be deduced from anything prior. And would effect all attempts at justifying knowledge - since all systems have their axioms which can not be justified from a priori true propositions.

Possible Cases Given Anthony’s Position: Case 1 – the a priori knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are unjustified leading to the conclusion that all derivations are unjustified because of the “Key Issue.” You reject this claim on the basis that you think derivations of Scripture are justified. This leaves you with case 2.

Case 2 - The a priori knowledge required for any and all derivations of Scripture are justified. According to “Anthony’s Position” and the “Agreed Upon Proposition”, then this justified a priori knowledge requires justification. This justification must be a derivation from Scripture which itself requires a priori knowledge that is justified. This leads to a new key question: Is the requireda priori knowledge used to justify a priori knowledge itself justified? This situation leaves us two options: (1) continue this regression which leads to absurdity (an infinite regression) and leaves the question unanswered and therefore unjustified, or just arbitrarily stop and beg the question. Either option fails to justify the a priori knowledge used in the derivation.

This is my justification for my step 4 in my Reductio Ad Absurdum proof. I think it is well founded, and as such my proof is sound.

Basically, you have just given the "justification" of the Axiom of Scripture. If it is necessary to assume a starting point for justifying (in the deductive logical sense) any proportions as knowledge, then assuming Scripture as the axiom is "justified" (in the warranted belief sense). Since the assumption of Scripture is all that is logically necessary for knowledge to be justified (in the strict logical sense), then no additional premises need to be assumed as axioms. Basically, your additional axioms are unnecessary for a strictly logical justification of any proposition as knowledge.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Anthony,

Great post! Thank you so much for interacting with my arguments directly. I will try and provide the same courtesy.

Of coarse I do.

Me too!

But not really anything new… But the proposition you deduced was still not anything more that saying A implies not-not-A.

First off, you cannot rightly object to my answer if I provided what you asked for. You asked me to “Deduce any A from a priori knowledge apart from Scripture.” I did this. If you wanted something different, then it was not my fault you weren’t specific enough.

Secondly, and this is a very minor point, I did not deduce ~~A from A. Rather, I deduced “All ~P is ~S” from “All S is P.” This could be thought of as deducing (~B-->~A) from (A-->B). Again, this is what you asked for.

Thirdly, it is a little vague to say that nothing new has been deduced. What do you mean by this? Are you saying that immediate logical inferences do not count as knowledge? This seems arbitrary, and I fail to see your point. I have my axiom 1, you are not allowing my axiom 2, but you do allow me the rules of logic. With these constraints I can only draw immediate inferences from axiom 1. These are legitimate deductions.

When I speak of justifying a proposition, I mean deducing it from the an a priori truth (which is ultimately Scripture). But here you are talking about the process of "knowing" rather than answering the question if a proposition is justified of knowledge. We are talking about two different things.

Two points: (1) You just defined “justifying a proposition” as a deduction from Scripture. This is the same as, “For all propositions ‘x’, ‘x’ is justified if and only if ‘x’ is deduced from Scripture.” I called this rule “Anthony’s Position.” It seems we are in agreement here. (2) You argue there is a difference between “the process of knowing” and the answer to the question of how a proposition is justified. I was under the impression you and I had already clarified this. When you ask the question “How do we know?” you are really asking the question “How can one justify knowing anything?” This can be further reduced to “How can one justify knowing proposition ‘p’?” So, I fail to see how we are talking about two different things.

One is a temporal process, wherein one needs to be equipped with the ability of abstract thinking and from this a process of becoming aware of and believing a proposition. The second is justified knowledge because a proposition is in a logical state of being deducible from Scripture.

Anthony, my argument is strictly a logical priority argument given your position. You say that for ‘x’ to be justified knowledge for person ‘A’, then logically prior to this there must be a deduction of ‘x’ from Scripture or ‘A’ cannot claim to know ‘x’. I am using the definition named “Anthony’s Position.” I think it is important that we remember that the context of this discussion is the subjective person. When you ask “How do you know” we are asking how individuals themselves can justify knowing any proposition. This is necessarily subjective. Only if they have the proper rational basis can they make this claim. So, if they do not know that ‘x’ is derived from Scripture, then they do not have justified knowledge of ‘x’ according to “Anthony’s Position.” This is supported by the next quote…

When I speak of a proposition being justified, I need only show it is deducible from Scripture. That all.

The implication here is that if you cannot show that proposition ‘x’ is deducible from Scripture, then you cannot claim to know ‘x’. Our agreed upon position is that we must use the laws of logic to deduce ‘y’ from Scripture. Let’s specify ‘x’ as the laws of logic. You must use ‘x’ to deduce ‘y’ from Scripture. This leads us to the “Key Question”. Is ‘x’ justified knowledge? If it is not justified, then ‘y’ is not justified by the “Key Issue.” According to you, ‘x’ can only be justified knowledge if it is deducible from Scripture. Since we must use ‘x’ to justify any ‘y’ from Scripture, when we instantiate ‘y’ as ‘x’ (the laws of logic) we are now saying that must use ‘x’ to deduce ‘x’ from Scripture. Is ‘x’ justified knowledge? This is the question we started with, and nothing has been justified yet.

If true then all knowledge is unjustified since all knowledge is justified from axioms which can not be deduced from anything prior. And would effect all attempts at justifying knowledge - since all systems have their axioms which can not be justified from a priori true propositions.

Clark proposes his Axiom as something to be considered. He thinks if we accept the axiom as true, then we can have justified knowledge. He never expects us to justify axioms. So, if one posits the laws of logic as axiomatic, then I can have justified knowledge. The problem with your position is that you are not willing to do this. Frankly, I do not see why you are not willing to do this.

If it is necessary to assume a starting point for justifying (in the deductive logical sense) any proportions as knowledge, then assuming Scripture as the axiom is "justified" (in the warranted belief sense).

I see you are still missing the point of my argument. My argument does show that there must a starting point for justifying any propositions as knowledge. However, it specifically argues that Clark’s axiom is not sufficient. It does this by showing how the laws of logic must be axioms as well given “Anthony’s Position” regarding justification. The absurdity reached in my proof is taking Clark’s axiom by itself. This proves that it cannot just be Clark’s axiom by itself. However, if you make the laws of logic an axiom, then you can deduce propositions from Clark's axiom, and according to “Anthony’s Position” this is justified knowledge. If you don’t do this, then you are left with an axiom from which no justified knowledge follows.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[larryjf]

However, a mere predication is insufficient to justify knowledge. I can say all cows are pink. Is this justified knowledge simply because I have predicated pink to cows? Does my innate ability to reason justify this as knowledge? What if I said all men are sinners. Is that knowledge simple by predication? How do I know this is true? Scripture. How do I know men are created with innate abilities to reason (a pre-condition for knowledge)? Scripture. Any pre-condition for knowledge, is not known unless it is revealed to me in Scripture. I can not deduce truth of the "preconditions" of knowledge from sensation, or by empty forms, or from evidence.

I am very new to the idea of Scripturalism, so please bear with my ignorance.

But if this is true then how can we justify the knowledge that 2+2=4??