tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3676973289251601957..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Scripturalist Were Offended By This Post, So I Removed Offensive ContentRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70672988637736193472016-04-14T21:18:20.046-04:002016-04-14T21:18:20.046-04:00I know I'm late, but have any of you gentlemen...I know I'm late, but have any of you gentlemen taken a look at this?<br /><br />http://scripturalism.com/10-reasons-to-reject-scripturalism-a-response-part-2-of-10-4-2/<br /><br />It's a response to Aquascum on Matthew 24:32. I find it interesting that they say that part of the problem is that when critics use Matthew 24:32, they are committing the fallacy of equivocation. So for example:<br /><br />P1 A feather is light.<br />P2 Light can't be darkness.<br />Conclusion A feather can't be darkness. <br /><br />And so when person S says "I know" to the claim that person S needs to get a haircut, we shouldn't think of the word "know" other than, say, " I agree." We don't want to equivocate. Likewise, Jesus is not speaking of "knowing in the same way the philosophers speak of it. The article explains it better. <br /><br />And this website has come out with responses to Aquascum's top 10 reasons to reject Scripturalism. Thought you'd all be interested in maybe responding or something. solideogloria09021995https://www.blogger.com/profile/11235435193435769051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34628248462855721022008-12-31T10:53:00.000-05:002008-12-31T10:53:00.000-05:00I do not believe case (3) follows from case (2) un...I do not believe case (3) follows from case (2) unless there was another premise that I missed. Also, your english translation is slightly missleading:<BR/>(x)(Tx + Fx)<BR/>For every proposition, x, it is the case that either x is of the truth or x is a falsehood.<BR/><BR/>The formula uses a inclusive OR (meaning both could be true to make the statement true) while your translation implies an exclusive OR (the statements is true iff one of them are true)<BR/><BR/>no comments about the article, just wanted to clarify a little.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Quote:<BR/>By de Morgans laws this is equivalent to:<BR/><BR/>~3x~(~Fx + ~Tx) ---(2)<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>That being the case (2) can be rewritten as:<BR/><BR/>~3x~(Tx + Fx) --(3)<BR/><BR/>Then by quantifier conversion this becomes:<BR/><BR/>(x)(Tx + Fx) <BR/><BR/>(where '(x)' means 'for all x')<BR/><BR/>Restating this in longhand it becomes:<BR/><BR/>For every proposition, x, it is the case that either x is of the truth or x is a falsehood.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14110576722236367088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20687650849459228952007-10-23T12:18:00.000-04:002007-10-23T12:18:00.000-04:00Wow. A pissing contest amongst Christians. And a...Wow. A pissing contest amongst Christians. And a poor one at that. Pretty pathetic...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38460318658622042672007-05-05T17:09:00.000-04:002007-05-05T17:09:00.000-04:00Q145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth co...Q145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?<BR/><BR/> A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors . . . giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth . . . calling evil good, and good evil . . . concealing the truth . . . speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering. . . vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others . . . raising false rumors,receiving and countenancing evil reports,and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion . . . scornful contempt . . . .<BR/><BR/> Q128: What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?<BR/><BR/> A128: The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them . . . contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons . . . in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking,and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68641544241024679412007-05-04T19:09:00.000-04:002007-05-04T19:09:00.000-04:00Carl,http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-y...Carl,<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-you-dont-know-can-hurt-you.htmlErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18564292098787923392007-05-04T16:19:00.000-04:002007-05-04T16:19:00.000-04:00Allow me to clarify further. One of the problems o...Allow me to clarify further. One of the problems of scripturalism you have identified is the idea that we cannot know if we are men. <BR/><BR/>It is assumed, then, that you do know you are a man and that it is absurd to hold to a position that seems to refute the idea. How is it then that you have this "true" information? What is a man? I imagine that it would take a complex set of propositions to actually define what a man is. And then you have to show how you "truly" know that you possess the qualities or quantities required to fit you into the defined group. <BR/><BR/>You see you are writing as if your epistemology has already assumed and dealt with these issues, and perhaps it has. I just do not see any of those things being discussed here, and I think that discussion might be more beneficial.<BR/><BR/>Grace and Peace,<BR/><BR/>CarlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49825255125710373572007-05-04T15:49:00.000-04:002007-05-04T15:49:00.000-04:00Paul, I see that your main objection seems to deal...Paul, I see that your main objection seems to deal with the scripturalists incapability to rationalize everything. Did it ever occur to you that Clark's intention was not to deduce everything from scripture, but to remove the human tendency to rely upon rational belief?<BR/><BR/>In other words, I see no arguments for positive knowledge in this post. Can you really say that induction is knowledge when it is based upon a formal fallacy? If Clark is wrong and the scripture is not the only irrefutable truth, then you must provide us with the method for escaping his criticisms of empiricism and induction. Why did Clark reject empiricism? Why did he (and Hume) reject induction and the scientific method and why were they wrong to? <BR/><BR/>You see, if your criticisms of Clark are correct, which I do not think that you have read much of him, then you leave us with an epistemology that is philosophically reducible to scepticism. That, of course, is unacceptable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3609011657705843002007-05-04T10:58:00.000-04:002007-05-04T10:58:00.000-04:00Rhett,Gerety already tried the whoe objections to ...Rhett,<BR/><BR/>Gerety already tried the whoe objections to sensory knowledge, evil demons, and a "maybe you're wrong about this or that" approach in this thread:<BR/><BR/>http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18800<BR/><BR/>You can read the entire thing if you'd like. All Gerety could do about my answers was to make fun of them and say I've "lost the war" and "thanks Plantinga!." Stuff like that. You know, unsubstantial stuff.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36511614509817438272007-05-04T10:52:00.000-04:002007-05-04T10:52:00.000-04:00Rhett,Van Tillianism, fortunately, didn't dig its ...Rhett,<BR/><BR/>Van Tillianism, fortunately, didn't dig its own grave like Scripturalism did. It's more of a meta-theory. Externalists and internalists can both hold to it. Fallibilists and infallibilists can too. <BR/><BR/>So, your description of Van Tillianism may be applicable to some, but not everyone.<BR/><BR/>Now, as far as I can tell, it seems that your questions assume an infallibilist constraint on knowledge. So, that's one way I'd deal with those objections.<BR/><BR/>There's rational and irrational doubts. Both are in the genus of doubt. That someone can raise an irrational doubt, a wild hair of a possibility, isn't problematic for me.<BR/><BR/>I actually addressed a scenario where God could be deceiving us here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/internal-inconsistencies-loftusism.html<BR/><BR/>I'm roughly Plantaginian in my epistemology, but not lock-step. Van Tillian in my meta-epistemology. I have disagreements with both, so it'll be hard to box me in.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17418769739169309382007-05-04T10:42:00.000-04:002007-05-04T10:42:00.000-04:00Oh, and notice that Sean Call Gordon Clark a "man....Oh, and notice that Sean Call Gordon Clark a "man." How does Sean 'know' that Clark was a man? Perhaps Clark was a woman? Can Sean deduce Clark's manhood from the Bible? And he talks about me disrespecting Clark! ;-)Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88969682353990647222007-05-04T10:39:00.000-04:002007-05-04T10:39:00.000-04:00Sean,You're living in a dream world.Scripturalists...Sean,<BR/><BR/>You're living in a dream world.<BR/><BR/>Scripturalists called down this rhetorical thunder.<BR/><BR/>This is the game you guys chose to play. Now you cry about it? Can't take your own medicine?<BR/><BR/>And, I think almost everyone would agree that you're taking the metaphore too far. But since you can't deal with the argument, pandering for the pity vote (you did say you work in politics, right?) is the only card you have.<BR/><BR/>The metaphor is apropos. The anology is apropos. An anlogy has *dissimilarities,* otherwise we'd have identity. I pointed out what those similarities are, show where I'm off. Or, is your "woe is me" apologetic all you have left?<BR/><BR/>You pleaded for people to critique the little "deduction" you kept posting, now you don't like that I did? Do poloticians believe the phrase: "be careful what you whish for, it may come true?"<BR/><BR/>Tell you what, why don't all the Clarkians apologize to the Van Tilians, Plantinganians, Helmians, et alians, ask our forgiveness for your years of mistreatment, apologize to Bavinck and the rest of the reformers you've called heretics, and buy our books for us for the next 10 years as restitution, and then we'll be even steven. If not, I'm appropriating the payment out of your hide this way. Either way, we're getting paid.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, didn't you liken all of us to "epistemological palagians?" So you can name call, and align us with hertetics, but we can't align you with Pablo Escobar? Sean wants his cake and to eat it too.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27667246015062552722007-05-04T09:48:00.000-04:002007-05-04T09:48:00.000-04:00Hi Paul,How accurate would you say the following r...Hi Paul,<BR/><BR/>How accurate would you say the following represents Van Til's epistemological construction:<BR/><BR/>"This process of learning works like this: First, the sinner exercising his sensory and rational faculties in reading the Bible (yet, without necessarily being able to provide any justification or rational grounds for those faculties). The Bible then provides the rational justification for those sensorial and rational faculties by showing that without the Christian God all knowledge would be impossible. Therefore, the Bible I read to discover those truths was indeed in my hands – and – I know it must be true because if I deny it I cannot know anything is true whatever."<BR/><BR/>If this is not accurate, how does the Van Tillian apologist deal with the objections against empirical knowledge; or handle the objection of Descartes’ Demon? Or, in other words, how does the Van Tillian apologist argue that there is a Bible in his hand and that he is not being deceived about it?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>RhettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29733223851821643002007-05-04T09:40:00.000-04:002007-05-04T09:40:00.000-04:00I have been working professionally in Conservative...I have been working professionally in Conservative politics for the last 16 years and we have a saying that you can’t kick every barking dog. However, here we have Gordon Clark, one of the most respected Reformed Christian elders and teachers in the last century, a man who has few peers throughout the entire history of the Christian faith, now being compared to a producer of methamphetamine. Then we have Dr. Robbins, a man I greatly respect and admire, a man who has done more for the cause of truth and freedom since the days of J. Gresham Machen, being compared to a drug pusher.<BR/><BR/>This is a new low even for you Paul. <BR/><BR/>I suppose all Christian men should be thankful that in your previous life you weren’t a pedophile rapist. Although I imagine that bit of information will be put to similar use in your next hate filled blog. <BR/><BR/>Sean GeretySean Geretyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01483041680109436046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16255822836431860422007-05-04T02:41:00.000-04:002007-05-04T02:41:00.000-04:00JamesAP, Sorry for any confusion. I was not imply...JamesAP,<BR/> <BR/>Sorry for any confusion. I was not implying that (*****) was a proposition, but that <I>the answer to (*****)</I> was. So:<BR/><BR/>Yes....<BR/><BR/>No....<BR/><BR/>Either yes or no....<BR/><BR/>Neither yes or no....<BR/><BR/>etc.<BR/><BR/>And so my point was that statements about future propositions being either true or false (as the only options) is not deducible from 1 John 2:21.<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90165743623802189852007-05-04T02:31:00.000-04:002007-05-04T02:31:00.000-04:00I only know a little bit of what Scripturalism tea...I only know a little bit of what Scripturalism teaches, but I thought Scripturalists think that only declarative statements are propositions. That sentences in the interrogative cannot be propositions. In which case, the example Paul made:<BR/><BR/>(*****) Will there be a sea battle tomorrow?<BR/><BR/><BR/>is not a proposition. In which case, Scripturalists might say that Paul is using a bad argument here. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Paul, thanks for another entertaining and devastating critique of Scripturalism. :o)<BR/><BR/>James (AnnoyedPinoy)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63306489124323053692007-05-04T01:00:00.000-04:002007-05-04T01:00:00.000-04:00John,Again, why should I argue with that based on ...John,<BR/><BR/>Again, why should I argue with that based on what I said in this post. Were you just talking just to talk? Do you think everyone wants to read what you say? You're not that important, John.<BR/><BR/>You say it was the basis for leaving the faith, and Howard Van Till's book The Fourth Day was the "catalyst" for leaving the faith, and your cheatin heart, coupled with you uncaring congregation was another reason for leaving the faith, yada yada yada. <BR/><BR/>John, if you want the honest truth, you inspire me to pray daily that God would allow me to stay in the faith. To persevere. If you and your muddled thoughts are what I have to look forward to if I apostatize, no thanks! <BR/><BR/>So, God uses you as a "basis" for me not rejecting Christianity for any intellectual reasons. See John, God's still using you and your "ministry."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29785012931357469892007-05-03T23:11:00.000-04:002007-05-03T23:11:00.000-04:00Or, are you just jumping at the bit again in tryin...<I>Or, are you just jumping at the bit again in trying to show us how much you don't know about stuff?</I><BR/><BR/>Yep, Paul, it's all about who has the most knowledge, isn't it? The one with the most knowledge goes to heaven, while the one who doesn't, doesn't. You know all. You see all. You are the man.<BR/><BR/>But have you read Arthur F. Holmes' book?<BR/><BR/>I have. It was the basis for me leaving the Christian faith. You won't want to bother yourself with anything like that, since it did that with me. It must be wrong, correct? It just must be wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69142349505332836802007-05-03T22:47:00.000-04:002007-05-03T22:47:00.000-04:00a) I'm not a fan of the whole rationalistic "axiom...a) I'm not a fan of the whole rationalistic "axiomatic" system.<BR/><BR/>b) I used Clark against the Clarkian. <BR/><BR/>c) I used to deny God. So, in a sense one could say that I have "questioned" that axiom.<BR/><BR/>d) My system would be different, and so my answer would be different.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-482475215492322092007-05-03T22:27:00.000-04:002007-05-03T22:27:00.000-04:00Have you questioned your basic axiom?Have you questioned your basic axiom?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91892986305371073752007-05-03T21:58:00.000-04:002007-05-03T21:58:00.000-04:00Joel,Well, Steve has cited Clark's own books, and ...Joel,<BR/><BR/>Well, Steve has cited Clark's own books, and so without further elucidation, I can't really comment on your friends comments.<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, all contemporary Clarkians that I know of agree that knowledge is Scripture, or propositions deducible from Scripture via necessary inference. So, in actuallity, <I>no one</I> (on this schema) "know" what Clark meant, not even Clark! So, all we have is one man's opinion verses another's. Thus the critique is that Steve doesn't agree with your friends <I>opinionated interpreation</I> of Clark.<BR/><BR/>Now, if your friend doesn't hold to this interpretation of Clark, that's good for him. but, he would get reamed by Robbins et al for his heresy. And so you have Robbins, who supposedly knows what Clark meant, disagreeing with your friend who has "read a lot of Clark." Who wins?<BR/><BR/>So, if your friend is a 'orthodox' Clarkian then his response to Steve post isn't cause to worry since (a) he doesn't 'know' what Steve meant and he (b) doesn't 'know' what Clark meant.<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90876602426397079362007-05-03T21:04:00.000-04:002007-05-03T21:04:00.000-04:00Thanks, Paul.I've read several of Clark's smaller ...Thanks, Paul.<BR/><BR/>I've read several of Clark's smaller books (on the Trinity, philosophy of science, saving faith, etc.) and I find him to be an exceptional thinker.<BR/><BR/>The reason I asked if you had read Clark is because a well-read Clarkian that I know has said of Steve's critiques of Scripturalism in the past that he isn't critiquing Clark's position.<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>JoelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51886214513411891312007-05-03T19:54:00.000-04:002007-05-03T19:54:00.000-04:00Thanks Paul from helping me withdraw from Scriptur...Thanks Paul from helping me withdraw from Scripturalism. I do agree it is dangerous since it lead me to twist Scripture as well. They want to make it fit into their Rationalism. In addition, the view presented makes intellectual life unlivable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52825641769770750492007-05-03T19:51:00.000-04:002007-05-03T19:51:00.000-04:00John,Despite the ambiguity of that phrase, why sho...John,<BR/><BR/>Despite the ambiguity of that phrase, why should I do that based on what I say against the Scripturalists? Or, are you just jumping at the bit again in trying to show us how much you don't know about stuff?<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74922887075999797592007-05-03T19:49:00.000-04:002007-05-03T19:49:00.000-04:00Poor Anonymous, couldn't see his way through anoth...Poor Anonymous, couldn't see his way through another one of our posts here without breaking his cognitive faculties on our posts.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18109209622908553062007-05-03T19:48:00.000-04:002007-05-03T19:48:00.000-04:00Joel,I've actually read a few. But, this post was...Joel,<BR/><BR/>I've actually read a few. But, this post was directed more towards contemporary followers of Clark. It's debatable whether he actually held to what they pin on him. So, even if I hadn't read any Clark, that wouldn't matter much for this post.<BR/><BR/>~PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.com