Saturday, 25 April 2009
-
Biblical syllogism by Gordon Clark.
Pictures by Monty L. Collier
Is man's truth merely analogical/equivocal to God's truth? Or is all truth, God's truth? Is man's truth, while quantitatively lesser than God's knowledge, univocal qualitatively? Is 2+2=4 true for God as it is for man? These syllogisms demonstrate the coherent theory of truth and language. They refute the theology of Cornelius Van Til as well as Karl Barth's Neo-orthodoxy.
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to PhilosophyOfJoel's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in PhilosophyOfJoel's local time zone: GMT +10:00 (Guam Standard)
Comments (5)
I have a couple of rhetorical issues with this syllogism.
Syllogism A is okay.
The conclusion of syllogism B may be a non-sequitor based on precise definitions of "true" and "truth". (4) seems to be particular. (6) seems to be general. This begs the question that the "word of God" (which typically means either the Bible in particular, Jesus Christ in particular or theological truth in general) contains all truth or things that are true in particular.
Human language can only be particular where all truth is a general concept. (5) and (7) and (8) in syllogism C sufficiently muddle this concept. This begs the question: in what manner does God teach us his "word"? If we say that he gives us the word and merely stands back and lets us apprehend it for ourselves, then it is true that language alone is adequate. Otherwise (7) is suspect where "word" equates to "language". However, we can observe that there are many who read and do not understand.
At least one concept of communication is missing here as well and that is that there is no communication without understanding. Information can be transmitted, but unless it is recieved as intended according to a common frame of reference, there is no communication. Understanding only comes from the Holy Spirit. Language alone is inadequate and the syllogism seems to miss that God as teacher is a necessary factor that is erroneously removed in the conditional statement (7). Therefore, (7) should probably read "If God teaches man His word and if God's word is true then God's teaching of His word to man is sufficient to communicate truth" - specific definitions notwithstanding. To whit: if we define "God's word" specifically as the orthodox Christian canon, then we can equate it with language. If we clear up the connotative discrepancy in syllogism 2, then we understand that "God" plus "Language" (with all that language requires for communication) is sufficient to communicate particular truth. This doesn't discount that God is certainly capable to convey all truth to whom he chooses by whatever means he deems fit, but that's outside the scope of the syllogism.
Jim,
I do not see the problem with the word true or truth. If you like, you can rewrite 4) as "The Word of God is the Truth"
6) is a logical conclusion from 4) and 5).
Premise 1: The word of God is the truth (4)
Premise 2: God is the one who teaches man His Word. (5)
-----------------------------------
Therefore, God is the one that teaches man the Truth.
Well, if the word of God is not true, as covered in Clark's other writings, you cannot know anything at all, for you will not have any epistemological basis for knowing anything. (See his writings in his book, "Logic" and "God's hammer") but if we cannot know anything at all, you cannot even begin to refute this syllogism.
The person that objects by saying that "Human language can only be particular where all truth is a general concept" expects his statement of be particular. It is self defeating.
In what manner does God teaches us His word? Perhaps you did not see that the entire basis is based on scripture (see the scripture verses). It is therefore self-consistent and coherent. All axioms must be circular or it would not be an axiom, for it would be based on a prior axiom. Being circular does not prove anything, but it does not falsify it either. What Clarkian Scripturalism demonstrates is that the whole system is 1) biblical and coherent and 2) that all other worldviews are not biblical nor coherent. As Clark has demonstrated in his other writings, to deny that the God speaks the truth through his word is self-defeating for it leads to complete agnostism, which is also self defeating.
On point 7. You say that "we can observe that there are many who read and do not understand". Certainly that is true. But the statement is not denying that there are man who do not understand. It just says that "if God teaches man His word, and if God's word is true, then language is adequare to communicate truth." You have not refuted this.
You wrote, "At least one concept of communication is
missing here as well and that is that there is no communication without
understanding. Information can be transmitted, but unless it is
recieved as intended according to a common frame of reference, there is
no communication. Understanding only comes from the Holy Spirit.
Language alone is inadequate and the syllogism seems to miss that God
as teacher is a necessary factor that is erroneously removed in the
conditional statement (7). "
Precisely! Since God teaches us the truth, then there must be a common understanding between man and God. And this has already been affirmed by point 1): Man's knowledge is identical to some of God's knowledge. (This is the root of the problem in Barthian Neo-orthodoxy and van Tillian Apologetics - they deny point (3)
If man's knowledge is identifcal to some of God's knowledge (3)and this knowledge is taught to man by God (6) then God is the one who teaches man truth. If God's Word is the truth(9), God teaches man through his words (8). having established 7), 8) and 9), the conclusion 10) must follow.
language is adequate to communicate truth.
The person denying that language is adequate to communicate truth (e.g. Karl Barth) expects:
1) His language to convey truth
2) That any one communicating an idea of truth different from his using language to be wrong
3) Expects that he can communicate truth.
4) Expects that he can even understand these statements.
5) Expect that he can understand the truth of what he wrote when he edits his book.
Hey Joel,
I recently had a debate with someone at church about Biblical Evangelism, and in response to me asking "Is your objection based on Scripture or Experience?"
Their reply: "I believe Experience is useful for substantiating the Scripture."
I then went on to explain Scripturalism's superiority over Empiricism using to the best of my knowledge Clark's exposition of John 1, and that experience alone is too inadequate when explaining spiritual things as you cannot derive a consistent norm without presupposing a higher principle to evaluate it. (Specifically, a salvation testimony from both relational vs confrontatinal witnessing; if you don't presuppose biblical soteriology and count both testimonies as being equally valid, you can't say one is more normative than the other unless you adopt a standard by which you will evaluate.)
When I brought up this point, their argument essentially turned ad hominim.
Just wondering if you've had similar experiences of using a presuppositional approach to refute false theology among Christians.
@Prayer_Warrior83 -
I find it pretty common when dealing with Atheists - Ad Hominim arguments. With Christians, I usually just end there with them saying that they disagree without putting forth any argument to counter it. They can't.