Rom 1:18–2:15 – Scripture & Logic

Romans 1:18–20, 2:1,14-15

1 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without [a rational argument].

2 Therefore you are without [a rational argument], O man, every one of you who passes judgment. For in that which you pass judgment on someone else, you condemn yourself, for you who are passing judgment are doing the same things.

14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, although they* do not have the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts one after another accusing or even defending them.[1]

 

There are a few ultimate questions being taught here in fast succession. Many pages could be spent on these, but I will keep them to summaries.  Paul deals with metaphysics, logic, innate knowledge, anthropology, occasionalism, ethics and accountability.  However, the end goal is to show why man does not have an excuse for rejecting and turning away from God. Man has no a rational argument to present.

We are accountable simply because we are not free relative to God who is a sovereignty over us; nothing else is needed. Yet, as a sovereign over us God defines how he will hold us accountable, and one of them is by the knowledge we have.[2] Therefore, Paul focuses on innate knowledge. Broadly, Paul is talking about knowledge, logic, language, ethics; or that is, Paul is showing that all things that are needed for intelligibility must be presupposed by Christian revelation. Yet, if the Christian revelation is presupposed and since it says all others are false, then one cannot rationally deny the Scripture.[3]

The necessary consequence is that such a person is then “without excuse.” In fact, the term “without excuse” is translated as a necessary consequence, rather than the direct meaning itself. That is, the direct meaning of this term in Romans 1:20 (which is a derivative of ‘apodeixis’ ) is about “not being able to give a rational defense.” The word is where we get our English for “apologetics.” It is a negative particle of “apologeomai,” which means to give a positive rational answer or argument.  The negative is not being able to give a rational answer. Strong’s Greek says, “379 ἀναπολόγητος [anapologetos…] …. 1 without defense or excuse. 2 that which cannot be defended, inexcusable.”  If you are before a judge and cannot rationally defend your actions, then what is the result? And thus, the necessary inference, or indirect meaning is that they are “without excuse” before God.

Acts 17:28 ,” in [God] we live and move and exist.” This is said as a categorical all proposition. For those who has studied logic, know the importance of this. It is not said that some of (a) is (b); rather, it is said as an, all (a) is (b). Both in the immediate context and through systematic theology, the bible teaches this all encompassing aspect of God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty is philosophy verbiage is, metaphysics or ontology. From the beginning of Genesis, we are taught there is no dual metaphysics to God on the ultimate level. Only God made the heavens and earth. There was not another metaphysics separate from God creating the worlds.[4]

Paul’s statement it is not that some of my existence moves in God and another part of my existence moves in another ontology that is not God. We do not merely exist in God, but we live and move in God. Thus, our entire metaphysics and ontology is contained—like a Euler circle diagram—within God’s direct and absolute metaphysics. All (a) circle is in the category of the (b) circle. Our topic is knowledge; yet, our knowledge is part of our existence, our life and our movement. As an application of what we just went over, our knowledge exists and moves in God’s direct sovereign control. [ a = our knowledge existence, b = our existence, c = God’s sovereignty].  And so, all (a) circle is in the (b) circle, and all the (b) circle is in the (c) circle.   If God creates all things, then it is a logical application to say God directly creates all knowledge in our minds. If God controls all reality, then it is an application to say God directly controls all knowledge in our minds.

Specific instances of Scripture also give witness to this. In our passage Romans 2 says God puts innate knowledge in us, separate from any empiricism, observations and affirming the consequent. When God gave dreams to Joseph, it did not involve any of the senses(no sight, hearing, touch or smell).  Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 4:6[5] that as absolutely and directly God made light to exist out of nothing (physical matter being created where there was no physical matter), God has created the knowledge of Jesus in our minds.  Vincent likes to say something similar to “on the occasion of, but separate from the observation,” God directly puts knowledge in us. When I read the Bible or a book, on the occasion of reading, knowledge I already process is stimulated, or God on the occasion of but separate from sensation directly writes new knowledge into my mind.

“As for occasionalism, I use the expression “on the occasion” to describe epistemological and metaphysical relations …

The intellectual content of my worldview, or the Word of God, resides in Christ the divine Logos, and according to God’s ordinary providence, it is directly communicated to my mind on the occasion of the visual sensations that occur when I read the Bible, but apart from the visual sensations themselves. The sensations provide the occasion for God to act on my mind, but in themselves they do not communicate any information. This is a form of occasionalism. It is not entirely novel, but overlaps with Augustine’s theory of illumination, Malebranche’s “vision in God,” and various forms of the “logos doctrine.” Nevertheless, mine is not identical with theirs. It is more biblical in that it is consciously placed on an exegetical foundation, and it avoids the unbiblical assumptions in other versions of occasionalism. Moreover, I consistently apply it to every aspect of reality. But in fact, it is nothing other than the necessary implication of the biblical doctrine of God’s providence over every detail of his creation.[6]

 

This is important, because one of Paul’s arguments is that the non-Christian cannot rationally deny God’s knowledge. Thus, to demonstrate this Paul teaches the knowledge we have is directly from God and understood by all. If God’s knowledge is certainly in them and known by the non-Christian, then they cannot rationally escape. Or reversely, if they could rationally escape, then it would mean they could produce a sound argument demonstrating they do not have God’s knowledge. Paul shows this is impossible.

Empiricism

Empiricism—that knowledge is produced by the senses—as a starting point for knowledge is both a contradiction to scripture and to itself.

As for a contradiction to Scripture consider how Vincent Cheung has shown from passages of Scripture such as 2 kings 3:16, Matthew 14:25-27, and John 12:28-29[7] that the senses are unreliable and only by divine revelation do we know if any given instance of sensation was interpreted correctly. “When they arose early in the morning, the sun shone on the waters, and Moab saw the waters from the opposite side as red as blood, (2 Kings 3:16).”

We know that they saw water that looked like blood because this is what the infallible testimony of Scripture says. Thus the passage points out that the senses are unreliable, and shows that we depend on divine inspiration to tell us about particular instances of sensations.[8]

To say that the senses are unreliable does not mean that they are always false. It only means that sensation provides no basis to determine whether a particular instance of sensation is correct, as in whether a person in fact sees what he thinks he sees. Therefore, although the senses are unreliable, the sightings of the resurrected Christ can be true. The problem is not that we never see what we think we see, but how to tell whether we see what we think we see in any given instance. The biblical testimony is that in those instances where the witnesses thought that they saw the resurrected Christ, they were correct – they indeed saw the resurrected Christ.[9]

To illustrate the importance of merely showing a few places where empiricism was faulty is to consider it regarding the Scripture. What if it could be shown that a statement of Scripture was incorrect? What if King David was King of the Philistines rather than the Jews? The problem is not that a particular statement is now automatically false, but that there is no way to justify if this particular statement is true. It would reduce the Scripture to agnosticism and skepticism, but this denies the law of contradiction. Therefore, Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 1 that by human starting points, or that is by starting with human wisdom (i.e. human starting points of empiricism and observations, affirming the consequent) that man did not know God. And so, empiricism in order to be true, would have to be false at the same time.

As to contradicting itself, the attacks of David Hume to his own empiricism to this day have never been answered. They never will be because the standard itself, is the aspect that is irrational. How does one show in formal validity sensation to a proposition in the mind? I ask anyone to show me how a sensation deduces into a proposition in the mind? Even if one wishes to say there is no incorporeal mind, then the same argument must be shown going from sensation to information in the physical brain. No one can do this. It cannot be done in formal validity.

When I say it cannot be done in formal validity, I mean that empiricism cannot produce true statements to begin with for a syllogism.[10] Thus, any syllogism would be unsound. Secondly, even if we allow that empiricism gives descriptive statements, it would still lead to 4 terms fallacies and categorical errors in the conclusion. A description of reality from my senses, from what I see, is not the thing itself, but a copy. Thus, to conclude anything about reality would commit the informal fallacy of a categorical error. It would be like saying, “Because dogs are math, all humans are stones.” Yet, this is the same level of stupidity if one would affirm that what they see is what reality is. It destroys categories. In a syllogism it would come out as a 4-term fallacy, or equivocation.  This mount Everest pile of bull-crap fallacies, is the legacy of empiricism.

The most rudimentary issue with a categorical error is that it is a violation of the Law of Logic: Contradiction, Identity and Excluded Middle. But since these laws of logic are about ontology and metaphysics and not just thought, then to deny them is self-refuting.  So and, to take a category and simply state it as new different category, is to break all the laws of logic, which again deals with metaphysics, and so, when this is done we know a mistake in thinking was made, because it is not compatible with reality.  God who can create out of nothing breaks no laws of logic, yet maybe this how stupid man as become, that they think they are the Invisible, Immortal, all Powerful and only Wise God.

Now though these are called laws of thought, and in fact, we cannot think except in accordance with them, yet they are really statements which we cannot but hold true about things. We cannot think contradictory propositions, because we see that a thing cannot have at once and not have the same character; and the so-called necessity of thought is really the apprehension of a necessity in the being of things. This we may see if we ask what would follow, were it a necessity of thought only; for then, while e.g. I could not think at once that this page is and is not white, the page itself might at once be white and not be white. But to admit this is to admit that I can think the page to have and not have the same character, in the very act of saying that I cannot think it; and this is self-contradictory. The Law of Contradiction then is metaphysical or Ontological.

So also, is the Law of Identity. It is because what is must be determinately what it is, that I must so think. That is why we find a difficulty in admitting the reality of absolute change, change when nothing remains the same; for then we cannot say what it is which changes.

The Law of Excluded Middle is so far different as a disjunctive proposition expresses doubt, and doubt belongs to the mind, not to things. But to deny that this page need either be or not be white is to deny that it need be anything definite; determinateness involves the mutual exclusiveness of determinate characters, which is the ground of negation; and that is a statement about things. In other words, unless the primary Laws of Thought were Laws of Things, our thought would be doomed by its very nature to misapprehend the nature of things.

[H.W.B. Joseph. 1906. An introduction to LOGIC. Pg.13 -emphasis added by author
–And so, if we misapprehend the nature of things, then this would lead to skepticism. But Skepticism denies the law of contradiction. In order to be true, it would have to be false.]

Time would fail me to mention how at every point of ultimate questions, empiricism creates supernaturally large categorical fallacies. Sensation to knowledge is a categorical error. This so-called knowledge would be copy and so, it is a categorical error to go from this epistemology to metaphysics. But this so-called metaphysics would at best be descriptions of transit, past particulars. Thus this metaphysics produced by observation and empiricism would have no universal categories of metaphysics. If asserted so would it would again commit a categorical error on top of the others.  To go from this so-called metaphysics to anthropology (which is a subsidiary category) would again commit a categorical error, for it would assert something about man as a universal. Yet to go from this failed anthropology to value and ethics would commit another categorical error on top of the others: to assert what we ought to do is about the future; it would be a universal dogmatic; it is not observed from descriptions; is not a transit moment or a particular.

In addition, observation is the fallacy of induction.  Lastly, science systematically upholds the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Thus, all science is logically false. When doing experimentation, one is not able to know more than their experiment. This would make the number of possible things that could effect it to be infinity. It would have a 1 over infinity chance to be correct on any statement of reality.

The scientist may be missing an entire category of variables. For example, what if the scientist has no concept of temperature? He cannot then possibly measure and control it in an experiment. Yet it might be a decisive factor. If he does not know about it, he cannot even say that he does not know about it. Neither can he say that he knows this category of variables does not exist. There is an infinite number of possible categories of variables that he is missing. Therefore, a scientist can never say that he has accounted for all relevant variables, and he can never claim to have “constructed properly” any experiment.

The scientist simply does not know — he assumes without argument, without evidence, and without proof. He can do what he wishes, but if he claims that this whole thing is rational, then he is just arbitrarily calling it so. In fact, from even a simple analysis of science, there is no way that a scientist can claim to have any rational contact with reality at all…

To appeal to the effect of science (medicine, microwave, etc.), is only an appeal to the fallacy of affirming the consequent again. Affirming the consequent is just another way of saying an appeal to the result or effect. The assumption is that if you seem to be getting the result that you want or predict, then there must be some truth behind the assumption that yields this result. Again, that is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not indicate causation. But my contention is that science cannot even detect or establish correlation.[11]

Issues like universal categories, logic, math, time, space, ethics and the invisible mind, might show the stupidity of empiricism more clearly.

Or, more to the point, how could any motion connect two other motions that no longer exist? When the second motion occurs, the first thought of Columbus is gone. In its absence how can the second be compared with it and pronounced similar? If only we could remember it! But memory, the making present of the past, is impossible on a physical theory. The first motion as a physical event in time and space is completely and irretrievably gone. It may as a cause initiate a second motion, but it itself no longer exists; and to say that a non‑existent motion is similar to an existing motion is hardly more intelligible than to say they are the same. It is a peculiarity of mind and not of body that the past can be made present. Accordingly, if one may think the same thought twice, truth must be mental or spiritual. Not only does it defy time; it defies space as well, for if communication is to be possible, the identical truth must be in two minds at once. If, in opposition, anyone wishes to deny that an immaterial idea can exist in two minds at once, his denial must be conceived to exist in his own mind only; and since it has not registered in any other mind, it does not occur to us to refute it.[12]

Now, for another point. If knowledge is to be based on experience, there is one type of knowledge which as Christians we should be particularly interested in that cannot be so arrived at. And that is normative statements. Statements of ethics particularly, but also of mathematics and logic and so on. No norms, no normative statements can be developed from any experience whatever. The concept of “ought” cannot be deduced from the verb “is.” [13]

“Naturally a great many people, steeped in nineteenth-century scientific traditions, react violently to the idea that science is all false. Did we not make the atom bomb, they say? Does not vaccination prevent smallpox? Cannot we predict the position of Jupiter and an eclipse of the Sun? Verified prediction makes it forever ridiculous to attack science. This reaction is, of course, understandable, however irrational it may be. The argument has not “attacked” science at all; it has insisted that science is extremely useful – though by its own requirements it must be false. The aim nowhere has been to attack science; the aim is to show what science is.

How science can be useful though false is illustrated in a delightful textbook on inductive logic. Milk fever, the illustration goes, until late in the nineteenth-century, was a disease frequently fatal to cows. A veterinarian proposed the theory that it was caused by bacteria in the cow’s udder. The cure, therefore, was to disinfect the cow, which the veterinarian proceeded to do by injecting Lugol solution into each teat. The mortality under this treatment fell from a previous ninety percent to thirty. Does not this successful treatment prove that the bacteria were killed and that Lugol cured the disease? Unfortunately, another veterinarian was caught without the Lugol solution one day, and he injected plain boiled water. The cow recovered. Had water killed the bacteria? What is worse, it was found later that air could be pumped into the cows’ udders with equally beneficial results. The original science was wrong, but it cured the cows nonetheless.[14]

This is important because human first principles of knowledge are out of the question. Thus, man cannot presuppose a human starting point for knowledge; rather, they must presuppose divine revelation for their axiom.

Thus, when Romans 1:20 says God has made his knowledge clear to the human mind through creation, it is not speaking of empiricism or observation as a starting point for knowledge. Scripture already rejects empiricism in other places. But the context of Romans 2:15 dissolves all issues, for we are told God has directly put innate knowledge in all the minds of mankind. Some might wish to say, if only the stars and creation could speak of God, then more would believe. If this was based on our observation, then even if stars would speak it would still be irrational to conclude such testimonies about God as true. God has does much better than this. He has put His knowledge into man. Man’s very structure of thinking is from God and it’s content. Thus, man surely knows God.  And the stars, speak in the best possible way. They cause the knowledge of God already in man to resurface, so that they continually must deal with God’s testimony pounding in their own souls. God’s knowledge is inescapable. The only way to escape this would be for a man escape his mind itself, but to do this would be to escape all thinking; it would be to stop existing. But since God holds us into existence, and has revealed all men will be judge, then no man can escape his mind or God.

This knowledge is specifically said to include Christian ethics, which is God’s commands. However, since ethics are a conclusion of all the other ultimate questions, it means innate knowledge is substantial. Innate knowledge must contain knowledge of metaphysics, ontology, universal categories, logic, anthropology, and theology to be intelligible to the mind. The verse speaks of God’s laws (plural), and so for example, the of laws of logic and math are included in this innate knowledge.  This means that more than just knowledge (i.e. “content)[15], but the structure of thinking and necessary prerequisites needed for intelligence is included in innate knowledge.

Thus, when a person sees creation it stimulates this innate knowledge of God to the surface of their thoughts. This is when their conscience convicts them. This is when wicked men attempt to suppress it by whatever means they might conceive of.  Innate knowledge, due to man’s sinful and corrupted nature, is not enough to save them; however, it is enough to deny any rational excuse. The Scripture provides a public knowledge for an invincible public argument.

Peter says we are able to give a rational argument for our Christian philosophy. Also, Paul here says something specific. He does not merely say the non-Christian cannot give a rational argument for their worldview; rather, he says they cannot rationally suppress/deny that they are using God’s knowledge. Vincent Cheung has picked up on this well and has taught me on this topic, giving the example of the law of contradiction. This is like saying, you cannot deny the law of contradiction, without using it. It is like saying, “I deny my existence.” I cannot do this without using my existence. Thus, even if I speak this nonsense, I prove it rather than denying it, because I use it. This is what Paul is saying here. In light having God’s knowledge, they cannot rational deny it, without using it. But if they use it, then they prove it.

“The mind of man is not born a tabula rasa – it does not begin as a blank slate that is without any a priori information. Instead, every person is born with an innate knowledge and awareness of God. The prerequisites for language acquisition, rational thought, and theological contemplation are inherent in the mind of man. Therefore, no one can think or speak without assuming and using biblical premises that provide the precondition of intelligibility, so that even objections against Christianity must first presuppose the Christian worldview to be meaningful. But once we presuppose the Christian worldview, the force and substance of all objections vanish.

No one can make sense of even false religions like Buddhism and Islam without first adopting the biblical presuppositions that allow logic, language, and ethics to be meaningful. It is necessary to presuppose Christianity, but since Christianity rules out other religions from the start, once we presuppose it, other worldviews cannot also be true. Without presupposing Christian premises, we cannot arrive at any truth or any knowledge, but then we cannot know that we can know nothing, and it cannot be true that nothing is true. Thus Christianity is a necessary precondition of intelligibility and knowledge; the whole Bible is true by necessity. This is the basis for our position that every conceivable proposition is evidence for the existence of God and for the Christian worldview.”[16]

Even if man uses irrational arguments and pleasures to down out God’s knowledge, it is only in part. Their logical arguments, even if irrational, cannot stop using the law of contradiction, identity and excluded middle, or they would stop thinking all together. This foundation of logic makes such things as math work. Thus, if the try to suppress God’s knowledge with made up religions, and sciences, they are presupposing God’s logic put into their minds (which is the motion of thinking) to deny God. But the Scripture which they presuppose, says all others are false. This is the same if one avoids ultimate questions by drowning their life with entertainments and pleasures. If they decide to avoid and forget life by saying “I will do x, and y and forget about my crappy life and not think to hard about it,” they can only say this by using the foundations for intelligence, (such as logic). They cannot, as Vincent says, end denying the law of contradiction, for it not only falsifies their own view, but the little bit of intelligibility used to say such things presupposes God’s knowledge, which says all others are wrong.  Their act of suppression proves God’s knowledge in them. God’s knowledge is unavoidable. God’s knowledge is in their minds, and it is even the structure of their mind itself.

 

Arguments

The argument is really a chain argument; however, Paul seems to break it up in parts.

 

B.1. If creation is perceived, then God is made clear.
B.2. Creation is perceived.
B.3. Thus, God is made clear.

A.1.  If God makes Himself clear, then God is evident
A.2. God does make Himself clear.
A.3.  Thus, God is evident.

 

However, context shows us that the way God makes Himself clear is due to God putting His knowledge in the mind of man, including things needed for intelligence, such as logic. The full chain argument would thus be this:

C.1. If laws on your mind, then creation stimulates mind to remember.
C.2. If creation causes mind to remember, then God’s knowledge is clearly known.
C.3. If God’s knowledge is clearly known, then God is evident to them.
C.4. If God is evident, then no rational excuse for denying God.
C.5. Thus, all minds with God’s laws are those with no rational excuse for denying God.

 

Additional

First

Illustration:

(P) If I use the law of contradiction (LoC) to deny it, (Q) then I prove it.
(P) I used the LoC to deny it.
(Q) Thus, I proved the LoC.

Romans 1:20-2:15

(P) If use God’s knowledge to suppress it, (Q) then proves God’s knowledge.
(P) Used God’s knowledge to suppress it.
(Q) Proves God’s knowledge.

 

Second

Vincent has been helpful in pointing out the logical importance for seeing how the Bible has built into it–for apologetics—the law of excluded middle. It is indirectly implied here in relation to innate knowledge, but directly in other places of Scripture that God’s Revelations says only it is true and all others are false. Innate knowledge contains knowledge that only this Christian God is the true God, with all His power, His creation and His authority to command. For public argumentation the Scripture makes this explicit in many places. In an argument this creates an invulnerable use of the law of excluded middle. That is, when presupposing God’s revelation there is no third option to escape to.

If Christianity (the Bible) is true, and this same Christianity declares that all non-Christian claims are false, then all non-Christian claims are false by logical necessity.

Now, to eliminate all non-Christian claims and worldviews by logical necessity would demand that your positive demonstration be correct by logical necessity. Supposing that we have such an apologetic, the situation would be thus:

Christianity is true by logical necessity.
2. Christianity excludes all non-Christian views.
3. Therefore, all non-Christian views are false by logical necessity.[17]

If P and Q, then R.

This Antecedent has a conjunction and so this technically a Natural Deduction argument. However, since we know a truth table, which establishes the rules for Natural Deduction will always show a Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens will always be valid no matter how many conjunctions are in it, we will just treat it as a normal M.P.

 

Third.

From the beginning for chapter 2.

N.1. If do the same you condemn in others, then no rational argument.
N.2. Do the same as you condemn in others.
N.3. No rational argument. [18]

 

This will be a chain modus ponens. If P, then Q; if Q, then R. P, thus R.

M.1. (P) If Gentiles have God law, (Q) then under God’s law.
M.2. (Q) If under God law, (R) then judged by it.
M.3.  Thus Gentiles judged by God’s law.

 

——-Endnotes——-

[1] [rational argument] added by author.

See also, Oshea Davis, “Scripture & Logic: Mind of Christ vs Human Speculation.

[2] Someone might bark up that God can define that our responsibility is by our freewill. This is logically and categorically impossible due to God’s nature. It is like saying, how green is God? Yet, to answer the folly itself, if we are free—relative to God—then we are no longer responsible, and thus it would be self-refuting nonsense. The below is from, “Romans 9:11-18, Why is Pharaoh Punished?”

The way Paul does answer this presupposes what we just went over; that responsibility presupposes a higher authority and not freedom. If you are responsible, then it means you are not free, but under an authority. Paul’s answered to why people are responsible—even when like Pharaoh, they perform the works God causes them to perform by this sovereignty—is that God is a potter over them. That is, Paul appeals to that fact that God is a sovereign authority over us. We are responsible precisely because we are not free but under God’s authority. It can be said that God makes it—as an additive—that having more knowledge makes us guiltier. This can be said about metaphysics on a relative level when said about us. That is, we are led away by “OUR” own desires. However, both additives only work as adding to our responsibility because God as an authority over us commands it so! That is, without this foundation of not being free but under an authority, the additives are nothing. And yet, the foundation minus the additives still makes one responsible, as Jesus demonstrated with the cursed tree.

[3] This is a modified use of Vincent’s argument, “If Christianity (the Bible) is true, and  this same Christianity declares that all non-Christian claims are false, then all non-Christian claims are false by logical necessity.” (Captive To Reason. 2009. 44).

[4] For more see, Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology.

[5] 2 Corinthians 4:6 (NIV), “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.”

[6] Vincent Cheung. Captive To Reason. 2009. Pg. 11, 29.

[7] Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg. 70

[8] Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg. 70

[9] Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg.69

[10] See Gordon Clark, “A Christian View of Men and Things, “ and Vincent Cheung, “Ultimate Questions,” and Presuppositional Confrontations.”

[11] Vincent Cheung. A Gang of Pandas.

[12] Gordon Clark, “A Christian View of Men & Things,” (2005, pg.223).  Published by The Trinity Foundation.

[13] Gordon Clark,  audio lecture, “A Defense of Christian Presuppositions in the Light of Non-Christian Presuppositions

[14] Gordon Clark, “A Christian View of Men & Things,” (2005, pg.118).  Published by The Trinity Foundation.

[15] Logic is the structure or motion of thinking, and knowledge is the content of this thinking.

[16] Vincent Cheung. Ultimate Questions. 2010. Pg. 58.

[17] Vincent Cheung. Captive To Reason. 2009. 44

[18] This argument is best as a Modus Ponens as I have done, for it seems to stress the necessary result rather than the necessary category, which is indirectly asserted. However, for practice I will make a categorical syllogism.  E.A.E (No M is P. All S is M. Thus, No S is P.)

K.1. No [persons who do the same things they condemn] are [persons who have a rational argument].
K.2. All [non-Christians] are [persons who do the same things they condemn].
K.3. Thus, No [non-Christian] are [persons who rational argument].