Continuing the fun:
Don't you realize that you are using words now to express your own thoughts?
>Your belief in God’s providence in guiding the development of language is obviously based upon the nature of God (where in Scripture does it say explicitly that God will guide the development of language such that logical forms can be perfectly symbolized, or that language can express truths perfectly).
The entire doctrine of the authority and Verbal, Plenary Inspiration of Scripture depends upon the axiom that language can express God's truth perfectly in the written Scriptures. So therefore, if language cannot express God's truth perfectly (~p), both of these doctrines are nonsense (~q). And therefore, since both of these doctrines are biblical (q), therefore language can express God's truth perfectly (p). Modus tollens!
>Ditto; where in Scripture is that “promise” stated?
See the above logical statement.
>>Ditto: Did God state how he would superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to (perfectly) express God's truth univocally?” Does God need to state HOW he would do it?
So if God does not so superintend the development of huamn language, how can the doctrine of Verbal, Plenary Inspiration be correct?
>>In informal logic, this is not a false analogy. This is a reductio ad absurdum using the SAME line of reasoning you furnished.
What same line of reasoning? One concerns something which is deductively derived from Scripture; the other not.
>Think about it. “Is God sovereign over … ? If God is sovereign, then since He reveals Himself in words, shouldn't He superintend the development of … ?” etc etc
The proposition p that is to be inserted must be scriptural of course, so it is still a false analogy, since very plainly one is dedutively deduced from Scripture while the other isn't.
>If God is sovereign and cares enough to superintend the development of language such that human languages are able to express God's truth univocally and perfectly (and therefore the logical forms of the language of Scripture as symbolized in formal logic), wouldn’t God HAVE TO preserve the SCRIPTURE itself perfectly (otherwise what is there to express univocally and perfectly?)?
Where is that proposition "God has to preserve the Scriptures perfectly" found in Scripture?
>If you claim that language is not developed/superintended by God providentially to express truths perfectly, then it is a tacit admission that truths cannot be expressed in language perfectly
Language is developed/superintended by God to providentially express truth perfectly ONLY as they are used in the Scripture. Words and phrases that are not found in the Scripture are irrelevant to the entire question.
>And by the way, unless the statements/words are themselves preserved perfectly, how would these “human languages [that] are able to express God's truth univocally” be able to express these truths perfectly?
I said that they are preserved within the manuscripts, so they ARE perfectly preserved, just not in the way you desire probably.
>>Ditto; isn’t that what you do with textual criticism and the very words of the Bible?
You obviously do not know my view on textual criticism, as if I believe in the higher critical school or even the Westcort/Hort textual critical philosophy.
>Why don’t you show me how language can be perfectly symbolized into its logical forms? As far as I’m concern, all linguists and logicians agree with my observation. It’s you who disagree. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you.
I have never said we can do it; I just said that it may be possible to do it by God.
>I was having some fun with our newfound friend Joel
And for what reason? Discussion is meant to challenge and edify each other within the Body of Christ, not create unneccessary strife, or "having fun". BTW, just so you know, I have very dim views of sombody masquerading as another 'annonymous' person, so I wouldn't be too pleased if you are actually somebody I know, to say the least.
>>Anyone acquainted with Clarkian thought would know that he IS a [biblical] rationalist, which is actually a compliment (unless – as Clark would say – you are an irrationalist?).
I quote Carrigan, “Gordon H. Clark … is a revelational rationalist.”
If you want to call that "revelation rationalist", then fine. I was thinking more of the Descartes type of rationalist.
>>Really? If Man is tainted by the Fall, is the intellect likewise tainted by the Fall? Primacy of the intellect?
The intellect tained by the Fall does not make an objective truth an objective lie; it just makes it seems so and therefore the fallen Man is irrational. This does not change reality one bit though. Since God is the Word/Logic, and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth (Jn. 16:13), therefore the regenerate mind is able to be rational in his/her thinking about the things of God.
>why is your faith in Man’s textual criticism (human’s ability) greater than your faith in God’s ability to providentially preserve His Word perfectly for the Church? Isn’t that inconsistency at best?
Do you know my views on textual criticism? I don't think so.
Btw, are you Vincent in disguise?