James 1:21-24
21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and {all} that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24 for {once} he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
(NAU)

2 Tim 3:14-17
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned {them}
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(NAU)

Rom 3:1-2
1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
(NIV)

Here is where the rubber meets the road: Would you be comfortable teaching ANYONE that the scriptures don’t matter and aren’t necessary (for salvation or otherwise)? It’s one thing to speak in hypotheticals about what God may or may not do, but quite another to put your eternal soul on the line by misleading someone (or many someones). Caution here, bro. Your thinking in the first post was well intentioned and held truth, but you seem to begin defending positions that you yourself don’t hold, or shouldn’t rationally hold. Always come back to praxis.

Matt 13:20-21
20 “The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
21 yet he has no {firm} root in himself, but is {only} temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.
(NAU)

Which motivates your action more a real 600 lb Gorrilla standing behind you, or a metaphoric one? If scripture cannot be trusted, then it’s only a matter of time before one starts selectively appropriating/ignoring the moral codes and specific instructions therein. (If you are inclined to say I’m making an assumption, then consider it one based on the experience of a minister who has watched the moral idealists wash out with the tide of personal preferences, while those founded on the word stand strong).

I still don’t think I use this things right.

First, Chad, I never use those stupid icons but I thought I’d throw one out there to say thanks for still thinking.

I think Joni raised most of my objections with your syllogism, which was a good effort in logic by the way, so let me jump to the last thing you just wrote:

“You start with the assumption that all the beliefs in set x came from the Bible, which is the very thing my argument is challenging.”

I think this is probably at the root of where we differ. I’ll try to write up some thoughts on that soon.

And I do apologize if I sounded short with you in previous posts. I usually don’t go back and forth on comments sections like this, it’s really a horrible way in which to dialogue if you think about it, so sometimes the pauses between don’t help.

More for you later . . .

From what I can tell, you are making the assumption that those who come to (C) come to it based on all of these beliefs in (x) with no understanding of where they came from or why they exist in the first place. While the Holy Spirit is clearly the one doing the leading and the saving - people do not often accept a belief without accepting the premise of the belief as “true”.

If my argument is sound in showing C has obtained without a in the set x, origin of the rest is irrelevant. But if I had to give an answer, the source of the knowledge of the beliefs in set x could vary greatly. Be they orally conveyed, supernaturally, written, whatever. But it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately convicts the person that these beliefs are, in fact, true (simultaneously or after which they assent to them).

So if all the things accepted in (x) are in the Bible and are clearly understood to have come from the Bible, it seems a logical contradiction to then throw out belief (a). In order to believe that all the things in (x) actually happened and are worth staking your salvation in them, you must believe that (a) is true. This doesn’t mean that at the time of conversion you are studied and discipled enough to know how to articulate that belief, but your decision and commitment to believe the things in (x) which are found in the Bible, would seem to preclude it.

This begs the question. “So if all the things accepted in (x) are in the Bible and are clearly understood to have come from the Bible” (emphasis mine) is where the misunderstanding comes in. You start with the assumption that all the beliefs in set x came from the Bible, which is the very thing my argument is challenging.

Let the proposition “the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, in its entirety, is historically reliable” be represented by belief a, all the beliefs in set x to represent those necessary for genuine Christian belief to obtain, and C to represent genuine Christian belief.

1) All beliefs in set x are necessary for C to obtain.
2) At some time t, C obtained without belief a.
3) Therefore, belief a is not in set x.
4) Therefore, belief a is not necessary for C to obtain.

*Note that ’some time t‘ doesn’t necessarily entail one specific time, but just an occasion (perhaps among many) for argument’s sake.

I am not sure where you are disagreeing. I’m pretty sure you’d take issue with premise (2), but I honestly don’t see much potency coming from any argument you can muster on behalf of there not being a time t when C obtained without a.