Gold Dragon: // ... I don't
understand how why one would derive a position supportive
of critical texts from doctrines.//
Ones actions should be derived from one's doctrines.
If one's actions do NOT derive from one's doctrines,
then they are a hypocrite.
Quick Logic:
All systems of logic start with a minimal number of
'undefined terms'. These are terms that are so basic
the the whole system of logic in essence defines the terms.
If you start with points, lines, and angles - you have
a logic of geometry (there are different geometries with
different natures, most people are familiar with Euclidian
Plane Geometry, if taught in US schools).
If you start with terms like 'man', 'fellow man', 'state', etc.
then you develop a logical system of government.
If you start with terms like 'God', 'man', 'salvation, etc. then you
develop a system of religion.
The second element of a system of logic is agreed upon
(if you wish to talk to others) statements using the
undefined terms and defined terms based on the defined terms.
In the 19th Century these were called 'Axioms' - unprovable truths.
But in the 20th Century they were called 'Assumptions'
for they are unprovable so you can only assume they are true.
Using the Assumptions, the defined terms, the undefined terms
a system of logic developes more defined terms, more statements
called 'propositions' are developed.
PROPOSITION - n - 5. logic, as statement
affirming or denying something so that it can be characterized
as true or false.
In a system of religious logic, final propositions
are called 'DOCTRINE'.
So the question is about a proposed system of logic
where the three doctrines can be logically developed into
the given proposition (actually defining is closer
to what is done): "the critical text position".
Yes, these three doctrines can logically lead to the
proposition/definition: "the critical text position".
I really don't have the time, raising two grandchildren,
working, serving in my local church, etc. to write up
all the steps of Logic leading from the three propositions
(Doctrines) to :the critical text position".
The 'correct' answer is YES.
That was all I was trying to show by my question, for
there are claims in another Topic that shows some people don't
know the FIRST thing about logic and hold a false doctrine
that LOGIC and FAITH are enemies. So in ignorance (the
opposite of logic) said persons falsy deny the FAITH (the
opposite of DOUBT) of others.
Gold Dragon: //Usually support
for a textual position is derived from manuscript
evidence and one's school of textual critical theory//
BUt one's 'school of textual critical theory' flows from
one's Doctrines/Assumptions/Axioms/etc.
raying: