(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Continued analysis of this statement:

“An axiom is a presupposition, assumed true, from which theorems are deduced. It makes sense to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms.”

We can break this statement into four steps. This well-known Christian apologist says we can use axioms as premises for deductive reasoning to prove a theorem. Axioms consist of made-up stuff. So he said we can make up stuff to prove a theorem. A theorem is a proven statement. He said making up stuff proves statements. We just make up stuff, and it’s true.  That’s the irrational philosophy of “Rationalism” from the godless era called “The Age of Reason.”

Four Steps

1. Axioms are the proof or premise. But axioms consist of made-up stuff.
2. The premise must be true because deductive reasoning without a true premise is unsound, meaning it’s irrational.
3. But, in this case, made-up stuff is the proof (premise) for deductive reasoning. Made-up stuff isn’t the same as true stuff.
4. A theorem is a proven statement, but making up stuff proves nothing. That means we didn’t prove the theorem, so what we’re calling “a theorem” isn’t a theorem. Therefore, it can’t make sense or be reasonable.

Let’s look at this claim from another angle to understand the problem fully by restating the two statements in plain English:

“We assume made-up stuff is true, and then we prove conclusions with the made-up stuff.”

“It makes sense to use the claims of Scripture as made-up stuff.”

They’re in reverse order, but we can see what our brother was saying if we flip the statements around.

The unscrambled statement:

“It’s sane to use the claims of Scripture as made-up stuff that we assume to be true, and we can then base conclusions on this made-up stuff.”

(end quote)