Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
Quote: Originally posted by Civbert
Quote: Originally posted by paul manata
Quote: |
Maybe the problem is the definition of paradox. It seems that a paradox is and is not a contradiction for Van Til.
| Remember, Patrick asked for sources.
A paradox *is not* a contradiction for Van Til.
You know that phrase that Clarkians love to rail on? The one that says, "we embrace with passion the apparently contradictory?" Well, what Clarkians do not quote is the sentence before that:
"We shun like poison the idea of the really contradictory."
A paradox, for Van Til, was an *apparent* contradiction, but was never a real one.
| And how do you know when something is an "apparent" contradiction?
| I don't know how many times I need to say this! Seriously, I've answered this ....n times, Anthony.
First, as Gabriel said, the obvious answer is that is appeared contradictory, but on futher analysis, it was not.
|
So then there are no apparent contradictions. I'm talking about those "apparent contradictions" you said you can not resolve.
Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
But I'm assuming that you really meant, "but how do you know that the apparent contradictions in Scripture are not real contradictions since you haven't analyzed them and seen how they are merely apparent, not real."
That's what you meant.
The answer to that is easy: "God cannot lie." To say A & ~A in the same sense and relationship is a lie. Therefore God does not say A & ~A.
There are no real contradictions because God cannot contradict himself.
|
I agree. But are you saying that apparent contradictions are the ones you can resolve, or the ones you can not resolve? Which is it? If the former, then you are saying that you know they are "apparent" contradictions
because you can resolve them. Are there any you can not resolve? What makes them contradictions to start with? (Not what makes them "apparent", but how do you know they are contradictions?
Feel free to document your answers with sources.
