|
All you did was confirm exactly what I just said: A Clarkian cannot accept that God might be witholding information to give us the ability to resolve the issue.
Let's just change the scenario then. Clark changed the premises because he was convinced that the historic Reformed premises of human freedom contradicted the Reformed premises of God's sovereignty.
1. He could have just as well changed the premises for God's sovereignty to meet the conditions of the logical rule that we cannot accept any apparent contradiction in premises. Goal acheived!
2. How did he know he had enough information to even form premises from Scripture? Perhaps there are additional premises that needed to be added by God that He didn't have. In which case, he should just walk away and say "I don't know. I can't believe anything about human responsibility because right now the information I have doesn't allow me to understand it apart from it apparently contradicting God's Sovereignty."
Who decides when the premises have been witheld and when the premises need to keep being tweaked until they don't contradict?
That's right: MAN.
Also, it's one thing to say that Scripture is going to provide us with proper inferences and that the conclusions are going to follow ruthlessly but it is quite another, with our darkened human hearts and the fact that we are prone to "read into things", to ensure that our inferences really are always Scriptural. It's a delicate balancing act between inference and deduction, biblical theology and systematics. It's not quite as cut and dry as just saying it.
[Edited on 5-24-2006 by SemperFideles]
|