Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
Quote: Originally posted by Civbert
Quote: Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Quote: Originally posted by paul manata
I'm not interested in that.
| Well then we can get no further my friend. I am by far an expert of Van Til, but from what I can tell, his problem of paradox lies deep within the "unresolvable by man" paradox, due to the creator/creature distinction, the man's logic vs. God's logic distinction etc., etc. which more applies IMHO to the paradox which you are not interested in discussing.
| It seems that if man can not resolve some paradoxes (do to limited knowledge - or man's sin) then man can never be certain he understands Scripture - since all Scripture is paradoxical to man - and only non-contradictory to God. Poor man must embrace the irrational paradoxes - trusting that God will square the circle for man, when man comes in to his glory.
In the mean time, man will have to keep blind faith in paradoxes he does not understand and can not resolve.
 | Hmmm, so you think you can be *certain* that you understand Scripture?
I'd love to see that argument.
Remember, even if your view of scripture is logically consistent and coherent, this does not equal truth, as you've admitted. You can deduce valid syllogisms until the cows come home, that does not mean they're true.
So, pot - kettle- black???
Anyway, embracing Van Til's doctrine of analogy, this problem goes away. You've just refuted yourself, friend, while the Van Tillian remains unscathed.
|
Ha! Van Tillian analogy just makes things all that much fuzzier. And now you admit that according to Van Til's system, you can not be certain you understand Scripture. No wonder you embrace paradox. It's consistent with an inability to understand anything from Scripture at all. I admit it, Van Til is consistently irrational if this is true. Darn, just when I was thinking there was hope for Van Til! This conversation is Vantillian die-hards has been really helpful. I'm starting to see that Van Til was indeed irrational, despite is "rational" rhetoric. You keep going back to the irrational positions of Van Til and calling them gold. So be it.
Somebody help me out here. Is there any saving Van Til's apologetics. Is it too tied up with paradox and analogy and "apparent" contradictions. I'm going to have to read Chris's post again, because it gave me hope. The Vantillians on board just make things sound pointless.
Ahhh. I think I know what to do. Quite talking to Vantillians, and read Van Til. Let the man speak for himself. If I keep listening to his groupies, I'll never see what Van Til is good for. Even Frame was more rational.