05-24-2006, 01:13 PM
|
 | Moderator | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 3,860
Thanks: 122
Thanked 73 Times in 54 Posts
| |
Quote: Originally posted by paul manata
I'm not interested in that.
Even if man can, or will, you're supporting my position.
The Clarkian allows NO paradox, solvable or not.
Read your own literature.
Read Gerety.
| This is simply not true.
My post from another thread: Quote: Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
It seems to me that there might be some unclear usage of the term "paradox." We need to be CLEAR.
According to Gary Crampton in his article
Does the Bible Contain Paradox?, there are two types of paradox:
Quote:
According to Kenneth S. Kantzer, editor of Christianity Today, there are two sorts of paradoxes: rhetorical and logical. The former is "a figure used to shed light on a topic by challenging the reason of another and thus startling him"(Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 826, 827; Robert L. Reymond, Preach The Word! 31, 32). The Bible dearly contains rhetorical paradox (compare Matthew 10:29; John 11:25,26; 2 Corinthians 6:9,10).
Logical paradoxes, however, are altogether different. Here we have a situation where an assertion (or two or three assertions) is self-contradictory, or at least seems to be so. One way or the other the assertion cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason. The hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, unconditional election and the free offer of the Gospel, and Godīs sovereignty and man s responsibility, are examples set forth by the advocates of biblical (logical) paradox.
| The first type of paradox I accept, the second I do not.
If Crampton's assessment is consistent with that of Clark, then it is clear that Clark would not have disagreed with all forms of paradox, but would reject the form that are unable to be resolved by human reason.
|
__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA
"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98) Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
|