I had to dig around a little to see what the "coming out of the closet" stuff was in reference too. (See the post on Triabologue). Personally, I can only applaud Paul's striving for intellectual honesty. We may not agree on some key points, but his post on hard line TAG was straight forward.

I think talk of staying away from "what if-s" is just pious nonsense. We are called to have an answer to the non-believer, even if the arguments are hypothetical. There is no real danger of a Christian jumping towards human autonomy in doing so, as long as the Christian present God's Word as ultimate (Van Til has said as much). But let us avoid making promises to the un-believer we can not keep. Paul is being brutally honest when he says hypothetically, there is always a "possible" worldview that can match the Christian worldview's ability to answer the desiderata of of a comprehensive and coherent system. It is only hypothetical, but we should be total honest and step outside of the confines of our presuppositions to avoid logical fallacies. It does not damage the strength of the Christian worldview in any way. And that seems to me to be Paul's position.

The implications of this honest position is not human autonomy - it is the opposite. It requires us to acknowledge that we are total dependence on the grace of God to believe the truth. We can not come to real knowledge apart from the grace of God. That is Christian humility - not human autonomy speaking.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]