Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  Hello Anthony,
Are you reading what I am writing? In my previous post I noted... |
Mea culpa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must already be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and a priori categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and a priori categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge. This is Clark and not me. If one grants these things, then every objection I made above goes away. It is my hope that Anthony and Sean will have ears to hear Clark on this point. |
So your solution is that if one accepts a priori knowledge in the form of innate forms and ideas, that allow man to interact with Scripture, then the problem is solved.
I agree that Clark said the man is created with innate forms and ideas. Man is created in God's image. Man is created immediately with the capacity for language and abstract thinking. Man and God spoke together from the beginning.
I think I agreed to this "solution" in-so-far as this is a
temporal priority. It fails as a logical priority because (as I said) the purpose of Scripturalist epistemology is
not to produce knowledge, but to
justify knowledge. You affirmed this in your first post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse By this, Anthony has clarified that what is really being asked is “How can we justify anything we say we know.” |
An knowledge of any forms man has, any innate propositions man holds, can not be justified apart from revelation. How do we "know" man has innate ideas and forms (or call it the "light of nature" if you wish)? We know this is the case only because Scripture says so. The logical priority still remains Scripture.
So I can agree with your solution, with the understanding that this is not a logical priority. Your solution not necessarily contrary to
my Scripturalism as I have presented it. Your solution is coherent with my solution, once we understand the difference between logical and temporal priority. Can we agree to that?