Sean,
We have never spoken on this matter, but now I am really curious to know something. I have read many exchanges between you and Paul Manata on matters pertaining to Clark vs. Van Til insofar as epistemology is concerned. Now I dont know a whole lot a lot Clark, and have only listened to a few of his lectures coupled with Robbins, so my question to you is an honest one.
Many times Paul uses the same argument in a variety of ways to level the Clarkian view of knowledge, and for the time being I will assume that is the case. The reason why is simple. For every funny, sarcastic illustration P aul gives you never respond in a way that would show he does not understand Clark's Scripturalism. For instance:
Quote:
Of course, he then compares anyone who might agree with Clark's Scripturalism as pushers.
|
Now I am not speaking for Paul, but only pointing out what he has pointed out many times. In the above qoute, could one argue that you (Sean) can't know this to be true, as you suggest it is, because you cant deduce this "true" proposition from scripture? I know this is a roughly stated and I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding the whole debate. So would you please Sean, in an orderly fashion, explain why such criticisms would be wrong? I am truly interested to know if Clark's Scripturalism crumbles under the weight of these silly little arguments.
