06-26-2007, 02:52 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,654
Thanks: 798
Thanked 701 Times in 449 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  Here is the heart of the matter. Is our reasoning the final arbiter when confronted by things that may be beyond us? Or, do we acknowledge the limitations of even our own reasoning and embrace apparent contradiction on the basis of the one asking us to embrace it? In other words, if God said to you A and B are true, yet in your understanding B entailed ~A, would you humble your intellect to God's word? If so, then you agree with Van Til on this point. If not, then you place your own reasoning above God's word. Of this whole post (and thread), this last point is the key.
Sincerely,
Brian | But what if, for person X, B does not entail ~A? I made mention of this earlier. Gordon Clark was labeled as a rationalist by the Van Tillians for proposing a logical solution to the problem of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. What you're saying about humbling ourselves before God's Word makes perfect sense as long as we live in a world in which everyone agrees that A and B lead to an "apparent contradiction." But what if it isn't a contradiction for someone? Why is the limit of Van Til's ability to reconcile something the final arbiter of what is and isn't possible to be reconciled? Why is the limit of Van Til's intellectual capacity the rule against which we will measure someone and call them either a humble individual who "just accepts God's Word" (if they accept the "apparent contradictions" popularly accepted) or an arrogant rationalist?
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics
|