Then person X should be able to explain how B does not entail ~A to other people. I highly doubt that the majority of people who find certain doctrines paradoxical just don’t “see” and “get” what person X does. Of course anybody can say some doctrine isn’t paradoxical to them, but it is an entirely different matter to demonstrate that is the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist  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. |
Source? I’m willing to bet this isn’t what Van Tilians argue. Even Van Tilians argue for logical solutions to the problem of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Paul Manata-–a Van Tilian--was one of the most knowledgable members of this board when it comes to the compatibilist/libertarian debate. Of course there is much more to the problem than that debate, but it is part of answering the problem.
Also, can you quote Gordon Clark and give his answer to the sovereignty/moral responsibility problem. I apologize if I come off bad in this post, because that is not my intent. I do really want to have Clarks answer to this problem summed up, as I have not seen it yet in other threads. Thanks, ~Caleb