Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist  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. |
I pretty much doubt that account because no Van Tillian that I know of think that the problem is a logical problem. Or put another way, the problem/issue is not against logic.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Who said anything about Van Til by himself? It is not like everyone was solving a certain problem then Van Til said, I just can't see it, and then everyone just started saying it was unsolvable. Mystery and Apparent contradiction etc. has been accepted for a long period of time in the church.
Next, lets say someone was able to "solve" a certain paradox, that before everyone else could not solve? What would have been gained? Until you solve every last one, you really have not gained that much.
CT