|
David and Jeff, maybe this is not directly relevant to the topic of the thread, but the point is that "literal" language isn't. And saying that something isn't understood unless it can be put in literal language is a remarkable illustration of that fact. What does "understand" mean? Is there not a figure contained in that word? And if we vary the word (say to "comprehend" or "apprehend") we have really varied the figure. We have no wholly abstract way of speaking: and this is why it is a dead-end to assume that concrete language gives greater clarity or precision. If it gives the illusion of greater perspicuity that is only because insufficient attention is given to the "literal" words.
However, I don't want to detract from the topic of the thread, which is about the relation of Clark and Clarkians to experimental Calvinism. I do think, though, even a differing perspective on language could be part of the divergent paradigm if Clark or Clarkians are, in fact, not in the stream of experimental Calvinism.
|