Quote:
Originally Posted by Theogenes  Jerrold,
Clark and Robbins view of faith is not novel to them. Clark, in his book, "What is Saving Faith", points out many similar ideas in the thought of men ranging from Augustine to Calvin, including some Puritans and Hodge. He shows that these men will say the same thing when speaking literally but then when they wax figurative confusion begins to grow. Also, read John Brown of Edinburgh's commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and 1Peter and you'll find that he had the same ideas as Clark 100 years before him! Thomas Chalmers wrote similiar things as well. My point is, is that this is not new with Clark and Robbins. They didn't invent these ideas. It seems to me that that notion becomes the reason to dismiss what they are saying without real consideration, a knee jerk reaction by people who are on the opposite side of the GHC/CVT fence.
Jim |
None of the men arguing that they are novel contra the Puritans have, once, referred to CVT on this issue. I find Van Til to be useful in some areas but the issue, as it has been developed here especially by Rev. Winzer, was that the conception of faith is novel with respect to the WCF and the Puritans. I know Rev. Winzer would find it amusing that any would claim his objections have to do with a particular attachment to Van Til. Not every criticism of Clark has to be framed in that context.
Also, I recognize that Clark and Robbins would state that the moment men move to what they consider "inexact" language that they believe no useful information is being added at that point. This, to me, is rather like arguing that God's inclusion of the Proverbs has the same "defect" as didactic clarity is hardly present. As Rev. Winzer just mentioned and I keep re-iterating:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rev. Winzer There is more to human life than meets the eye, and it requires reverential and reflective study to understand the height and depth and length and breadth of a knowledge which passes knowledge. |
This "hard path of wisdom" is what we believe ought to be pursued but, in my estimation, Clarkians have decided
a priori that this notion simply leads to a "lack of clarity". Hence, it gives warrant to men to quit the pursuit of wisdom at the point they've decided is the terminus. The syllogism alone provides philsophical certainty - Proceed no Further.
Thus, I disagree that we're not taking this into account. We're simply roundly rejecting it as an un-Biblical approach to wisdom. I think the case can be (and has been argued) that this was the Puritan view reflected in the Westminster Standards and the Directory. I have seen several assertions that some men believed the contrary but I have not seen any material presented that convinces me this is anything but assertion.