Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader 
Rev. Winzer,
Are you saying that traditionally Reformed Theology has affirmed infallible human knowledge (at least on some issues)? Do you have any references where I could see this explained or demonstrated more fully?
CT
|
I agree with "infallible human knowledge" on
at least some issues.
But, that's not what is meant by the term
infallibilism as used in the context of models of
epistemic justification.
The term has a
very precise meaning as I used it.
If one says: "I cannot be in error about a specific belief that P" they
are not espousing
infallibilism as I meant it and as anyone inserting themself into the discussion would know if they knew the terms being used.
In fact, I could say that I am infallible with regard to all my beliefs
and still not be affirming infallibilism as a model of epistemic justification!!!
I also wonder if you guys can email R. Scott Clark and tell him that he has a position that leads to skepticism and people of faith should abandone what he says since he has a chapter in his
Recovering book tittled: "The Irreligious Quest for Religious Certainty." Maybe he's just in the dark about Reformation theology history?