Possible Resolution of Van Til and Clark

April 10, 2008 at 5:57 pm (Philosophy)

I just thought of this while I was writing a recent comment, and I wish to raise it to the level of a post. Is it possible to reconcile Clark and Van Til in their epistemologies?

Take a pencil. We cannot know that pencil as God knows it. We can only know it in a creaturely way. However, God knows how we know that pencil. He knows exactly in what way our knowledge is limited. Therefore, Van Til was correct to posit an epistemological distinction between the creature and the Creator (a la Isaiah 55). However, Clark was right to insist that we know things truly (I question whether Van Til ever denied this), and propositionally. Therefore, I posit an imbalance, an asymmetry in epistemology. We cannot know anything as God knows it. However, God can know exactly the way in which we know.

260 Comments

I Love a Scrap, But…

April 10, 2008 at 5:48 pm (Ethics)

Folks, I am getting more than a bit weary of the accusations that are flying around on my blog with regard to WTS, Enns, Clark, Van Til, Gerety, myself, and Triablogue members. I don’t have enough energy at this point to moderate as I should. I have certainly not done enough moderation, and not even the Herculean efforts of Reed have made up for my lack. I am imploring people to use this rule to moderate themselves: would you say what you are about to write to that person if they were standing in front of you? Notice the category under which this post has been filed, please.

3 Comments

More on Science and Inerrancy

April 10, 2008 at 1:11 pm (Inerrancy)

I wanted to briefly call attention to Steve Hays’ article over at Triablogue, responding to a conversation going on in the Peter Enns/inerrancy thread here at Greenbaggins.

I didn’t have much to add, except to comment on the old yarn about the “sun standing still” in Joshua.  As an aerospace engineer, I can attest that there is nothing inaccurate about a statement like that if you take the observer’s location on earth to be your non-inertial reference frame.  Newtonian physics still works just fine, you just have to add in Coriolis and centrifugal forces to account for the fact that your reference frame is not inertial (ie. the earth rotates).  So what is the objection from biblical errantists?  That it is an “error” for the Book of Joshua to speak in terms of a particular non-inertial reference frame?

-Posted by David Gadbois

2 Comments

Wonderful New Blog!

April 10, 2008 at 9:03 am (Blogroll)

One of my two favorite OT commentators is now blogging! Check out Dr. John Currid’s new blog.

HT: Between Two Worlds

1 Comment