“Here we have Gordon Clark, one of the most respected Reformed Christian elders and teachers in the last century, a man who has few peers throughout the entire history of the Christian faith, now being compared to a producer of methamphetamine. Then we have Dr. Robbins, a man I greatly respect and admire, a man who has done more for the cause of truth and freedom since the days of J. Gresham Machen, being compared to a drug pusher. This is a new low even for you Paul.”
There’s only one little problem with Gerety’s indignant reply:
According to his own epistemology, he doesn’t know that Clark existed, he doesn’t know that Clark was a widely respected elder and teacher, he doesn’t know what Clark actually taught, he doesn’t know church history, he doesn’t know that John Robbins is a real person, or Paul Manata, or J. Gresham Machen, he doesn’t know what Machen actually did with his life (assuming that he even existed), and so on. Heck, Gerety can't even know if he exists.
So, perhaps Gerety would like to favor us with an explanation as to how he proposes to validate a single one of his comparisons?