Tim, for example, says Clarkians don't believe that justified belief in logic must be due to its ability to be deduced from the Bible, rather, it's innate. However, John Robbins, putative Clark expert, demurs. Thus, Robbins:
"Logic -- reasoning by good and necessary consequence -- is not a secular principle not found in Scripture and added to the Scriptural axiom; it is contained in the axiom itself."TF has claimed that we have "innate knowledge." However, this is at odds with what putative Scripturalist experts have taught us. For Robbins says,
"Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We “know” that we are in Pennsylvania; we “know” that Clinton - either Bill or Hillary - is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.” Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth."So it seems that these men are tearing down the Scripturalist house in order to defend it. That's fine. It needs tearing down. But T-bloggers shouldn't be criticized for our criticisms of Scripturalism. You can't very well expect us to critique a hitherto unknown statement of Scripturalism.