tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1401120558630566530..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Correcting a Misquote of CalvinRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91672677318460318132009-05-24T13:36:21.276-04:002009-05-24T13:36:21.276-04:00You just said, in the first clause, that "Scriptur...You just said, in the first clause, that "Scripturalism does not deny what is historically defined as 'innate knowledge'," only to immediately negate what you said in the first clause by what you added in the second: "except consistent Clarkians would not call such a thing 'knowledge'."<br /><br />What has been historically defined as innate knowledge as been historically understood to be real knowledge. If, therefore, Scripturalism rejects the traditional definition, it thereby denies innate knowledge. <br /><br />Hence, there's no straw man here. Rather, a blatant equivocation of terms–from the Scripturalist side of the debate.<br /><br />Or are you distinguishing between "Scripturalism" and "consistent Clarkians"? <br /><br />If you treat these as synonymous terms, then the equivocation remains.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51311726164294837652009-05-24T09:35:38.400-04:002009-05-24T09:35:38.400-04:00Scripturalism does not deny what is historically d...Scripturalism does not deny what is historically defined as "innate knowledge", except consistent Clarkians would not call such a thing "knowledge". Scripturalism is primarily a system of epistemology proper, not ontology of epistemology. Why can't opponents even represent Scripturalism correctly, instead of attacking tons of straw men?Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45030415625259453372009-05-22T03:08:49.202-04:002009-05-22T03:08:49.202-04:00I've stayed out of this discussion for several rea...I've stayed out of this discussion for several reasons, one of which is because this is ta Presbyterian argument, and I'm not a Presby. However, with that said, I do keep up with Calvin studies and other historical studies in Reformed theology, and I'd point out here also that, if one reads the section on Arminianism in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, there's a a nifty discussion about the Arminians as the ones who rejected the innate knowledge of God in man. Now, if Robbins, et.al. are rejecting that, then that does, indeed strike me as a historically Arminian move, so to appeal to Reformed historical theology in this matter further strikes me as a misunderstanding of Reformed historical theology at best, historical revisionism at worst.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com