Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (really unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Jim Carroll
    ... The typical substance of VanTillian argumentation is usually of a much higher quality than what I ve seen here lately. While I have been exceedingly
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dan Leaming wrote:

      > How can you know that your theology is truth, oh
      > wait you already know everything, duh, stupid
      > me.

      The typical substance of VanTillian argumentation
      is usually of a much higher quality than what I've
      seen here lately. While I have been exceedingly
      disheartened at Tammy's RC conversion at the hands
      of rather weak (and off the list) Catholic
      apologetics, the above quotation (and the like of
      which most of your posts have been full of) is
      only going to make matters worse and have the side
      effect of convincing those that are actually
      familiar with VanTil that you should not be taken
      seriously.

      Tammy, whom I now consider an adversary on this
      list (one I'm as fond of as all of my other
      friends and foes here) enumerated some of the
      problems with VanTil's thought and the above is
      your only reply? Shall I, considering myself an
      adherent of VanTil, enumerate some other problems?
      Off the top of my head:

      1) VanTil's formulation of the Trinity (which is
      probably nothing more than a syntactical problem)
      2) David Byron's Fristianity argument
      3) All knowledge is 'analogical' to the 'truth'
      which only God knows (as Clark, following Tammy
      (or maybe vs. vrs.) pointed out).
      4) There has never been a successfully formulated
      TAG (and perhaps never can be).

      Of course, Clark's problems are even more
      numerable but your one example doesn't even make
      sense; it seems like you just threw some words
      together.

      I've been really busy with work (and family and
      play) lately but I thought I needed to say
      something or this list would be going down the
      tubes. Please read through the archives, there is
      some good (and even VanTillian) argumentation
      there (although, of course, none of it from Don
      ... :-) ).

      VanTillian Jim (liTnaV2 on aol IM)
    • Dan Leaming
      The only time that I have responded to anyone with such flipant attitude was to Tammy. She seems to trivialise everything that one argues against her. It
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 29, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        The only time that I have responded to anyone with such flipant attitude was
        to Tammy. She seems to trivialise everything that one argues against her.
        It seems that she has put up a wall around her that no matter what you say
        or argue she does not care, and will not be convinced otherwise.

        In terms of Van Tils formulation, you might reread that section of the book
        where he talks about that. It seems that he using the arguement against
        someone, not stating his beliefs. I would affirm that knowledge is
        analogical, we would not know what we know without God first revealing it to
        us, otherwise we would be thieves (Romans 1-2.) In terms of TAG, there is a
        rather successful formulation of TAG out there, in fact the atheist have a
        rather lame form of their own called TANG, the transedential arguement of
        the nonextistance of God .

        The reason I called Clark a non evidential presuppositionalist, is because
        he deny's that we know anything at all, except logic.
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jim Carroll" <carrollj@...>
        To: <TraditionalDogmatics@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:12 AM
        Subject: Re: [TraditionalDogmatics] (really unknown)


        >
        >
        > Dan Leaming wrote:
        >
        > > How can you know that your theology is truth, oh
        > > wait you already know everything, duh, stupid
        > > me.
        >
        > The typical substance of VanTillian argumentation
        > is usually of a much higher quality than what I've
        > seen here lately. While I have been exceedingly
        > disheartened at Tammy's RC conversion at the hands
        > of rather weak (and off the list) Catholic
        > apologetics, the above quotation (and the like of
        > which most of your posts have been full of) is
        > only going to make matters worse and have the side
        > effect of convincing those that are actually
        > familiar with VanTil that you should not be taken
        > seriously.
        >
        > Tammy, whom I now consider an adversary on this
        > list (one I'm as fond of as all of my other
        > friends and foes here) enumerated some of the
        > problems with VanTil's thought and the above is
        > your only reply? Shall I, considering myself an
        > adherent of VanTil, enumerate some other problems?
        > Off the top of my head:
        >
        > 1) VanTil's formulation of the Trinity (which is
        > probably nothing more than a syntactical problem)
        > 2) David Byron's Fristianity argument
        > 3) All knowledge is 'analogical' to the 'truth'
        > which only God knows (as Clark, following Tammy
        > (or maybe vs. vrs.) pointed out).
        > 4) There has never been a successfully formulated
        > TAG (and perhaps never can be).
        >
        > Of course, Clark's problems are even more
        > numerable but your one example doesn't even make
        > sense; it seems like you just threw some words
        > together.
        >
        > I've been really busy with work (and family and
        > play) lately but I thought I needed to say
        > something or this list would be going down the
        > tubes. Please read through the archives, there is
        > some good (and even VanTillian) argumentation
        > there (although, of course, none of it from Don
        > ... :-) ).
        >
        > VanTillian Jim (liTnaV2 on aol IM)
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > TraditionalDogmatics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.