# Does Paul offer a classical apologetic in Romans 1?



## Monergism (Jul 30, 2004)

In Romans 1, is Paul taking a classical apologetic method to make an argument from intelligent design or is he taking a presuppositional apologetic method to make an argument from the impossibility of knowledge without God? I will post the text for an easy reference.


Romans 1:18-25 NASB

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2004)

Brett:
You asked:
[quote:c63b77b9a6]In Romans 1, is Paul taking a classical apologetic method to make an argument from intelligent design or is he taking a presuppositional apologetic method to make an argument from the impossibility of knowledge without God? I will post the text for an easy reference. [/quote:c63b77b9a6]

Categorically, Romans 1 is a Classical argument. It is not just an argument from design, though, for that is a modern addendum. The design argument, as we know it today, is a recent addition to the reasoning, and likely was not part of Paul's original thought. However, a form of the design argument is still part of it. 

What makes this a Classical argument categorically, is the time frame and not the argument itself. Romans is a carefully argued statement of theology from beginnng to end, with three distinct parts. As such, it was argued in a period of history known as Classical. To call it Presuppositional is anachronistic. Also remember that the Ontological Argument is also an argument from the impossibility of knowledge without God. 

I think your question is a prejudicial question, not one of factual or categorical importance. I believe it is wrong to wrestle any part of Scripture into one of our favoured or pet theories. It is best to keep to our theories, but also to make sure that they remain subject to Scripture. If we make the Classical or Presuppositional views equal to, or even normative for Scriptural interpretation, then I think we have overstepped the boundaries of our freedoms and limits.

You would do well to acknowledge what Scriture teaches, and to value what each methodology aids you to understand.


----------



## Monergism (Jul 30, 2004)

[quote:feaea83e06]First, the knowledge Paul speaks of is immediate not the mediate, discursive, process that classicalism speaks of. [/quote:feaea83e06]


Paul,

Could you explain the difference between mediate and immediate knowledge of God?


----------



## Monergism (Jul 30, 2004)

Paul,

Thank you, that helps a lot. It did raise another question in my mind. I understood your argument that an infant doesn't come to the knowledge of God mediately. Does that mean an infant has immediate knowledge of God then? If so, would that not leave infants without excuse and hence under the wrath of God? Can you explain why "men" in Romans 1:18 does not exclude infants and those who are mentally ill? Do most presupp. apologists take this position?


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2004)

[quote:7ba5d2f5ab]To John, 

I brought this up with you before. Your newest stance that we shouldn't fit our systems into Scripture and say that anyone is *the* correct one is self-defeating. *YOU* have a system, you have to. And you seem to think your right. If so, you think your system is the one correct view. If you don't then you can't say that mine isn't. I find this agnostacism an ad hoc response to all the arguments I've given you for presuppositionalism. I know that you have an axe to grind because of how you have been treated by some in the past. Your position just proves presuppositionalism, though. What I want to know is how does your system work in the real world? Anyone can talk but how does it work. There is a time to move past aguments about method and get to the real appplication of defending the faith. Can your system accomplish this task? 

Paul[/quote:7ba5d2f5ab]

This is not a form of agnosticism. Perhaps you mean gnosticism. But even that this is not. 

You are right, I do believe I am right. I would be a fool to hold to something I did not believe. But even so, there are some things I do not have reasoned out (to the nth degree) and yet believe. But these things, some of which I confess I do not understand, I believe because Scripture says they are true. And that is reason enough for me.

My system can accomplish very little, if anything. If God chooses to use what He has given me to know, then it is to accomplish His purposes. Meanwhile, He has given me to understand some things that you don't agree with. But I cannot give myself over to what you believe because I do not believe it myself. What I believe I believe prayerfully and carefully, and not irresponsibly. For myself, I find the system I have as more persuasive and more faithful to Scripture. I have to wrestle with the fact that other faithful men, such as yourself, are persuaded of other things. I have no right to impose what I think is true on another. Only Scripture may do that. And getting Scripture to fit does not make it any more necessary, for that is also necessitating an interpretation that is questionable. If Scripture does not impose, than neither will I. 

How I have been treated by others has had an effect on me. The fact that the perpetrator of such an authoritarianism stood on a Presuppositional and Theonomic platform should be no basis for judging those platforms as wrong. He also stood on Calvinist soteriology, and on Post-Millennial eschatology, and on the Millennial Kingdom-oriented gospel. That does not make any of these wrong in themselves. It was his authoritarian approach that made it wrong. If we did not abide by what his interpretation of these matters were, then we did not understand the Bible, and we were not as Reformed as he. He went over the denomination's head, for the denomination imposes no such things, except for Calvinistic soteriology. 

The Belgic Confession is clear: we are to judge such teachers as false. They put man ahead of the Confessional church, and even ahead of Scripture, imposing the doctrines of man, and claiming status for one man above and beyond what the Church or Scripture has authorized. I did not stand against him because he taught these things, but because he taught them as if his views were equal to Scripture itself.

As you can percieve, this ought to have nothing to do with my personal views on these matters in and of themselves. As I am convinced of the A-Mil position so far, I am yet in some consternation that the possibilities exist that the interpretations of some texts that Post-Mils and Pre-Mils hold to could indeed be true, even though I disagree with them, and that I would have to amend my A-Mil view accordingly. I may be convinced, but the question is still there, "What does the Bible really say?" I may be able to explain texts to accommodate my A-Mil views, but it does not follow that therefore Scripture intends for them to mean that. So I can hold the view, and think it true, and yet know how to subject it to Scripture.

If the millennial view were that important, and if it were that clear, then the Church would have included it in the Confessions. She did not. No one man other than Christ has that kind of authority to impose what the Church does not impose.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2004)

I'm sorry, I had to go, so I cut myself off kind of short in the above post. I'm back now, but no less pressed for time. I'll finish this off tomorrow, or maybe Monday. 

I want to bring this back to the apologetic, and not just leave it at the example I gave using the Millennial views. I only went that route because it derived from the "experiences" I have had in that and other areas. And with the Millennial views its easier to see our limitations, since we are talking about some thing yet to be, which will be heavy with historical context at that time, a context we have no idea of now.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 31, 2004)

[quote:495fa572fd]Your newest stance that we shouldn't fit our systems into Scripture and say that anyone is *the* correct one is self-defeating. *YOU* have a system, you have to. And you seem to think your right. If so, you think your system is the one correct view. If you don't then you can't say that mine isn't. I find this agnostacism an ad hoc response to all the arguments I've given you for presuppositionalism.[/quote:495fa572fd]
This stance is not new. Nor am I saying that we should not fit our "systems" into Scripture. What I am saying that I have refrained from until now is that it is too much to say that any one system is the very one that Scripture teaches. Our knowledge, no matter how educated we are, does not reach to that extent to know that.

There are difficulties with even the best of our understandings. To deny that is to just turn away from them as if they don't exist. The problem is our limitations, not truth itself. 

An illustration I have used in other circles may be appropriate here. A group of about ten or twelve learned men are sitting around a conference table. They are looking at the blue vase situated in the middle of the table. Half of them say that the vase is blue; the other half says that the vase itself does not have an attribute of colour, but rather that it reflects light that our brains interpret as blue, each one to that hue which he calls "blue". We do not know whether each one sees the same colour, but we only indentify that which we see by the same name. Half is convinced one way, and half the other way. And neither side has the convincing argument that necessitates their view. 

In some ways our differing methodologies are like that. Both sides see necessites from Scripture that the other does not. Both sides would like to impose their necessities on Scripture, so to speak. That is, they may interpret Scripture in such a way that it exonerates their view. But none of this is what Scripture calls us to. It is Scripture that is the norm, the revelation. We may fit our view nicely into the Scripture, but Scripture may yet spit it out. We may know a lot, but we just do not know enough to say that the one view we hold is the one that Scripture asserts. The fact is, Scripture did not make a point of asserting it. That was how I knew that that authoritarian preacher was wrong. He not only made it Confessional, he made it central, and hence more important than the Confessions. And that is going far too far. If Calvin, if the Westimister Assembly, if the Synod of Dordt, had been convinced of Presuppositionalism, or of one of the Millennial views, and thought it necessary to believe that position, they would have included it. And then we would know that they had overstepped their offices, for the Scripture makes no such teaching known to us, either by direct revelation or by good and necessary inference. 

I've used the word "necessary" quite often. It isn't good enough that one person, or a group of persons thinks that there is no way out but to accept Presuppositionalism. It has to be acknowledged by the church as a whole. It is within the Confessional standard to hold to it, but it is not within the Confessional standard to impose it. It is within the Confessional standard to think it ought to be confessed by all, to be of that opinion; it is not within the standard to say that therefore it will be. 

It is so even with something that is within the standards of faith. We hold, along with the Confessions, that baptizing our children is a must, an act of covenantal obedience. But it also implies that, if our children which are too young to make a profession of faith, are included in the covenant, then so are those who profess their faith, but do not agree with Covenant Theology, and do not baptize their children. Covenantal membership is not based on our reaching our standard of knowledge; it is founded on God's appointing. Based on that confession which necessitates the baptism of our children we find also the necessity that we cannot easily oust someone who does not hold to that tenet, though it is confessional. So even confessional matters have to be handled with great care, so as not to overrule Scripture by adhering to the Confessions. 

As I said, this is not new. It has been part of our standards from the beginning. We are warned to watch out for those who would impose doctrines on us that are not the ones handed down to us through the Apostles. Our part in this is to know our limitations, to know how to believe things such as Millennial views, or apologetic methodologies, based on Scripture, and yet to know that Scripture itself is higher than our views, that we do not have as wide a scope as we think we have when we assume too much, and make claims that go beyond Scripture.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 31, 2004)

Paul:

[quote:9501f324ed]Does this mean that all the parts of the system are perfect? No, just like the Reformers knew we would always have to be reforming... sola fide is correct. But all the works written about it do not exhaust the biblical truth regarding it. Likewise, presuppositionalism is THE correct method. It is the way that God would have us reason. This DOES NOT mean that all the parts are perfect and that we can't expand on truths tought in it. [/quote:9501f324ed]


I can agree with this. As long as we can grow in truth together, then our differing understandings will be of benefit to each other. I may not agree with what you hold to, but I yet support your holding to it if you rely on the Word for your understanding, just as I rely on the Word for mine.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Aug 2, 2004)

Romans 1 seems like the foundations for presuppositionalism to me.

While I'm not an apologetic ninja, or even trainee, the text seems like theological grounding more than apologetical argumentation. Paul is giving the Romans the "OK team, here is what we're dealing with" speech before they go out into the world.

And he's talking about a giant rift. He's describing the unbelieving side of the great abyss which stands Christendom and the unredeemed world. A rift only bridged by the Holy Spirit in his regenerative workings.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 2, 2004)

We musn't confuse apologetics and theology.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:5e41a762cb]And he's talking about a giant rift. He's describing the unbelieving side of the great abyss which stands Christendom and the unredeemed world. A rift only bridged by the Holy Spirit in his regenerative workings.[/quote:5e41a762cb]
I thought he was talking about the commonality of the knowledge of God, whether or not the man has the gospel. Yet even so, this is not exclusively within the Presup domain. Actually it is in the Presup domain, as well as within the domains of all apologetical efforts before Presup. 

I want to just throw something out for consideration; something that struck me as I was reading Malcolm Muggeridge's [u:5e41a762cb]The End of Christendom[/u:5e41a762cb]:

The above may presuppose another thing as well. May I ask, is there anyone on this Board who has a tendency to think that the centuries of church dominance, in both the East and the West, and including the time when the West brought the gospel way out, even to the Orient and to the New World, is that Millennium of which Rev. 20 speaks? I say, "has a tendency to believe"; I am not saying, "believes it dogmatically."

The reason I ask that is because the idea of a "post-Christian era", which our time has been called quite often, would seem to presuppose a previous "Christian era." And if that is so, then is that "Christian era" that millennial age? And what are the marks of that era, to mark it off from our present era? And if this is so, then do we not regard Rom. 1:19-21 accordingly? 

That the reign of Christendom is over seems to be almost unanimous, except in Reformed circles, where people recognize that Christ has promised that He will never leave or forsake His Church, and that His rule has no end. No matter where we place the Millennium, we are always sure of Christ's promises, and assured of the victory of the Church, even now already. But it does say something, does it not, of the sway of thought in our time? It does seem to be an accurate accouting of the flow of history, and how the culture which once held to Biblical forms has given way to a chaos of norms, saying evil is good, and right is wrong, also as Jesus predicted. 

People used to just argue against Biblical history, or the scientific accuracy of the Bible, or even denied the possibility of miracles. They do so no longer. They are now wrapped up in forming new morals, new "non-religious" laws, and a new age of evolutionary advancement. And it is overwhelming even our Christian leaders, who have to abide by the "correctness" that empowers them to rule. 

Does not the Bible ring out here? Surely they know. Does not He who formed the ear hear? Does not He who formed the eye see? Does not He by Whom we know know? Surely Rom. 1 rings out here, for try as they might, there are no new morals, just an empty promise of immorality; there are no "non-religious" laws, just tyrrany; and there is no next evolutionary era, just godlessness and every kind of debauchery. If nothing else, surely the former regime of the USSR has taught us at least that much. Surely our era of abortions and homosexuality in our own lands impresses that upon us. 

These things are foisted upon us in the name of freedom and equality; but these terms are completely void of the happiness they promise anymore. They are just cold technical terms in the new regime, and have no personal bearing for us under the new order. 

Suerly we live in a "post-Christendom" era. But we have the certainty that it is not a "post-Christian" era. We believe there is no such era, don't we? Is that not what Rom. 1 means?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2004)

[quote:60455c1a76]Yes we both do. But, the debate is over *how* that knowledge is obtained(?), or held(?), or aquired(?).[/quote:60455c1a76]
Even here I think it is more a dispute about words than about the case in itself. I would rather not indulge in the "how" it is so, but rather be sure that Rom. 1 talks about "that" it is so. I see more profit in discussing the question I stated than in debating whether the Apostle is advocating our favourite apologetic methodology. After all, we can't go and ask him; but we can analyze our own time in light of history and Scripture. And we do not have to be divided by our methodolgies, but rather use them to advantage for each other. That is why I posed the question, to deflect the point at issue. 

We don't have to though. It was just a suggestion.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 3, 2004)

[quote:074209c2c2]I'm just saying that this is where a big part of the debate is between the classicalists and myself. The *that* it is so is uninportant since that is obvious from Scriptuture. If I can show the classicalist's way to be in error then a huge point would have been scored for the presup side... wouldn't you say?[/quote:074209c2c2]
If I could show the Presup's way to be in error, I would not have won anything at all. I may have scored, but all I can do is take home the points and hang them on the wall. But they don't do anyone any good at all. I see no value whatsoever in one methodology defeating another, when there is so much to be gained by the proper application of both. Can't you see, Paul, that if you defeat Classicalism, you also defeat Presuppositionalism? Because there has always been a thread of Presuppositionalism in any argumentation, to defeat the properly applied tenets of Presuppositionalism would defeat Classicalism and Evidentialism. To wipe out Evidentialism, or Classicalism would take the footing out from under Presuppositionalism, for it simply cannot be denied that these are the foundations of Presuppositionalism.

I don't see these as antagonistic; I see these as progressive thought. Unfortunately, I also see many Presup's taking on modern gnostic language when it comes to the use of terms and formation of ideas. I see that, at times, only a disembodied mind can appropriate or comprehend the terms, but not the soul. This is also the progress of thought, but perhaps better thought of as regress. That is to say, unless I am more careful to say that by progress I mean to denote the developement, whether good or bad, from the past to today, we could speak of either regress or progress with the same intent.

I know that this is difficult to convey. But that is precisely where the difficulty lies. It seems an unbridgeable gap in ideas. That is why you will see me opposing some Presuppers, but not necessarily all Presuppositionalism. The modern Presupper has no hope of convincing me of Presuppositionalism, as held by many today, such as Bahnsen or Butler; yet I do not at all think myself irresolute for taking up some of the Presuppositional tenets into my thinking, and being provoked to thought by Van Til. I see a sharp difference between the two forms. 

No one can take away from me the empirical evidence that I see all around me. It is just a war of words to me if one tries, and nothing more. For what words can remove what it is that God has allowed me to see, though many walk by me each and every day who cannot see it? Can words convince man of that which he will not see? Can evidence demonstrate to a man what he will not believe? I don't think so. He has a rebellious soul. Yet that in no way has any ill effect on the evidence itself or the truth itself, but only on the man who will not see or believe. Mere words, if they cannot convince of the truth, are certainly powerless to tear down the truth. 

I take you back to that room where a dozen learned men are sitting around a table, studying the blue vase set in the middle of the table. Some say it is blue, and some say we only interpret it as blue. It used to be that all learned men would have said it was blue, but not anymore. But even if eleven out of twelve were to declare that we only interpret it a blue, that would in no way change the fact that the vase is blue, if that were true. I will choose with the one, and not the eleven, because when all is said and done, the eleven have gained nothing by their insight. They have traded one arbitrary observation with another, and that is all, nothing more. For why should not their observation extend to shape, to distance, to table, to floor, to chair, to eleven other men? What are these except interpretations and not facts to them? They have not only lost the blueness of the vase, if they continue in their dilemma. 

But I can boldly believe that the vase is blue. It is not just the intellect that tells me that, for a soulless intellect is no intellect at all. And if you are careful to notice, that is really the strength of the Presuppositional stance, and not the declamation of evidences or principles. That is why I see no value in defeating each other's views.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 3, 2004)

Well, I suppose that this is exactly what I was trying to say. Only I don't see either 'ism' as the end of the search for truth. To say that it ends in one of these 'isms' is missing the mark, I think. It is the route at best, perhaps, but not the goal. Truth itself is the goal. And truth itself will rid us of all the 'isms'.

I am not so sure that I misrepresented your position Paul. I did not mean to state it in the first place. I was only observing what I have seen in the way of some of those who hold to that position. That does not mean that I don't see problems with some who hold to Classicalism or Evidentialism. I even find problems with my own understandings. It will likely scare me when I cease to find difficulties anymore, for it will not mean that I have found all the answers, but that I have stopped looking into the questions. It is not that I state that your position stands on evidences, it is just that I have not yet seen one argument from a Presup that doesn't, just the same as I have not yet seen one argument that doesn't presuppose. I don't think I have misunderstood; but instead it seems to me that the Presups don't take themselves seriously enough. Call it my failing if you like, but I am only trying to help, not hinder. If Presup has to win, then I am with you, but it won't happen at the rate it is going, and it simply cannot happen at the expense of evidences or principles. 

The best that we can hope for is to show that men are going about it all wrong; but we can never upend the witness of the creation, or the witness of the Apostles. We may turn everyone into a Presupper, but that will do exactly nothing to the force of empirical facts that is embedded in the creation of all of nature. The Apostles could reason in the Synagogues from week to week, but that was founded upon the fact that they saw, they touched, and they witnessed. It was the primary prerequiste to being an Apostle. And we believe, even though we have not seen or touched; but yet our faith is founded no differently than theirs, or they would not be our fathers.

Recognizing the fundamental position of the presupposition is only a more exacting way of doing Evidentialism, not a different way. It is the more exacting Classical argument, and even the more precise Ontological Argument. But it cannot be a totally different or unrelated approach. Even Bahnsen wanted to bring us back to Evidentialism, only the right way. All I am suggesting is that the other is equally valid, presupposing the right way. For they cannot be divorced without suffering damage to the separated parts.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Oct 28, 2004)

John,
I myself would rate both positions as being fideistic, because they are not conclusive proof of the existence of God. The atheist Michael Martin has some very good critiques of Presuppositionalism as promoted by Bahnsen(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/presup.html). "To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true." 
This is the type of true, honest opposition that is being set forth. The Presuppositionalism that I have been exposed to does not earnestly and caringly consider the questions and misunderstandings of the unbeliever. Don't get me wrong. The unbeliever hates God, but we should be able to conclusively leave them denying their rational thought in order to deny God. This is the only way to truly avoid fideistic short-comings and gaps in our understanding of God. We must expose the unbelievers unbelief through showing that it is clear (cannot be denied without denying one's humanity), and thus they are inexcusable for not believing. There are problems when we begin to blend the realms of being and thought. We think and then we understand. We see God's creation, and then we ignorantly deny His existence, because we are not willing. But when we are regenerated we see that God exists through what has been made, not apart from that. We understand the Bible to be the Word of God because it is consistent with God's more basic revelations: Creation being one of them. The Bible is not simply the word of God because it says so. The Book of Morman and the Koran do this. So the PSist should ask himself how does He know that these books are not Scripture? But how can He question it if it says that it is the Word of God? This is where other problems come in. 

Paul,
I think that Paul in Romans 1 is speaking about mediate knowledge. 

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

We both believe that all unbelievers are without excuse and will suffer maximal punishment (eternity in spiritual death). In order for God to punish maximally, He must find the unbeliever to be maximally inexcusable. In order for the unbeliever to be maximally inexcused, God's communication of Himself must be maximally clear. Paul is telling us why all men are inexcusable: b/c it is clear. How is it clear? Paul uses mediate sources to tell us why it is clear: "God's invisible qualities . . . have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . .". This is not an immediate knowledge. This is something that must be seen and formulatively understood, this is opposed to the innate and immediate knowledge that it seems you are saying Paul purports. 
Now it is clear that Van Til believed that Rom. 1:21 was "the most difficult of passages" to understand. But it should not be if we are supposed to understand that God's existence is Clear. I must ask you where you find justification for stating that "all men know God". This certainly is very dear to PSism but cannot be found in scripture directly. I would say that this interpretation is due to a misunderstanding of the passage as a whole. We see that God is speaking of men who had the knowledge, but then rejected it. There is a transition going on. This could easily be shown by the following vers in Rom. 1, "28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." Cain was handed down the knowledge of God by Adam. He rejected it, and "did not think it worthwhile to RETAIN the knowledge of God". Thereafter, Cain did not hand the knowledge down to his children, and they were given over to their desires. I believe that this is more consistent with understanding that the revelation is clear. 
Let me know what you think.
Knight


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 28, 2004)

Knight,

How do those who supress knowledge hate God if they don't know him? That makes little sense to me that men's knowledge is so corrupted that they cannot believe biblical propositions of the bible. 

I think that the men of Romans 1 (and Paul's argument) is just that - God is known to them, and they hate Him, and supress that truth desiring to continue in thier sin.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Oct 29, 2004)

Scott, 

I appreciate you pointing that out. I need to be more clear in my communication. Forgive me.

I do think that the genesis account of the fall can help here:

Satan's proposal:
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 

We know that God said that in the day that Adam and Eve should eat of the tree, they would surely die. Satan then proposes this idea that Eve and Adam will surely not die (beginning by questioning the consequence of death as the conclusion of God's statement). He then states that Adam and Eve will be like God, knowing good and evil. It was clear through the creation that God was omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and, as the creator, the determiner of good and evil for man. Adam and Eve believed what was false about God and this is what led them into sin. They believed Satan when he said that they could know good and evil as the creator. They should have recognized that God is the creator of man, and that they could never reasonably determine good and evil for themselves as the creator does. Instead, they believed Satan when he said that they would surely not die, and chose to eat the fruit. It is this autonomy that fills every false religion. This pride is the root of sin: to determine good and evil for ourselves, and reject the good and evil that has been laid out by the creator.
We died because they believed what was false about God. Because they began seeking their own autonomy they lost what knowledge they did have of Him. We do not know God innately. Paul says that it is the creation that speaks of His attributes, and the creation is what will condemn us as inexcusable. If we knew of God innately, there would be no reason for Paul to bring the creation into the exposition. It is the creation that is clear. However, we are unwilling to seek the good through it. All men use the laws of thought at the most basic level to communicate and form concepts, affirming their humanity, but all are unwilling to use these very same laws of thought to see what is clear about God in the creation, and know Him by it. It is the willingness that has been affected, and thus the unwillingness of the human mind is what causes man to not know God. We are all born into an unwillingess (a hate for God), not a direct knowledge of what we hate, but more so an ignorance, hate, and unwillingness to recognize that we are finite and that there must be something infinite. The infinite's glorification should be the finite's main concern, but the finite is not concerned with this. We, left to oursleves, would not know God in any sense. We would be so ignorant and autonomous that our eyes would reject everything that does not serve that as our end. But God has placed the creation in place in order to attest to our unwillingness to recognize the the truth of what is clear. It is so clear that any rational creature can see it if they look, but they are unwilling to look apart from what serves their own autonomy. This is what Paul is speaking about when he says in Romans 3 that no one understands and no one seeks God. It is only by the Holy Spirit's power that we reject our autonomous agenda, and, as a result, come to a willingness to search for what God has clearly shown of Himself through creation and Scripture. Let me know what you think.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 29, 2004)

Gregory:

I just noticed this thread has been reopened, and that you addressed your first post to me. I'm sorry I missed it. 

I have been busy in the Theonomy thread. If you have noticed it, we put up two whole pages (or more) of posts in a few hours. It was hard reading it all and keeping up. 

I'll have time tomorrow to read and answer your post. I've glanced at it, and need to read it more closely. 

I'm also closer to finishing my piece on the Ontologcal Argument. Lately I've had a few flashes of new ideas, so some of it is being formed yet. And I have to sort a lot of notes yet too. But I've got the main part of it straight in my mind now, and know what to do with it. So I have the order, mostly, the outline that is, and much of the material. I just need to finish typing it up, and do the editing. Meanwhile, I keep digging.

So, I'll be back tomorrow to answer you.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 30, 2004)

Sorry Gregory, but I'll have to put this off until Monday. Company just came. My little granddaughter is here, and that means both my hands and my lap is full. What a way to go, though.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 30, 2004)

Gregory, under your view that unregenerate men do not have an innate knowledge of God that they are suppressing, how do you explain Romans 2:14-15 (ESV): "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them." The law is intrinsically by nature an expression of God's character, since there are no "neutral" ethics, and any external "good" things unbelievers do are in fact only present because of common grace, which comes from God. If your view that they do not in fact know God at all anymore was true, the world would be a much worse place than it is. As illustrated by Romans 2:14-15, Scripture teaches that all men do have an innate knowledge of God since they have such a knowledge of His law, and thus the effect of sin on their lives results in a radical suppression of that knowledge, rather than a disappearance of it. For if their innate knowledge of God ceased after they suppressed it as you say, they would not longer be without excuse after that point. Furthermore, as Scott pointed out, your view cannot account for unregenerate man's "hate" of God. If they did not innately know Him in some way, it would be absurd to speak of their hatred of Him, as do passages such as Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 68:1, Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13 and Romans 1:30.



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> I myself would rate both positions as being fideistic, because they are not conclusive proof of the existence of God.



And what type of apologetic would you propose gives conclusive proof of Yahweh's existence if not presuppositionalism? Evidentialism and Clarkian apologetics are fideistic in that they both presuppose ways of thought that the unbeliever does not have to accept. However, that same error is precisely what Van Tillian apologetics, on the other hand, exposes in unbelief. It shows that the unbeliever in their autonomy has no basis to claim knowledge of anything they assert, including objections to Christianity. Have you listened to Bahnsen's debate with Stein?



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> The atheist Michael Martin has some very good critiques of Presuppositionalism as promoted by Bahnsen(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/presup.html). "To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true."
> This is the type of true, honest opposition that is being set forth.



I was recently talking to Paul Manata about this, and he pointed out that for one thing, critics such as Martin are certainly _not_ just giving "true, honest" objections as you say - for his heart and mind are depraved and hate and suppress God, and far from being objective and neutral in his analysis, he undeniably has an axe to grind. Paul also wrote a paper refuting one of Martin's other papers entitled "Are There Really No Atheists?" and pointed out to me that Martin's critique you cite above is a really petty critique, anyway. Martin's basically saying, "Well, so what if you've shown that I have to presume Christianity in order to consistently use logic anywhere else, that still doesn't prove that Christianity is true!" He's clearly grasping at straws here, and if he was consistent with his claim, he would have to stop using speech and logic altogether. But Paul said it better than I can: "He says that just because A presupposes B that does not mean B is true. First, that's not too bad, apologetically, is it? Martin is saying: 'Maybe logic presupposes Christianity... but that doesn't mean Christianities true!' Aren't they desperate? Martin goes on to say, which Knight didn't quote, that A might not be true because one reason is: 'deductive validity may be a myth.' Ha! That is some serious, honest, scholarship. Wow! Christianity might not be true because logic may be a myth.. give me a break, honest critiques. Sounds like someone has an axe to grind. Lastely, A may not be true but it IS true if it is a transcendental.. and you know what ol' honest Martin does? yup, he doesn't even address that; AT ALL. So much the worse for the tough challenges out there for presuppositionalism."



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> The Presuppositionalism that I have been exposed to does not earnestly and caringly consider the questions and misunderstandings of the unbeliever. Don't get me wrong. The unbeliever hates God, but we should be able to conclusively leave them denying their rational thought in order to deny God. This is the only way to truly avoid fideistic short-comings and gaps in our understanding of God. We must expose the unbelievers unbelief through showing that it is clear (cannot be denied without denying one's humanity), and thus they are inexcusable for not believing.



See my second paragraph in this post.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> John,
> I myself would rate both positions as being fideistic, because they are not conclusive proof of the existence of God. The atheist Michael Martin has some very good critiques of Presuppositionalism as promoted by Bahnsen(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/presup.html). "To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true."
> This is the type of true, honest opposition that is being set forth. The Presuppositionalism that I have been exposed to does not earnestly and caringly consider the questions and misunderstandings of the unbeliever. Don't get me wrong. The unbeliever hates God, but we should be able to conclusively leave them denying their rational thought in order to deny God. This is the only way to truly avoid fideistic short-comings and gaps in our understanding of God. We must expose the unbelievers unbelief through showing that it is clear (cannot be denied without denying one's humanity), and thus they are inexcusable for not believing. There are problems when we begin to blend the realms of being and thought. We think and then we understand. We see God's creation, and then we ignorantly deny His existence, because we are not willing. But when we are regenerated we see that God exists through what has been made, not apart from that. We understand the Bible to be the Word of God because it is consistent with God's more basic revelations: Creation being one of them. The Bible is not simply the word of God because it says so. The Book of Morman and the Koran do this. So the PSist should ask himself how does He know that these books are not Scripture? But how can He question it if it says that it is the Word of God? This is where other problems come in.
> ...



Gregory:
I think there is some very insightful material here to think about. I thank you for this. 

We have seen philosophy in general take a turn since the time of Descartes. And even he is part of the change actually. I noted that at one time, and got it from Paul, so I'm not going to repeat that part of it. But it is true that philosophy has turned introspective, from trying to understand the whole of the world, the physical and the spiritual, to prying into how we understand at all. A lot of what we read and discuss is of this latter suasion. And as such, I think, Presuppositionalism makes a good answer to that form of question. That is not the only form of question that people ask, though. 

So instead of seeing one view supplanting all others, we rather have one limited view standing on, and being supported by other limited views, each one addressing different aspects of the questions raised by philosophy in general. 

Are they all fideistic? I really don't want to say that it all depends on what you mean by that. In a way all knowledge must be fideistic, an acceptance of truth based on the testimony of authority, for we are not our own authority. And that is what Presuppositionalism champions. And rightly so. Does that make it fideistic? It certainly doesn't have to. If these views all stand together, then of course any one is as fideistic as the others, or not fideistic like the others. That's how I view them. 

It is the exclusiveness that I object to. When comparing views, I think that one would tend to one more than another. But if one declares his view to be the right one, he does so on his own authority, because he doesn't have any other. And in that sense it is fideistic. But that would be as true for one view as for another. If that is what you're saying, then I agree. 

Making the most out of the authority we have is, I think, what Paul and I were talking about. Regarding that critique by Michael Martin, I don't know him from Adam really. The bare logic, is of course true; but Paul and I would both dispute that this is a valid critique. If "A" is true, and "A" is only understandable because of "B", then it must follow that "B" is true as well. This goes in either of the views we were discussing. If "B" is just a proposed intermediate, that makes "A" understandable, as he seems to say that some Presuppostionalists and Evidentialists assert, then his critique is valid. But that's not what we are saying. We are saying that "A" is true; and it is not that "B" is one answer among many, it is the only answer ever imagined. One cannot imagine another. That is the basic ontological assumption that Paul and I agreed on somewhere, I can't remember the thread. Our difference is in how to establish that from our different viewpoints. And that is a valid discussion.

But we are both acting in faith to the truths God has given us.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Nov 1, 2004)

Christopher,
First of all, I have a friend in Memphis that attends Independent Pres. Church. They just had a great speaker, Dr. Eric Alexander, who you can listen to at http://www.indepres.org/. From what I can know about them here in AZ, they seem like a pretty solid church, founded on what most Reformed Pres. would desire. And I think that the pastor was close friends with James M. Boice.

Back to the subject at hand, unbelievers are a testimoony against themselves b/c at the core of their thought they presuppose the laws of thought in order to function as a human. Their conscience bears witness against them b/c they are unwilling to be consistent in the very function that makes them human: reason. They use it to form thoughts and beliefs about their autonomy, but they don't use it to critically test those beliefs and see what is clear about God in creation.

John,

In regards to our present discussion of fideism, I ask, what is reason?
Can you agree to the following terms?

Reason is ontological. It applies to being as well as to thought. There are no square-circles, no uncaused events, no being from non-being. God is not both eternal and not eternal in the same respect and at the same time. If reason did not apply to being then statements could be true and not true in the same respect and at the same time. If a could be non-a, then being could not be distinguished from non-being. All distinctions would lose meaning, and all meaning would be lost. Our understanding of God depends on our commitment to understanding that a=a, a cannot be non-a, and a must be a or non-a.
Reason is transcendental. It is authoritative in the realm of thought. It is self-attesting, and is the highest authority in the realm of thought. It cannot be questioned because it makes questioning possible. A statement which violates a law of reason is not meaningful and cannot be true, regardless of its source.

I have to run. I may be back to revise and expound. Let me know your thoughts.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> First of all, I have a friend in Memphis that attends Independent Pres. Church. They just had a great speaker, Dr. Eric Alexander, who you can listen to at http://www.indepres.org/. From what I can know about them here in AZ, they seem like a pretty solid church, founded on what most Reformed Pres. would desire. And I think that the pastor was close friends with James M. Boice.



Thanks for letting me know that, but I'm already making arrangements with a PCA church here. I guess I'll probably need to change my signature pretty soon here.



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> Back to the subject at hand, unbelievers are a testimoony against themselves b/c at the core of their thought they presuppose the laws of thought in order to function as a human. Their conscience bears witness against them b/c they are unwilling to be consistent in the very function that makes them human: reason. They use it to form thoughts and beliefs about their autonomy, but they don't use it to critically test those beliefs and see what is clear about God in creation.



Agreed - this is exactly part of what presuppositionalism teaches. So why do you see it as being fideistic? Also, if you agree that unbelievers' failure to see the truth is only due to their sin blinding their intellects, how can you call critiques such as Martin's "true" and "honest"? Furthermore, how does the fact that unbelievers don't use their reason to rightly contemplate God and His truth necessitate the claim that they lack all knowledge of Him, even suppressed knowledge?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> John,
> 
> In regards to our present discussion of fideism, I ask, what is reason?
> ...



Well, I'll agree with your last statement, if you say so. I have no cause to doubt it. If you have to run, then you have to run.

As to the rest: You are referring to reason as a principle, and not as an action by man in his mind. Man's reason is limited by his own limitedness. But reason itself, is really the unity of truth realized. And truth has to be a unit. If it is compartmentalized into even a minimum of two dichotomous sectors, then there is no certainty or knowledge of truth anymore. 

To be more precise:

Reason as an action upon truth. It goes from _a_ to _b_ to _c_. God knows truth altogether, and does not need to reason in that manner. He not only knows truth, but is not subject to it. He knows _a, b,_ and _c_ already without going through the process we call reasoning. It is contrary in this way to say that God reasons. That is the limitedness that applies to that word. 

On the other hand, God reasons perfectly, not because He is subject to truth also, but because He condescends to us to give us knowledge so we can reason. His foolishness is wiser than our wisdom, and so reasons better on His worst days (which of course is a hyperbole) than any man on his best day. Just because God does not have to reason doesn't mean He doesn't reason at all. 

In days gone by man was intent to know ontologically. Now man strives to know transcendentally. And if this is what you mean, then I agree with you. Man's attempts to philosophize have turned from looking at things about him to looking inside his own head. Both are necessary. Once one knows how he knows, he still needs to understand the things to know. And they also bear witness to God's eternal power and deity.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Nov 2, 2004)

Okay.
Let me ask you a few questions.

Is God a seperate being from us?
Due to the inevitability of your answer, I will say yes in your stead.

What is then necessary for beings to recieve/give info from/to other beings?
some form of communication.

What is necessary for a being to recieve communication from another being?
rationality. A being must be able to conceptualize a as a and non-a as non-a in order for it to recieve communication from another being. If we undermine this by saying that we are finite and cannot use reason rightly, then we cannot affirm any sort of communication from God.

Man's knowledge of God is through what is made. The communication is more immediate than the concept and finally the being itself. We are dealing with two seperate realms: the Realm of Being, and the Realm of Thought. The Realm of Being encompasses the idea that I am a being, and God is a being seperate from me. In the realm of being there is no concepts, thought, or judgment. What is, simply is. But, this does not concern the epistemic concerns. In the Realm of Thought beings have the ability to communicate. God communicates to man, knowing that he is a seperate being, through communication. There is no immediate knowledge amongst beings, it is only through the Realm of Thought that these beings can conceptualize each other. God knows man through thought, not being. We know God through thought, not being. We argue God's existence from His communication of Himself through the Realm of Thought, not through the Realm of Being. We have no immediate knowedge apart from the Realm of Thought, as it seems PS wants to part God from His infinite attribute of reason. 

In order for God to communicate to man, man must have the ability to reason. The fall did not affect Adam's ability to reason. His duty was to name the creation (req't to understand and distinguish a from non-a). It was enlightening to me to find out that Adam named Eve after the fall. Adam still had the ability to reason at a basic level after the creation. We must understand that it was not the ability that was marred, but our willingness. We are unwilling, without the regeneration of the Spirit, to use the tool of communication that God has given us in order to seek Him and know Him.

God is committed to reason, just as He is to His love and justness. If reason did not apply to God's being then He could be a and non-a. He could be infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time. He could be perfectly infinite in goodness, while He would be perfectly infinite in evilness. We could have no understanding of God if reason did not apply to His being. Just as He is good, so he is reasonable in His being.


Quickly thrown down, hopefully clear. Let me know. Thanks John and Christopher.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 2, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> The fall did not affect Adam's ability to reason.



That is a radical claim, and one which I believe is very contrary to Scripture and has grave implications. The unregenerate sinner walks in futility of mind and has a darkened understanding (Eph. 4:17-18). They are _futile_ in their thinking (Rom 1:21). Furthermore, we are taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith that the fall resulted in man being "wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body," which thus includes his intellect. The truth of that statement could hardly be made clearer than in its first proof-text, Titus 1:15 (ESV, emphasis mine): "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but _both their minds and their consciences are defiled_."

The fact that man's intellect was affected at the fall is further confirmed by noting that his communion with God was most definitely affected, and then observing that communion with God is the whole foundation of intellectual fruit and understanding. For in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3), and "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov. 1:7), _not_ the end result. For it is God "who teaches man knowledge" (Ps. 94:10), and we do not have anything that we have not received from God (1 Cor. 4:7). "The LORD is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam. 2:3), and yet "the wisdom of this world is folly with God" (1 Cor. 3:19), showing that the wisdom of this world is folly to the God of knowledge, and thus it is folly itself!

Given the fact that man's body, his will, his heart and his emotions were all drastically affected by the fall, it is illogical to presume that his intellect was spared. Furthermore, the Scriptures abundantly and plainly declare that the unregenerate mind is defiled, and since we know that the fall drastically affected man's communion with God, and yet Scripture abundantly tells us that any and all true, plain knowledge and understanding begins with communion with God, it is nothing short of biblically absurd to presume that our intellects were untouched by the fall.



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> A being must be able to conceptualize a as a and non-a as non-a in order for it to recieve communication from another being. If we undermine this by saying that we are finite and cannot use reason rightly, then we cannot affirm any sort of communication from God.



In his book _Always Ready_, Dr. Bahnsen answers this objection much better than I ever could:



> The presuppositionalist maintains that the believer _can_ come to know certain things (_despite_ his espoused rejection of God's truth) for the simple reason that he _does_ have revealed presuppositions--and _cannot but have them_ as a creature made as God's image and living in God's created world. Although he outwardly and vehemently denies the truth of God, no unbeliever is inwardly and sincerely devoid of a knowledge of God. Thus, according to biblical epistemology, while men deny their Creator they nevertheless possess an inescapable knowledge of Him; and because they know God (even though they know Him in curse and reprobation) they are able to attain a limited understanding of the world...he can attain knowledge _despite_ himself.



It is the truth of common grace that enables a point of contact between the believer and the unbeliever. In fact, the epistemological mindset of presuppositionalism _guarantees_ such a point of contact, since even though he suppresses it in his futile mind and hard heart, the unbeliever has a vast knowledge of God deep down (as shown by Romans 1). And since the believer has a renewed mind (Eph. 4:23, Col. 3:10) by which He knows God openly and awarely, we are guaranteed many points of common ground on which we may communicate with the unbeliever, even though not an iota of that ground is _neutral_, since it is all fully and solely grounded in the truth and light of God as the beginning of knowledge.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 2, 2004)

Gregory: 

In answer to the last paragraph,


> God is committed to reason, just as He is to His love and justness. If reason did not apply to God's being then He could be a and non-a. He could be infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time. He could be perfectly infinite in goodness, while He would be perfectly infinite in evilness. We could have no understanding of God if reason did not apply to His being. Just as He is good, so he is reasonable in His being.


I would say that this is mixing things up a bit. God is in fact three, and He is one; He is God and He is man, in the Son, but not in the Spirit or in the Father. He is fully the Father, and not the Son or the Spirit; He is fully the Son, and not the Father or the Spirit; and He is fully the Spirit, and not the Father or the Son: He is three, and He is one. He is reasonable, and He is the author of reason. But it cannot be that He can be good and bad, for the one is the opposite of the other. Or, as Augustine has it, the one is the privation of the other. God is not subject to anything. It is not that God can be judged by reason, but that reason is judged by God. 

So reason reflects the character of God. But it is not that God has to be conformed to reason, as if reason is somehow overtop of God. I know you're not saying that, but it is implied, I think, in that way.

I think I know what you're getting at. Though man is fallen, there is yet one standard of reason, which even fallen man must either adhere to or evade. He is subject to reason only one way, and that is truly. The fact that he doesn't reason truly does not damage reason itself, but man's communicative and communicated knowledge. Reason itself still works the same way. And this must be applied properly (or truly) to objects of knowledge for the comprehension of these objects. Man neither invents nor upholds reason or truth, but is either given them or discovers them through the giving of them. And this faculty is innate in man as man, whether fallen or not fallen, because man still is man, even if he is fallen. That is not to say that the Fall did not have a thorough effect on man. But, in his faculties man was found depraved in his faculties after the Fall, not bereft of his faculties.

Is this what you're saying?


----------



## tdowns (Nov 2, 2004)

*Radical!*

Man, you guys can put out the info. I can't really keep up, sped read most of this thread, but don't have the time to get to it all, and at my stage of learning the diff. thoughts, too much for me right now anyway, but great stuff.

Since I've spent my time today reading this, I don't have time to search, can one of you either direct me or post here a short definition of classical and Presupp. And any other if you would like. Like everything else, coming from evangelical church's, don't get much of this. 
We just pass out tracts or scream at people on the corner. lol


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 2, 2004)

Trevor, there are a lot of great free articles by Dr. Bahnsen explaining presuppositionalism, and some critiquing evidentialism, at Covenant Media Foundation's site. A few notables include:

"Van Til's 'Presuppositionalism'"
"Evidential Apologetics: The Right Way"
"The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics" (a longer read)
"Presuppositional Procedure"

The last of those actually goes into explaining the method of using the presuppositional approach. Another good thing to do would be to browse some of the threads in the "Apologetical Methods" forum here on PB. One thread in which I asked the same question you currently are is here.

Two resources that were invaluable to me are Van Til's essay, "Why I Believe in God," which can be found here, and Dr. Bahnsen's lectures and debates, which can be found here. All of them are extremely inexpensive - only $1.99 per mp3 lecture, and almost each file is over an hour. I particularly recommend "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" and "Challenge to Unbelief."

As far as books go, I'd recommend either starting with Richard Pratt's _Every Thought Captive_ or Dr. Bahnsen's _Always Ready_. The former is meant more as a training manual than a deep expose of Van Til's thought, but the method and arguments it develops are strongly rooted in that mindset, and while overly simplistic at times, it really helped familiarize me with a lot of the basics and how they apply. I'm currently reading through the latter book myself, and it presents the whole presuppositional mindset and approach in a more thorough and exhaustive way, but is still extremely concise.

Hope this helps,


----------



## tdowns (Nov 2, 2004)

*Thanks*

Off to read....I'll start with the thread where you asked the question.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Gregory:
> 
> In answer to the last paragraph,
> ...



Could you qualify this statement for me? In the examples that you give, it seems to accurately portray what I am saying. In our understanding of the Trinity we describe it as being 1 God and 3 Persons. Are these divisions in God? The council of Nicea est. that it was not. God is 1 in a and 3 in b. He is not 1 in a and 3 in a (1 God and 3 Gods).

To confront the rest. I would say that you are on for the most part, but let me say this. Fallen man is totally depraved, born with a hate for the good. The good for a rational being is to use reason to the fullest, which would lead a rational being to the Christian God. Man is born in this hate, unwilling to use reason to the fullest, thus not having a knowledge of the Christian God. He lives perfectly evil by willingness, not by inability. Man is unable b/c he is unwilling, it is not that he is unable and thus unwilling. It is his heart's depravity, not his heart's disability.

God is not subject or lesser than reason. Reason is not God. God is not subject or lesser than love. Love is not God. Love and Reason are only properly and infinitely established in the nature of God. However, if God was not infinitely loving, he would not be pure in nature (Evil is concrete to one's nature), and therefore would not be God. If God was not infinitely reasonable then He could not be known, and would not be God. God is not subject to reason as this phrase has bad conotations, but He is necessarily perfectly reasonable. 

Let me know what you think.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> To confront the rest. I would say that you are on for the most part, but let me say this. Fallen man is totally depraved, born with a hate for the good. The good for a rational being is to use reason to the fullest, which would lead a rational being to the Christian God. Man is born in this hate, unwilling to use reason to the fullest, thus not having a knowledge of the Christian God. He lives perfectly evil by willingness, not by inability. Man is unable b/c he is unwilling, it is not that he is unable and thus unwilling. It is his heart's depravity, not his heart's disability.



You continue to say that, but with no evidence whatsoever. I am saying that man's problem lies in _both_ his impaired ability to properly reason _and_ his impaired willingness to do so, which are both a result of sin. You are saying that man's problem lies only in the latter of these, but Scripture simply and plainly disagrees, as I think I have abundantly demonstrated above. Where from Scripture can you support your view that sin did not impair man's very ability to reason properly along with his willingness to do so?



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> God is not subject or lesser than reason. Reason is not God. God is not subject or lesser than love. Love is not God. Love and Reason are only properly and infinitely established in the nature of God.



Agreed.



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> However, if God was not infinitely loving, he would not be pure in nature (Evil is concrete to one's nature), and therefore would not be God. If God was not infinitely reasonable then He could not be known, and would not be God. God is not subject to reason as this phrase has bad conotations, but He is necessarily perfectly reasonable.



But that is not altogether consistent with your previous statement with which I agreed. The issue of disagreement here is not whether He is in fact infinitely "loving" or infinitely "reasonable" - we all agree on that. The issue is the _ontological order_ of those things. In other words, you are inevitably saying that love and reason define God, whereas I am saying that God defines love and reason.

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


The Athanasian Creed makes it a little more acute for us. In reference to the Father, He is _a_; in reference to the Son, He is _a_; and in reference to the Spirit, He is _a_. In reference to the Three individually they are also each _b_. Yet they are one God. But they are not confused in their nature. 



> To confront the rest. I would say that you are on for the most part, but let me say this. Fallen man is totally depraved, born with a hate for the good. The good for a rational being is to use reason to the fullest, which would lead a rational being to the Christian God. Man is born in this hate, unwilling to use reason to the fullest, thus not having a knowledge of the Christian God. He lives perfectly evil by willingness, not by inability. Man is unable b/c he is unwilling, it is not that he is unable and thus unwilling. It is his heart's depravity, not his heart's disability.


It can also occur that the best reasonable thing to do is not to do the best reasonable thing that we think. That's because we have made mistakes in retrospect, even though we were certain that we were doing the best we could do. We just didn't know as well as we could have. And so our own limitation puts us in subjection sometimes to submit against our reason, submitting to those who bear the responsibilities of it. Such as the Church heirarchy. 

Only after all these years do I find that what I thought was a mistake by my parents was in actuality the best answer. I just didn't have the facts like they did. And they too look back and say they could have done it better. We have to remember that limitation in our reasoning. Putting all our ducks in a row doesn't always account for all the ducks that are really there, beyond our sight.



> God is not subject or lesser than reason. Reason is not God. God is not subject or lesser than love. Love is not God. Love and Reason are only properly and infinitely established in the nature of God. However, if God was not infinitely loving, he would not be pure in nature (Evil is concrete to one's nature), and therefore would not be God. If God was not infinitely reasonable then He could not be known, and would not be God. God is not subject to reason as this phrase has bad conotations, but He is necessarily perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Let me know what you think.


I think I see what you mean. Allow me to paraphrase. In the sense that love reflects the nature of God, love is God. Love without reference to God's being is nothing. Yet love itself, as an ideal, is not God, but as a ray of light from the sun, so is love from God. So also with reason. Is this what you mean? Is it similar? Or is is beside what you are saying?

Let me ask you, is evil the privation of good, or is it an entity on its own? How is evil concrete to one's nature?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 3, 2004)

Just so you understand the reason for the question, I am leading to asking if reason and love, which are not privations of good, are entities on their own. Are they qualities that exist apart from God, even though subject to God? Or are they qualities that must exist in any act of God, because of God's character, and therefore are dispays of His character?

But first, is evil the privation of good, or must it also be brought into existence?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Nov 4, 2004)

Christopher,

Man, according to your understanding of scripture, has an inability to properly reason as a result of the fall. I understand that this is a concern for you. I did not mean to fail in giving an answer to this question. 
In order for God to communicate to a rational being, that being has to have an understanding of what is being communicated. It is my belief that this cannot be done apart from reason, and thus reason must necessarily be existent and unmarred in man after the fall in order for God to communicate to him. Adam had to use reason to name Eve. When did he name Eve? After the fall. The Scripture says that Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead. He knew that Isaac was the seed through which the promise would be fulfilled, yet he was ready to kill him. Why? Because he knew that God couldn't lie and that if necessary God could reconstruct Isaac's body from the ashes if needed. 
It is my contention that reason is the light that shines in the darkness, though our darkness has not understood it (John 1). It is in each man as he comes into the world. If we say that man's ability to reason is marred we are not dealing with the heart, we are dealing with an inability to function. It would no longer be immorality and evil, but a disability. Also, if we say that man's ability to reason is fallen, rather than the heart itself being fallen, then we must ask how Paul can say what he does. Paul states that it is made clear to them. But if the tool given to the rational creature, which enables him to communicate or receive communication is fallen, then how can it be made clear to them. There is nothing by which to receive the clear communication.
God created man a rational creature. Because man does not function properly as such does not make him arrational, but irrational. He still has reason, and all the abilities that come with it, but his failure and unwillingness to use it is what holds him inexcusable. Man will not use reason until he has been regenerated, and made willing. This is nothing unorthodox. It is simply a more clear statement of what the Lord has been revealing all along. Man is inexcusable because God has made His divine attributes and eternal nature clear to them, and man IS able to see it, but will not.

John,
Yes. Evil is not a being and is not brought into existence. It is only manifest in beings. Good is concrete to one's nature b/c good is what is determined to be good by the infinite. Man was created and God saw that it was good. Good is perfected and infinitely expressed in God's being where as evil is not expressed in this way. In this way, good is different from evil. Evil is manifested in whatever sets itself against God's determination of good and evil. 

We have to remember that reason necessarily applies to all being. If it didn't then that being could be both non-existent and existent in the same sense, at the same time. This is absurd. R.C. Sproul stated that if the Trinity contradicted the law of non-contradiction then he would not believe it. Because it is a mystery, or a paradox at first glance, does not in any sense mean that it is a contradiction. I can apply raseon to what I finitely know. This does not confuse clarity. If I look at this doctrine and cannot see it or understand it and thus reject it, it would be due to my sin. God must give grace that I might be willing to use reason and see that it is not contradictory and that I should trust Him with all that which He has not chosen to reveal.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> Man, according to your understanding of scripture, has an inability to properly reason as a result of the fall. I understand that this is a concern for you. I did not mean to fail in giving an answer to this question.
> In order for God to communicate to a rational being, that being has to have an understanding of what is being communicated. It is my belief that this cannot be done apart from reason, and thus reason must necessarily be existent and unmarred in man after the fall in order for God to communicate to him. Adam had to use reason to name Eve. When did he name Eve? After the fall. The Scripture says that Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead. He knew that Isaac was the seed through which the promise would be fulfilled, yet he was ready to kill him. Why? Because he knew that God couldn't lie and that if necessary God could reconstruct Isaac's body from the ashes if needed.
> It is my contention that reason is the light that shines in the darkness, though our darkness has not understood it (John 1). It is in each man as he comes into the world. If we say that man's ability to reason is marred we are not dealing with the heart, we are dealing with an inability to function. It would no longer be immorality and evil, but a disability. Also, if we say that man's ability to reason is fallen, rather than the heart itself being fallen, then we must ask how Paul can say what he does. Paul states that it is made clear to them. But if the tool given to the rational creature, which enables him to communicate or receive communication is fallen, then how can it be made clear to them. There is nothing by which to receive the clear communication.
> God created man a rational creature. Because man does not function properly as such does not make him arrational, but irrational. He still has reason, and all the abilities that come with it, but his failure and unwillingness to use it is what holds him inexcusable. Man will not use reason until he has been regenerated, and made willing. This is nothing unorthodox. It is simply a more clear statement of what the Lord has been revealing all along. Man is inexcusable because God has made His divine attributes and eternal nature clear to them, and man IS able to see it, but will not.



Again, I'm not claiming that reason is unexistent in unregenerate man, nor is any presuppositionalist. We simply hold that man's reason is impaired to a certain degree. Theoretically, unregenerate man could not know anything, since all knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord, Whom they reject and suppress. However, since each man has an inherent knowledge of God deep in them simply because they are created in His image and there exists common grace, man is not able to be consistent in their ignorance and lack of knowledge and reason. That is the point Bahnsen was trying to make. It's just like sin - Romans 2 lets us no that "there is no one who does good," and yet all men are not as sinful as they possibly could be, for the simple fact that they have an inherent knowledge of God that they suppress, are made in His image, and have common grace. It's the same way for man's reason - with a full suppression of God, man could not know anything. However, because of common grace and man's image after God, man is not able to be consistent in his suppression of God, and can thus attain limited knowledge and reason.

You still have not dealt with any of the Scripture I gave (such as Titus 1:15), nor given any direct Scriptural evidence for your own claim that man's ability to reason logically was not directly affected in any way at the Fall.

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 4, 2004)

Gregory:

OK, now I know what you mean by 'concrete'. 

The next question I was going to ask was, is reason an entity? Is it created? If so, then does it exist apart from God necessarily? If no, then does it exist apart from created man necessarily? (c.f. Prov. 8)

I think that you anticipate my intended end already. But all the same, I offer the succeeding question just for your benefit: How does man apprehend (lay hold on) reason in either case? Or is it that reason (possibly uncreate in God, but create in man) is also created in man as an image-bearer of God? (c.f. the Athanasian Creed for the use I make of the word 'uncreate', from which I also get the word 'create'. )

---------------------------------------------------

I tend toward believing that evil is the privation of good. It satisfies the basic need to keep God apart from sin in the creating of all things. I also agree with your contention that reason itself did not fall, but man did, even in his faculty to reason. Reason itself is the full sophy of truth, so to speak, to which man can aspire in his bearing of God's image. Yet his fallenness (i.e. rebellion) keeps him from aspiring to that in which his ultimate happiness is rooted, namely God's glory. 

Sanctification, then, includes, among other things, the redeeming of the faculty of reason as sins in the soul are conquered and evicted. As we are unable to conquer sin completely, or even to begin to conquer sin without Christ's work on the cross, then it follows that sanctification upon justification is an infusing of righteousness that comes not from us. And the redemption of the faculty of reason, which depends upon that infused righteousness, then, has its origin outside of us, or apart from us, but is effected within us. Suddenly we can reason reasonably again, poor though the efforts are, as opposed to using the faculty of reason against reason when under the bondage of sin. 

Man fell, but his reason for rebellion was to his own ends, apart from the glory of God. So man is never without reason. But the privation of the good in his reasoning turns that fuculty into inertness at best, but the means to further sin in actuality. ("Let us build a tower...," etc. ) So reason can be used corruptly, as man having a corrupted reason. I think that man is plagued with both the corrupted use of reason, as well as a corrupted reason, yet all the while, reason itself, the sophy of truth, is not at all damaged by man's fall. 

How does man, then, apprehend reason? It is both by grace alone, and it is by faith alone. The one is an act of God upon man, the other is the result in man of God's act of grace upon man. In this way faith as a fruit of grace is upheld, as all the while we confess grace alone and faith alone.

Man does reason, and it is the freeing from the privation of good that opens the door to reasoning as he should. As his faith grows, so does his reasoning as he should. The initial parts of reasoning are revelation, both in the Word and in the creation. In this sense the Presuppositionalist is right, and this is also the confession of the Ontological Argument (Pros., ch. I, I think, On Christian Doctrine, bk. I. ) But what springs from there is the (I think, anyways) Classical argument (*see note) from Paul's letter to the Romans, that all men are without excuse as to the knowledge of the deity and power and the being of God. 

The bottom line is, Christ is our epistemology. Though the bottom line is right, that doesn't mean that the lines I used to get there are all right. I make no such claim to absolute soundness in my reasoning. We have a right to ask all the way through how I made such leaps of faith in my reasoning. And I guess that's what this thread is all about, trying to get those lines above the bottom line in the right shape. 

*note:
Just because I think it is a Classical argument, that does not mean that I think it is a result of Classical Era philosophy upon the Bible. I think, rather, that it was the other way around, that Classical thinking was effected by the Bible, even in the OT times. It is by grace that the Greeks developed their systems that bred the culture in which God chose to authorize His inerrant Word to us in Christ. 

Augustine suggests (and refutes it later) that perhaps Plato was a contemporary of Jeremiah, and that it was possible that the two met. He also suggests that Daniel's influence could also have been possible. Plato made his world travel at that time, Augustine thought. Later he realizes that Plato was not a contemporary of Jeremiah, and that a meeting of Plato and Daniel is mere speculation. But, all the same, it is possible that Hebrew philosophy could have made an impression upon Plato. 

All this is mere speculation, and I may not even have it right. I am going by memory. But it is still a most curious thing that God chose to use the Greek language and culture to propagate His gospel, and to leave us the testimony of the Apostles. I think that the Bible underlies the Classical era of philosophy, even though the names of Plato and Aristotle often appear secularly as the originators of it. So I don't think it is a contradiction to say that Rom. 1 is a Classical argument, in that sense. However, I would agree with any criticism against a notion of the Bible being subjected to human standards, as if Paul could not think outside the Classical sphere of influence. He was inspired to write as he did, but God used the means which He Himself providentially planted.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Nov 4, 2004)

I agree to the gist of Paul's statement.

Christopher,

I believe I have responded to the verses that you gave. Please direct me if I have not made my understandings clear. I have stated that man's being is corrupt. The vs. in Titus refer's to man's being and his conscience. I will not argue against your notions, but I believe that I have shown what problems arise when we also state that man's ability to reason is marred rather than correctly diagnosing that his willingness to reason is marred. What is necessary in order for God's communication to be clear and for the unbeliever to be inexcusable? This is the question that should guide us. I believe that PS falls short in this. It is not that He ceases in being a rational creature after the fall, it is that his being is unwilling to serve it's original purpose. This is a quick response. I will come back and elaborate later.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> I agree to the gist of Paul's statement.



If you agree with his statement (which says "man's mind is depraved") then you agree with me.



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_I believe I have responded to the verses that you gave. Please direct me if I have not made my understandings clear.



Do you believe that the fear of the Lord is the _beginning_ of true knowledge, or a result of it?



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> I have stated that man's being is corrupt. The vs. in Titus refer's to man's being and his conscience.



Then why does it say his mind? They are very different things, and interpreting it as one when the other is what is plainly in the text seems like eisegesis to me.



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> I will not argue against your notions, but I believe that I have shown what problems arise when we also state that man's ability to reason is marred rather than correctly diagnosing that his willingness to reason is marred. What is necessary in order for God's communication to be clear and for the unbeliever to be inexcusable? This is the question that should guide us. I believe that PS falls short in this.



What is necessary for God's communication to be clear and the believer inexcusable? _Some_ ability to properly reason. And presuppositionalists hold that man has some knowledge and logic as such, but only because of common grace and the remains of what he has lost, which remain simply because he will always be in God's image, no matter how else his mind is affected. So because unregenerate man does indeed have _some_ ability to reason soundly and attain true knowledge, he is inexcusable. That is a far cry from saying that his reason must have been _completely and totally untouched_ at the Fall in order to render Him inexcusable, and you have presented philosophical reasons why you believe that to be necessary, but still no real exegetical reasons.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Nov 4, 2004)

I think that I may have failed to clarify some things. Reason is not something in man, as you might attribute it to the mind. It is a faculty. Man uses reason, but it is not in the man at the fall to be marred. It was b/c of his failure to use reason that he fell. As a result of the fall man was completely marred under the power of sin. But, reason is a faculty that exists outside of man, which he can be willing to use or not use. The fallen man does not utilize love b/c he cannot within the realms of his autonomy and sin. He is unwilling to give these things up, but if he became willing he would use love. It is not an unwillingness due to an inability; it is an inability due to an unwillingness. The redemption of man is offered to all men and, if they are willing, is open to them. But, they will not be willing without God's regenation to accept what is offered. It is not a physical or spiritual disability, but is a spiritual unwillingness and stubborness. They are unable to come b/c they are unwilling, not the other way around. Reason stands in man without the ability to be marred by man's disobedience. Man may be unwilling to use reason, but his ability to use it is not affected. This is why he is inexcusable.
Another point I made earlier may help. We all agree that man is totally inexcusable and that the unbeliever will be punished Maximally (in spiritual death for all time). If he is to be punished Maximally, what is necessary for this just punishment? Man must be maximally inexcusable for his sin against God. What is necessary for man to be Maximally inexcusable. God's revelation of himself must be Maximally clear to man. If M clarity > then M inexcusability; if M inexcusability > then M punishment. 
If man's ability to reason is marred, then I would contend that God, in His perfect justice, would not punish man maximally. If man's ability to reason can be marred at all then the revelation cannot be concieved of as being maximally clear. God will punish man maximally, leaving them in their sin for the rest of time, so God must have made the revelation clear, and left reason to be used and abandoned at man's will. It is the light in all man that leaves him inexcusable (John 1). It shines perfectly bright and clear, but man, in his darkness of autonomy, has not understood it. He does not know it because in order to do so he would have to give up his autonomy, which he is unwilling to do. 
Man's ability to jump was not marred in the fall, yet we do say that his entire being was marred as a result of the fall. He is unwilling to use his jumping ability to glorify God, though he still has the full ability to jump that he had before. It is his willingness to use his ability to the glory of God that is marred, not his ability itself.
Let me know if this helps.


----------



## interested_one (Nov 6, 2004)

Well, this seems to be a very interesting conversation. I would ask Greg the following: If you identify reason as faculty of the mind then it would seem to me that you cannot seperate reason (at least if I agree with how you worded it) from the mind. It seems to lack the "seperation of entity" (reason being apart from the individual) at that point when you concede to the statement made before and after the sentence of faculty. I think when the questions are asked we want to ask: When we say that man is totally depraved, what does that mean? When we say that man is "completely" effected by sin, what kind of effect does sin play in the depravity of man? It looks like to me, Greg, you are making a concession here and cannot agree to " As a result of the fall man was *completely* marred under the power of sin." What do you mean by this statement? 

You state:

It is not an unwillingness due to an inability; it is an inability due to an unwillingness.

How are you defining "inability" this seems to hinge if this statement makes any sense. If we speak of inability as man not having the power or capacity to carry out what is required then the fault is in the man's ability to reason and not the person's willingness. Willingness implies that a choice to do or not do is present, but as for the first statement it speaks more of man's not willing because man is not able. The second does not make any logical sense to me if it is ment to negate the first part of the statement, it says "reasoning" is not in man's ability (power or capacity) because of his unwillingness. If we agree with the definition of inability being that man cannot do because it is not in his power or capacity to do then what needs to be done is rephrase the statement. I think the word "inability" is being used differently in both instances (you might have to correct me on this). I would ask Greg to clarify his use of it. 

Again Greg, you need to be consistent in wording. When I read your past postings you seem to state that men can come to an inexcusable idea of God through reason. However, you state two things in your posting that reason is either a inabilty or a disability (this being different from inability as defined).

"It is not a physical or spiritual disability, but is a spiritual unwillingness and stubborness."

You also state:

"Reason stands in man without the ability to be marred by man's disobedience. Man may be unwilling to use reason, but his ability to use it is not affected."

I think that Thomas Aquanis would have loved you. When I read that statement it seems to me that reason is taken as a universal principle. The second speaks of man's application of the principle. I think it would be helpful for you to explain to us what effects sin would have on the mind, does sin effect the mind, when you confess total depravity what do you mean? St. Thomas Aquanis believed that the faculty of the intellect was not fallen and was different from St. Augustine who claimed that the whole man was fallen. We know from St. Thomas Aquanis that it led to scholasticism in the church. There seems to be a fine tension between both parties, but at the outset how is depravity being confessed by someone who holds your view? 




> If man's ability to reason is marred, then I would contend that God, in His perfect justice, would not punish man maximally. If man's ability to reason can be marred at all then the revelation cannot be concieved of as being maximally clear. God will punish man maximally, leaving them in their sin for the rest of time, so God must have made the revelation clear, and left reason to be used and abandoned at man's will. It is the light in all man that leaves him inexcusable (John 1). It shines perfectly bright and clear, but man, in his darkness of autonomy, has not understood it. He does not know it because in order to do so he would have to give up his autonomy, which he is unwilling to do.



The first statment is very interesting and seems to proceed too far. Why would God have to provide clear reasoning in order to justify passing judgment on His own creation? I am sure you would contend by saying that it proceeds from God being good, but I don't see this as being a sufficient answer. Maybe because of God being good, he shouldn't send people to hell eternally or at all ( know you would disagree with that). You require that God make himself maximally clear in order to do maximal punishment, but why does this have to be the case? I do not deny that God reveals himself, but to say that man has to be aware of it seems to lower the bar of man in his depravity (speaking of inability as man lacking the power or capacity to do such things). The second statement about "so God must have made the revelation clear, and left reason to be used and abandoned at man's will. " I do not deny man's ability to use reason generally, but in matters of spirituality it can be said that man does reason but does so incorrectly all the time. This is the reason for necessity of the Holy Spirit and regeneration. If we are speaking of man's coming to an awareness of a greater being through natural theology, then I would ask to what extent does natural theology reveal a higher being. I am not conceding to say that it reveals particularly the Christian God, but a supernatural being in general. So what is the scope of natural revelation and can reason give us a Christian conception of God?

Lastly your analogy is not a very good one. If you are tying this into man's ability to reason then it is a categorical error. You are trying to link a physical action on the part of man to a mental faculty (which has more complex considerations than mere jumping). These are my present thoughts... I know you will reply. 

God Bless,
interested_one

P.S. I was interested in your algebraic representation of the Trinity. I would not agree that it speaks of the distinctions of the persons. You stated that God is 1 "a" and 3 "b"'s . To be correct you would have to say the following:

G= a (b1+b2+b3) or 1*1*1=1

This makes the distinctions in the b's, if not, it is fallacious because it is saying that God is three b, but without distinctions. Sadly even these fall short of explaining the Trinity. (Just a silly side not... sorry). 

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by interested_one]


----------

