# Bi-nity



## fredtgreco

Paul,

Wouldn't at least some of these apply to other religions as well? In other words, these seem better arguments for the atheist than the Muslim. Couldn't the Muslim "account for logic" ?

Just trying to sharpen here


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Fred, I ment unity like Unitarian, not that God (our God) isn't a unity.



Jehovah is 3 persons in one person. Diversity in persons, unity in one Godhead. Because diversity and unity are equal in the Godhead we can avoid the monism Mohammedism would logically fall into, but, why not a bi-nity, or a quad-nity, or a Godhead with any different number of persons?


----------



## Peter

As a Calvinist Id say by the grace of God I was enabled and pursuaded by the holy Spirit, through the normal means, the word and the word opened by able Christians, later my worldview was refined and better systematized by reading and listening, especially Bahnsen.


----------



## Peter

I dont understand what you mean. The idea of a bi-nity, or a Godhead w/ a plurality of persons other than 3, is something used to counter van tils belief of the necessity of the trinity to account for the one and many. My question was essentially, what is your reply to those that use it? What exactly are you asking me?


----------



## Peter

So how did I come up with this worldview (bi-nity) is the question? Well, 2 difficulties with the way that's phrased are confusing me. One, most importantly I dont share this worldview, I dont think anyone does, its just a hypothetical postulated to criticize the theory that the Trinity provides equal ultimacy of unity and diversity. Two, I didnt come up with it, not sure who did but I think its been around probably as long as Van Til's theory (Im sure you know these things). If you mean where did I learn it, Ive seen it around the internet, I think the Vantil group. Recently a friend sparked my interest in it.


----------



## Peter

Thanks Paul. I understand. Thats good, it explains why the bi-nity is false but... it doesnt explain the philosophical necessity of 3 vs. 2,4,5,6, ad infinitum, for unity and diversity, but i guess it doesnt have to.


----------



## Peter

Im not saying any definate number is necessary, including three (all other presuppositions aside of course). By the way, I see it as valid to examine TAG with pretend scenarios. Christianity must be proven the only conceivably true worldview, existant or conceivable yet nonexistant, and there is always the lingering possibility of these bizarre religions springing up in reality.

Of course you're right, but what if I mysteriously discovered a rival book of revelation? It says God exists in Binity. Ive seen these objections raised yet never answered in terms I could understand.


----------



## Peter

"so, what you're saying is: what if I found something that provided the transcendental."

I didnt mean for the discussion to go that direction, but, its always been a nagging curiosity. 

I dont think they ask you to say you're wrong on any point, just if theyve found a worldview that allows transcendentals & doesnt fall into anyother logical pitfalls then it seemingly destroys the claim and mantra "impossibility of contrary."


----------



## Peter

It doesnt seem to me they're doing that, asserting a claim into defeat, and if they are you must show me a little better.

Here's why- hypothetically, the worldview is the same as Christianity except there are two persons in the Godhead and they have another different verbal revelation. With that they make transendentals rational and avoid metaphysical monism and I guess are otherwise internally consistent. Now you have multiple rival worldviews that meet that criteria. Prove me wrong. It seems to me you'd need to go to historical evidences to test them.


----------



## Peter

Its interesting, one of the presuppositional arguments against classical evidences is that such evidence wouldnt be intelligible to the unbeliever, but an unbeliever who shares so many common presupposition would probably be more prone to them. Thats the practical argument, theres still the ethical question about evidences.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> It doesnt seem to me they're doing that, asserting a claim into defeat, and if they are you must show me a little better.
> 
> Here's why- hypothetically, the worldview is the same as Christianity except there are two persons in the Godhead and they have another different verbal revelation. With that they make transendentals rational and avoid metaphysical monism and I guess are otherwise internally consistent. Now you have multiple rival worldviews that meet that criteria. Prove me wrong. It seems to me you'd need to go to historical evidences to test them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would you mind sending me your holy book? Afterall, it's the *same* minus the trinity. Oh yeah, tell me who proceeds from whom? What about redemption? Sanctification? Creation? So, it looks like you have some work to do before I can evaluate your worldview.
Click to expand...


I thought we were playing make believe. 

P.S. Im getting tired of playing the bad guy.:bigsmile:


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> nothing wrong with evidences. something wrong with using them as if they're neutral, though.



My understanding is that the only appropriate use of them is for clarification, to use them to try and prove Christianity would be to step outside of your ultimate presuppositions and answer the fool in his folly. In our context to say our Jesus is the true Jesus, not ur bi-nity Jesus, because ours rose from the dead would be to accept Him on less than His word, to put Him to the test. Am I right?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were playing make believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooohh, I see. You want me to make believe that you have a worldview that can answer every challenge, and I don't need to prove you wrong because I'm pretending that you can answer all the questions. Sounds like someones playing with a loaded deck.
Click to expand...


But really, if it's only been demonstrated that Christianity is consistent and a finite number of other worldviews have been demonstrated inconsistent, can the proof really be called conclusive?


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were playing make believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooohh, I see. You want me to make believe that you have a worldview that can answer every challenge, and I don't need to prove you wrong because I'm pretending that you can answer all the questions. Sounds like someones playing with a loaded deck.
Click to expand...


This is your challenge according to the presuppositional apologetic. Provide preconditions of intelligibility for transedental, be internally consistent, answer problems of philosophy. This religion meets these challenges essentially every way Christianity does. Absolute, immutable, immaterial God who is the standard, apes christianity in basically every way so its consistent, has a bi-nity so solves problem of 1 and many. My question thus far has been what other challenges can you test this religion by? I dont even think philosophical proofs or theorizing can work at this point, b/c it can always leech onto Xianity. Historical evidences seem to be the only way out of the dilema, but are they allowed w/in the presuppositional framework?


----------



## Peter

"Above, I said that a claim for certainty can be made when a denial of that claim leads to self-contradiction"

"(3) Harry Frankfurt's claim that: "The claim that a basis for doubt is inconceivable is justified whenever a denial of the claim would violate the conditions or presuppositions of rational inquiry." 

I dont know what you mean. Please rephrase. How have I violated the condintions of rational inquiry?

[Edited on 11-12-2004 by Peter]


----------



## Peter

I see, but those details can easily be adapted. For the sake of argument say the spirit is just an impersonal active force. Better yet we can limit whats been revealed to the minimal- one mumbojumbo, fasa, sasa. A redemptive plan isnt necessary for the challenges youve laid before me.


----------



## Peter

"The Spirit is an impersonal force? What about the passages that ascribe personality to Him? Whta about acts 5, where lying to Him is to lie to God?"

Wrong revelation Paul. Ananias doesnt exist in mumbojumboland.

Im saying it doesnt matter either way. We could have a worldview identical to Christianity except for bi-nity and a different revelation with all the specifics adapted to bi-nity. Or we could just go with a simplistic revelation that says we have mumbojumbo in sasa and fasa but I see your point there. I thought of some possible ways to continue that line of reasoning, such as denying evil exists, but that just raises more questions. To conclude, Paul, how should we respond to someone who has reasoned thus. Please collect your thoughts and elaborate. 1. You need a complete worldview inorder for me to critique it? 2. You're asking me to grant you the conclusion for your premiss?


----------



## luvroftheWord

The thing to remember is that there cannot be more than one transcendental. Real knowledge is not provided by "hypothetical transcendentals", whatever those are. If it has been shown that Christianity provides us with the transcendental that gives intelligibility to all knowledge, then the way to refute that is not to come up with another possible worldview, but to show how Christianity itself is internally inconsistent and we all have somehow missed it.

If Christianity is true (i.e., it provides the transcendental), it is likewise the ONLY true worldview because (1) This is the claim of Christianity itself, and (2) the law of non-contradiction will have it no other way. If you provide a worldview other than Christianity that provides the transcendental, then not only have you refuted Christianity, but you have also refuted the non-Christian worldview as well, since you would be saying that both A and ~A are true. So here are your options:

(1) Christianity is true.

(2) No worldview is true.

Since (2) is necessarily irrational, (1) must be true.

[Edited on 11-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Me Died Blue

While I'm convinced that evidentialism is unbiblical, and am convinced from Pratt's _Every Thought Captive_ that defending Christianity in some type of presuppositional way is the biblical (and only) way to do it, I guess I don't really see the "gotcha" of the transcendental argument yet. The two questions I basically have are 1) As Peter well put it above, how can it refute the claim that someone has "a worldview identical to Christianity except for bi-nity and a different revelation with all the specifics adapted to bi-nity"? 2) Why can there necessarily only be one transcendental? Would most philosophers agree with that?


----------



## luvroftheWord

First, to answer the challenge Peter has posed, if you have a worldview that is just like Christianity EXCEPT God is a binity and not a Trinity, then you have two worldviews BOTH claiming to be the one, true worldview, which means both contradict each other and thus neither of them are true.

Also, To say that there can be two transcendentals is to say that there are two ultimate authorities. If there are two ultimate authorities that are not the same, we are left with a radical dualism, and thus there is no coherence or unity (that is, you fall prey to the one/many problem). Furthermore, if you are talking about two of the "same kind" of things, this would require a THIRD worldview that CAN account for unity to even talk rationally about them (thus making the third worldview the real ultimate authority).

By the way, I'm indebted to Paul Manata for helping me understand this stuff.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> First, to answer the challenge Peter has posed, if you have a worldview that is just like Christianity EXCEPT God is a binity and not a Trinity, then you have two worldviews BOTH claiming to be the one, true worldview, which means both contradict each other and thus neither of them are true.
> 
> Also, To say that there can be two transcendentals is to say that there are two ultimate authorities. If there are two ultimate authorities that are not the same, we are left with a radical dualism, and thus there is no coherence or unity (that is, you fall prey to the one/many problem). Furthermore, if you are talking about two of the "same kind" of things, this would require a THIRD worldview that CAN account for unity to even talk rationally about them (thus making the third worldview the real ultimate authority).
> 
> By the way, I'm indebted to Paul Manata for helping me understand this stuff.
> 
> [Edited on 12-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]



Good point, there is only 1 transcendental, however, it appears there may be many worldviews that CAN (however do not other than the true one) provide the transcendental conditions.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> no it doesn't. You have yet to show how any worldview does this other than asserting that one could. So, right now it appears that there are none though you may think that, with enough time, you can show this. And we'll be waiting for someone who wants to come play basketball with us. Michael Jordon beats all the best basketball players in the world. he declares himself the best. Another jelous player say, "no, you're not the best; another can beat you." Jordon replies, "Bring 'em on." To this the other player says, "well, maybe the could be one who can beat you, though I don't know any specifics about him." Jordon laughes and waits on the court for a player to come.



Basically yes, but if its just a matter of taking out a bible and editing it a bit (or perhaps alot), it isnt as difficult as beating Michael Jordon in a game of basketball.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Paul,

What I meant was that both of the following cannot be true:

(1) The Christian claim that Christianity is the one true worldview.

(2) The claim of the bi-nity worldview that it is the one true worldview (a claim that this worldview would have to make if it is to be like Christianity in every way EXCEPT God is a bi-nity, not a Trinity).

These two exclusive claims cannot both be true. They may both be false, but they cannot both be true.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Peter,



> Good point, there is only 1 transcendental, however, it appears there may be many worldviews that CAN (however do not other than the true one) provide the transcendental conditions.



Could you explain why it appears this way? I'm not sure I agree with you on that.

And also, just as an aside, do you not find it amazing that any time you start piecing together what is necessary for knowledge that the worldview you end up with ALWAYS ends up looking like Christianity?

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> Basically yes, but if its just a matter of taking out a bible and editing it a bit (or perhaps alot), it isnt as difficult as beating Michael Jordon in a game of basketball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now be careful. If you really mean to say that you're starting with the Bible and then editing out you've refuted yourself. because if you *really* start with the Bible then it doesn't allow you to edit it. So, you're still all confused. I can't understand why you can't see any of this? To say that there is a challenge you have to actually present a challenge. You've failed to do this. Every time.
> 
> If it's not as difficult then *go for it.* I hear big talk but have not seen anything yet. And, I wonder about your understanding of systematics. You're saying that what Berkof, Hodge, Dabney, et al have done is *not that hard?* I await your logically coherent, systematically outlined, explanation of Mumbo Jumbo.
> 
> Until you do this I can justifiably fall back on my claim: there is no conceivable worldview which can provide the transcendental besides Christianity.
> 
> If you reply: "Yes, Mumbo Jumbo can." I'll ask, "what is Mumbo Jumbo?" I've still received no answer to this
Click to expand...


You know when I say start with the bible I dont mean epistemologically. I mean practically, if we were to construct a hypothetical rival worldview, that is what we'd do. Youre right, my knowledge of systematics is very shallow, but I know enough to know that it would be very arduous but not very difficult b/c like you said, theologians have already done that work. I would merely be slightly altering it. I dont think many doctrines hinge on the *diety* of the Spirit.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> no it doesn't. You have yet to show how any worldview does this other than asserting that one could. So, right now it appears that there are none though you may think that, with enough time, you can show this. And we'll be waiting for someone who wants to come play basketball with us. Michael Jordon beats all the best basketball players in the world. he declares himself the best. Another jelous player say, "no, you're not the best; another can beat you." Jordon replies, "Bring 'em on." To this the other player says, "well, maybe the could be one who can beat you, though I don't know any specifics about him." Jordon laughes and waits on the court for a player to come.



However this example does not prove that Jordan is the best. It only says that Jordan is the best that we have yet to see. TAG is supposed to prove that it is impossible for someone to exist to be better than Jordan (or can provide preconditions for intelligibility)

How is TAG different from this example?

CT


----------



## Me Died Blue

That's basically the same thoughts I'm having at the moment. Paul, I'm trying to hear where you're coming from--and in fact _want_ to agree--but it seems to me that showing that nothing has yet refuted Christianity and showing that nothing ever can refute Christianity are two different tasks, just as with the Jordan example. Take the best player before Jordan - before Jordan, he could have said the same thing you're currently having Jordan say, but now that Jordan has come he cannot say that anymore. So for all we know the same thing will happen to Jordan.


----------



## JohnV

What Paul is saying is that we have Revelation. A real Revelation. Provide a real revelation that has such propositions in it as a Bi-nity, and not just a hypothesis, and you may have something. We still have to compare, though. But for now its just a matter of comparing a hypothetical with a factual. That's not really cricket.

But Peter is getting there too. What he is saying it the same thing in reverse: you can't argue hypothetically and then not return on questions on the hypothetical. That too in not cricket.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What Paul is saying is that we have Revelation. A real Revelation. Provide a real revelation that has such propositions in it as a Bi-nity, and not just a hypothesis, and you may have something. We still have to compare, though. But for now its just a matter of comparing a hypothetical with a factual. That's not really cricket.



Suppose someone claims to receive a revelation that tells them that the worldview set forth in the Bible just happens to be mostly right, except for the one difference of __________. They then have an espoused revelation, it just happened to be verbal instead of written, and it told them that an already-written document (the Bible) was true in all respects except __________.

In this thread, people have been using the bi-nity example as the __________, which, as Paul pointed out, I think is a very bad example, as the doctrine of the Spirit's deity does in fact have massive theological implications for the Christian worldview. But apart from that example, how would the claim I mention above be refuted? Suppose the difference was, say, that Jesus actually rose in five days, or that milk is to be the element used in baptism. Sure, they're off-the-top-of-my-head examples, but I think they get the point across.


----------



## JohnV

Chris:
In fact such things have been done. I recall that same methodology used to pry the women-in-office issue into the churches. At that time the concept was that some (undefined) elements of Scripture were culture-oriented and therefore not binding, e.g., the place of women in the church. Or we could say that Gen. 1-3 is figurative and not literal. Who's to say?

But the same still applies: show me your Scripture and its Authority. It is still true that there has ever only been one "God" system given to man that is not originated in man himself; one that is completely revelational. All the others fall short of the mark. Show me an authority that over-rides Gal. 1 and we have something to discuss. Until then, its just a claim without authorized warrant. The ________, whatever it is, will either militate against the sufficiency of Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture, the normativity of Scripture, and the completion of Scripture, if it is an added revelation of some kind. Otherwise the pronouncement of Gal. 1 regarding any other gospel, even if it came from an angel from heaven, is void. Either way, it runs into difficulty, and is not equal to the Christian revelation. It can never be just one little thing without having ramifications on the whole.

If it were possible, how could we have a thelogical system? Everything would have an "if" to it in our creeds and confessions.

Trinity is revealed, not come to by logic. Bi-nity is offered logically, not revelationally. "Don't compare apples to oranges." is the answer. Same with "_________", whatever it may be.


----------



## Peter

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What Paul is saying is that we have Revelation. A real Revelation. Provide a real revelation that has such propositions in it as a Bi-nity, and not just a hypothesis, and you may have something. We still have to compare, though. But for now its just a matter of comparing a hypothetical with a factual. That's not really cricket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose someone claims to receive a revelation that tells them that the worldview set forth in the Bible just happens to be mostly right, except for the one difference of __________. They then have an espoused revelation, it just happened to be verbal instead of written, and it told them that an already-written document (the Bible) was true in all respects except __________.
> 
> In this thread, people have been using the bi-nity example as the __________, which, as Paul pointed out, I think is a very bad example, as the doctrine of the Spirit's deity does in fact have massive theological implications for the Christian worldview. But apart from that example, how would the claim I mention above be refuted? Suppose the difference was, say, that Jesus actually rose in five days, or that milk is to be the element used in baptism. Sure, they're off-the-top-of-my-head examples, but I think they get the point across.
Click to expand...


Bi-nity, is the example up because this thread began as a discussion of the philosophical necessity of the trinity (which btw I am still unconvinced of if considered outside other Xian presups). Only later did it develope into what it is now. I still think the Bi-nity scenario works well though. I dont think sanctification, salvation, preaching, unity, creation, power, etc are things which cannot be accomplished by an impersonal force emanating from God. But its likely a sad, cheating, blockheaded scoundrel such as myself is wrong.


----------



## Monergism

> So, now Chris is moving somewhere. The hypothetical worldview isn't helping so Chris has a worldview that says Jesus rose in 5 days rather than three.
> 
> Okay, here's my answer to this. This worldview is not *relevantly* different from the Christian worldview. You're just asking us to think counterfactualy. Three days was not necessary, in a technical sense, God could have done it in 5. Furthermore, God's people of the OT did not have this knowledge and so are we to conclude that they didn't have a genuine Christian worldview? That's what your objection would lead us to believe and as such, it is absurd.
> 
> But it gets worse. If *ALL* that s different is that Christ rose in 5 days then what of the other Scriptures which speak of three days (Jonah)? Since *these* Scriptures were not included in Chris' counterfactual then he'd have a holy book which contradicted itself. But, as I said above, this worldview differs from mine in no relevant way.



Paul,

What if he had origionally claimed that the 3 days were in fact 5 for both Jesus and Jonah? It might not be a relevant difference, but how would you prove him wrong?


----------



## Me Died Blue

Good question, and I await the answer, since it will hopefully lead me closer to a greater understanding of this.


----------



## Monergism




----------



## Monergism

> I'm granting that a 5 day resurrection, with all the rest the same (except passages which speak to three days) can account for the transcendental. But this isn't a relevantly different worldview. It *is* the Christian worldview with a conterfactual thrown in. *You've changed nothing of significance.*



The non-believer can change things with great significance. Since he decides to change the passages that say 3 days to 5, perhaps he tallys up the passages that address homosexuality and changes those a bit too. He is still able to keep his transcendental, but he gets to hold on to his sin. That is eternally significant!


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> p.s. I hope I've at least stressed one thing. To be a good presuppositionalist you must also be a good sytamatician. You must know your theology and how things tie together.



 on that at least.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I feel that your guys' problems stem from an underapretiation of the *system* of thought as laid out in Scripture and accepting Christianity as a total worldview. You're treating things in a blockhhouse way and that is why you're running into epistemic headaches.



I've never claimed that changing anything past the "five-days level" wouldn't have great implications for the rest of the system, and I fully agree with you that things like the Spirit's deity and God's character do have such implications.

But I see your response to the five-days argument as somewhat lacking in that you're just saying that since it doesn't change the transcendental or worldview, and thus that it's just a "counterfactual." The thing is, how would you prove that it was the counterfactual, and not the three days? One response could be that changing the three days to five also changes the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura...........in fact, I have just answered my own question:

In order for someone to base a worldview on an espoused revelation telling them most of the Bible is true except such-and-such a detail, they have to reject much more from the Bible than that detail: They have to reject cessationism and Sola Scriptura! And once their worldview contains the the possibility for new revelation after the completion of the Scriptures, at that point they _have_ changed something drastic.

Well, in light of that, I at least with you now that it is inevitable that one must build a challenging worldview piece by piece, because the only way they can have most of the Bible in their worldview but have one certain difference is to inevitably have a second difference as well, which is the denial of cessationism and thus the sufficiency of Scripture, at which point they are beyond the realm of "safe" differences. What do you think about that, Brett?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in light of that, I at least with you now that it is inevitable that one must build a challenging worldview piece by piece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this is an impossible task.
> 
> 
> I'll have to think about what you said, though. I still maintain that that is not a relevant change. It *is* the Christian worldview.
Click to expand...


I agree that the five-days claim is not a relevant change per se _in and of itself_. However, I think that such a change inevitably carries with it a second change as well, namely the denial of cessationism and the sufficiency of Scripture - and that certainly _is_ a relevant change.


----------



## Me Died Blue

But a key part of our worldview is that our Scriptures were written by men who had physically seen our Savior during His Incarnation. Thus, another thing people espousing the five-day worldview would have to do in order to claim a revelation identical to the Bible apart from the three-days is to either 1) Write their Scriptures (making them identical to the Bible except on the five-days) themselves, and claim that their equiivalent of our Christ had His Incarnation during their lifetime, or 2) Produce manuscripts of their Scriptures that were dated back to whatever other time-period they claim their Savior's Incarnation occurred. Since no one has yet tried to espouse a worldview identical to Christianity except on such a minor difference as that, much less express their belief system in writing, #2 would be impossible. Therefore, they would have to claim #1 in order to espouse the worldview in question at all, and thus they would have to claim that they saw the One they call their Savior, and that He revealed to them their Scriptures. So at that point, I suppose they could in fact claim the sufficiency of their Scriptures and cessationism just like Christianity, and they would then have to be shown that they have no relevant difference (by means of your OT reference). But even for them to get that far would be a massive stretch.


----------



## Monergism

I want to be more active in this discussion, but I'm going to have to put off posting again until my exams and papers are finished on Tuesday. By then, Lord willing, I will have a little more time to think through all that has been said.

This thread is incredibly helpful btw!


----------



## crhoades

To sidestep the above discussion and answer the skeptic in a different way...

skep: My worldview is just the same except Christ was in there for 5 days.

Xtian: O.K... I think that will present some problems, but I'll leave them be for a moment. If your worldview is the same as mine then you grant that there is an Almighty, Personal Creator that you have to answer to. He is also thrice Holy and you are not. He calls you to submit to him as Lord in all areas of life and turn from your autonomous reasoning and living. etc.

By granting that much of the worldview of a Christian so as to not give you 100% the unbeliever is still acting autonomously. His problem is still that he will not call Christ Lord. This is effectively calling his/her bluff. They are trying to wiggle out of God's claim on their life. So now they have 3 positions to chose from:

1. Change their story and get away from their hypothetical worldview and argue more humanistically.
2. Grant the truth of the call on his life but not bow his knee and go away sad like the rich young ruler.
3. Repent and call on the name of the Lord and be saved.

By the grace of God, hopefully #3 occurs.

A large part of our apologetics is to give the reason for the hope we have...i.e. get a person to see the call of the gospel on their life and have to deal with it. Not necessarily to get them into a philosophical camel clutch and tap out.

I'd still like to see where this thread goes..just my  for now.


----------



## Me Died Blue

But their view would claim a denial of autonomy just as much as ours in that if it were similar in every way but the five-days, they would have to believe their god elected them to their belief and was presently sustaining their belief in it. Of course I'm not denying that they actually are in fact autonomous (since they are), but just saying that we couldn't necessarily use that particular fact for our argument the same way we could with, say, an agnostic or atheist.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But their view would claim a denial of autonomy just as much as ours in that if it were similar in every way but the five-days, they would have to believe their god elected them to their belief and was presently sustaining their belief in it. Of course I'm not denying that they actually are in fact autonomous (since they are), but just saying that we couldn't necessarily use that particular fact for our argument the same way we could with, say, an agnostic or atheist.



When you say "their god", if they are saying that they believe in our worldview but just 3 days are 5 then they are saying they believe in Yahweh and Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Are we talking about what Paul said above is that it is the same worldview just counterfatual or are they positing a wholly new worldview of now Fafsa, Sasa, and Hasa? These are two distinct instances. On the latter there is still a matter of revelation as has already been discussed as well as the block house approach. If it is the former then there is the issue which you raised about cessation etc. 

I was going on the view that it was the Christian worldview with just changing the 3 to 5. Before one would even have to get into arguing about cessation and sola scriptura, you could confront them with the gospel. And for them to reason *hypothetically* about the 5 days without revelation would be to do it autonomously.

I probably need to reread the thread to make sure I'm not equivocating on what is trying to be refuted.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> They could put it into a possible worlds senario. That is, in *this* world they don't have an actual revelation and eyewitness but there is a "possible world" that they had these things.



But again, that doesn't really give them any grounds on which to deny that Christianity is true in _this_ life. In light of that, I guess I'm starting to see your point about how someone can make out-in-space, hypothetical theories all they want, but that unless they directly relate them to this actual life and existence, they're hardly relevant or worthy of consideration.

I still don't have it totally "natural" in my mind by any means, and would not yet be able to fully defend the Christian worldview in a conversation of my own, but I'm starting to get more of it as the conversation progresses.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> No, the point is that if Christianity is *necessarily* true then it would be in all possible worlds. Possibel worlds just relate to the distinction between necessary and contingent.



What of a world in which the laws of logic were different? What of a universe with a dualistic existence? A world where circles could be squares? These don't make sense within our existence or laws of logic, and I don't see why we need to defend Christianity for any realm existence but the one we are actually in - if someone wants to think that Christ wouldn't have a claim on their lives in some hypothetical type of warped existence they dream up in their heads (in which laws of logic didn't make sense by the standards of our current existence), they can go for it - that doesn't pose any challenge to my thesis that Christ has a claim on their lives in _this_ existence, which seems like the only existence in which we need to defend His claim; for we are told to be ready to make a defense for the hope that _is in us_, which exists in our actual realm of existence. If I'm just missing something obvious here, please point it out.


----------



## Me Died Blue

OK, I think the Chargers example helps clarify that. Now, tell me if I'm on the right train of thought here: If someone were to say, "Well, Christ having rose from the dead doesn't _have_ to be, either. A world in which He didn't is perfectly conceivable," would you respond by first laying out the implications that would have for the Christian worldview, and then showing the things that can't be accounted for with those implied changes in place? If so, I see the difference, because people could not do the same with the Chargers example, since they would not be able to come up with implications of a different game outcome that would negate things that are necessary for intelligibility, whereas you could come up with such implications of Christ not rising.


----------



## Me Died Blue

No, when I mentioned Christ rising from the dead in that last post I meant Him rising from the dead _at all_. Sorry for not clarifying that more. Read my post again with that in mind.


----------



## luvroftheWord

First, let me just recommend that everybody that is interested in this discussion purchase the mp3's by Greg Bahnsen and Michael Butler on Transcendental Arguments: Nuclear Strength Apologetics. They are available at www.cmfnow.com. Bahnsen deals with the criticisms that are being raised here and I think you will find him helpful.

Second, this discussion has died down a bit over the last day or so, but I want to try to help Paul out and take another stab at explaining this.

The point has been made rather well, I believe, that in the nature of the case, there can be only one transcendental. To argue for more than one transcendental makes no sense, since that would mean that there are two ultimate authorities (which really means that neither authority is ultimate after all). So what I'm going to say here assumes that everybody in this thread believes there can be only one transcendental.

Now, everybody in this thread has also granted that the Christian worldview can provide the transcendental for knowledge (if you don't grant that, I don't know why you would be a member of the Puritanboard to begin with since you need to get saved). Now, the TAG says not simply that Christianity can make sense of the world, but that Christianity is the ONLY worldview that can do this. Why is this true? Well, because Christianity itself claims to be the only one that can do this. That claim can be either true or false. If the claim is true, then there are no other possible alternatives out there that could provide the transcendental. If the claim is false, then Christianity itself is a false worldview and cannot provide the transcendental.

So, if you grant that Christianity can provide the transcendental, you must also grant that Christianity is the ONLY one that can, because it claims that it is. And if that claim is wrong, then your claim that Christianity can provide the transcendental is also wrong. This is because you are granting that Christianity truly provides a transcendental of meaningfulness. And if Christianity is a true worldview, then so are the claims it makes. 

Yeah, Paul! 

[Edited on 14-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> The point has been made rather well, I believe, that in the nature of the case, there can be only one transcendental. To argue for more than one transcendental makes no sense, since that would mean that there are two ultimate authorities (which really means that neither authority is ultimate after all). So what I'm going to say here assumes that everybody in this thread believes there can be only one transcendental.



Thanks for recommending the mp3's, I'll definitely get those. But actually, this point is one of the main points I still am having trouble with. (Even though I obviously believe it because I follow Christ, it's fully understanding it well enough to be able to explain and defend it that I'm talking about.) If I were to tell a skeptic, "Well, ultimately there can only be _one_ highest standard that you're treating as supremely authoritative with regard to your assumptions," and they said, "Why is that?" and asked me to illustrate why somehow, I would not be able to do it. What if they believe that they appeal to, say, the laws of logic and the reliability of the senses as the two separate, co-existent highest authorities to which they appeal. How would you show them that only one of them can be finally authoritative, and that two cannot be the co-ultimate authorities?


----------



## luvroftheWord

If there are two ultimate authorities, then your worldview cannot account for the one/many problem becuase your worldview cannot account for unity.


----------

