Poll...Who utilizes what apologetic method?

[DonP]

When RE argumentation is used perhaps along with his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, you can make quite a good case of theism being rational and atheism irrational, although he would hardly say that the only sense you can make of the universe is "presupposing God", I should think.

He may not say that but don't you think it is true? I mean there is some apparent rationality in working to eat and provide for your family but ultimately if we do not know God all was irrational since that was what we made for
Ecclesiastes 12:8 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"All is vanity."
NKJV

 

[PresbyDane]

Is there a website somewhere were I can find a disscription of the different types?

 

[CharlieJ]

Clark would say that we know a rose as God knows a rose...Van Til would say he knows it as Creator (more fully) and we know it in a derivative fashion.

I wouldn't put it at all like this. The difference between Van Til and Clark was whether our knowledge at any point intersects with God's. The question was "qualitative" not "quantitative." So, Clark would say that when I look at a rose and think, "This is a rose," there is an identical proposition somewhere in God's mind. Van Til would say that man and God share no identical propositions in common, but that all human knowledge is analagous to God's knowledge, which is simple rather than discursive.

 

[Confessor]

Besides the issue of the Van Til/Clark debate regarding analogicity and knowledge, I think this is the prime difference between the two schools: a Van Tillian epistemology is one which is grounded on Scripture, while a Clarkian one is nothing more than Scripture. Or, to put it another way, Van Til believed that Scripture was a light that illuminated the rest of the universe to give us knowledge, while Clark believed that Scripture was the entirety of our knowledge.

 

[Herald]

I preach the gospel.

Ahh...I see, so you are Van Tillian too, eh?

If you say so! Some time ago I took time to work out what all these schools of thought taught and believed. Then I thought 'I still need to preach the gospel!' In fact, rather like the day I discovered that not all the world was amillennial, and I thought my brain might explode (when I was about 15) with all the jargon, schools of thought, and fine differences, so apologetical methods have similarly fried my mind

Bottom line is, not one person in my church would understand any of what you wrote in the OP, and I have a rebellious streak a mile wide when it comes to making academica out of life-giving theology. I'm not anti-intellectual, just sympathetic. If we could have a show of hands, I am convinced that a lot of readers of the PB don't understand what you are asking.

Perhaps a one-line explanation next to each view? Okay, a paragraph. Then someone will disagree with your definition. And on we go.



-----Added 4/3/2009 at 07:33:59 EST-----

And to be precise, in theory I am #3 but in practice I waver between #1 and #3

Jonathan, I hear you. If I was compelled to give an answer, I would probably be more comfortable being labeled as a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist. My question is whether we must be forced into an apologetical method named for men. Human understanding, even at its best, is flawed.

...as ministers we ought to in some way be relaying the truths of our apologetic, so that they may defend their faith.

Nicholas, absolutely. No debate here. My contention is that our apologetic does not need to fit lock, stock and barrel into one apologetical method.

 

[nicnap]

Clark would say that we know a rose as God knows a rose...Van Til would say he knows it as Creator (more fully) and we know it in a derivative fashion.

I wouldn't put it at all like this. The difference between Van Til and Clark was whether our knowledge at any point intersects with God's. The question was "qualitative" not "quantitative." So, Clark would say that when I look at a rose and think, "This is a rose," there is an identical proposition somewhere in God's mind. Van Til would say that man and God share no identical propositions in common, but that all human knowledge is analagous to God's knowledge, which is simple rather than discursive.

This is what I was getting at in my one sentence summary. If the parenthesized more full seemed to indicate a quantitative difference, it wasn't meant to. I was aiming at analogous when I ued derivative.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I don't always use one methdology. I don't think people are logical nor consistant so it's not always helpful using one system. It's good to start out with one system but one might have to break away as one progresses and see's what can help an invidiual.

 

[Marrow Man]

However, there is also a question as to how seriously he takes the noetic effect of sin in developing his methodology.

What do you mean to say?

This has been a criticism leveled against Plantinga -- that he misuses Calvin's notion of the senus divinititas (or, perhaps, takes it too far) and perhaps fails to consider the effect of sin on the human mind in this area.

PM me and I'll supply the sources I'm thinking of here.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Keep in mind that Plantinga argues against the classical doctrine of divine simplicity, claiming it reduces to the proposition that God is a property, thereby precluding that God is a person.

For more, see his Does God Have A Nature? (Marquette: Marquette University Press; 1980).

 

[ChristianTrader]

I choose Other. I would choose Van Tillian except that there are some who would insist that I'd have to stick to TAG or the impossibility of the contrary. I don't claim to be a sophisticated philsopher but tend toward common sense realism. The way I see it, God's existence doesn't have to be proven. It is public knowledge, like gravity and air. I don't have a problem with evidences but they have to be grounded in a commitment that God exists and things are therefore logical and predictable.

But don't you have to put forth an argument that your version of God is the actual God and others are not.

CT

 

[steven-nemes]

This has been a criticism leveled against Plantinga -- that he misuses Calvin's notion of the senus divinititas (or, perhaps, takes it too far) and perhaps fails to consider the effect of sin on the human mind in this area..

Well, what specifically is the matter with the idea of you being born with a cognitive faculty that produces beliefs in you regarding things spiritual, eternal, etc.? And that this thing produces beliefs in false gods, etc., because of the effects of sin (though I don't know that Plantinga says this; but let's say for argument's sake that I say it)?

-----Added 4/6/2009 at 04:27:40 EST-----

But don't you have to put forth an argument that your version of God is the actual God and others are not.

What sort of argument proves a trinitarian god?

 

[Confessor]

This has been a criticism leveled against Plantinga -- that he misuses Calvin's notion of the senus divinititas (or, perhaps, takes it too far) and perhaps fails to consider the effect of sin on the human mind in this area..

Well, what specifically is the matter with the idea of you being born with a cognitive faculty that produces beliefs in you regarding things spiritual, eternal, etc.? And that this thing produces beliefs in false gods, etc., because of the effects of sin (though I don't know that Plantinga says this; but let's say for argument's sake that I say it)?

Because then there is no moral responsibility for such beliefs. Sinners distort the truth; they don't innocently receive untruth.

-----Added 4/6/2009 at 04:33:01 EST-----

I choose Other. I would choose Van Tillian except that there are some who would insist that I'd have to stick to TAG or the impossibility of the contrary. I don't claim to be a sophisticated philsopher but tend toward common sense realism. The way I see it, God's existence doesn't have to be proven. It is public knowledge, like gravity and air. I don't have a problem with evidences but they have to be grounded in a commitment that God exists and things are therefore logical and predictable.

But don't you have to put forth an argument that your version of God is the actual God and others are not.

CT

Whenever presuppositionalists talk about God not needing to be proven, or about God not needing evidence, what we mean is this: He is the basis and the root of an entire philosophy, not something that can be proven as an extension of some pre-existing philosophy.

Therefore to say that God is proven or unproven is a category error.

In other words, when we talk about the non-necessity of giving evidence for God, we mean it in the narrow sense (i.e. evidence sprouting from a pre-established philosophy that is not already rooted in God) and not in the broader sense (i.e. any types of reasons to believe whatsoever).

 

[ChristianTrader]

-----Added 4/6/2009 at 04:27:40 EST-----

But don't you have to put forth an argument that your version of God is the actual God and others are not.

What sort of argument proves a trinitarian god?

Does Paul give someone an out for not believing in the trinitarian God? Do they have any excuse/apology?

CT

-----Added 4/6/2009 at 05:49:56 EST-----

-----Added 4/6/2009 at 04:33:01 EST-----

I choose Other. I would choose Van Tillian except that there are some who would insist that I'd have to stick to TAG or the impossibility of the contrary. I don't claim to be a sophisticated philsopher but tend toward common sense realism. The way I see it, God's existence doesn't have to be proven. It is public knowledge, like gravity and air. I don't have a problem with evidences but they have to be grounded in a commitment that God exists and things are therefore logical and predictable.

But don't you have to put forth an argument that your version of God is the actual God and others are not.

CT

Whenever presuppositionalists talk about God not needing to be proven, or about God not needing evidence, what we mean is this: He is the basis and the root of an entire philosophy, not something that can be proven as an extension of some pre-existing philosophy.

Therefore to say that God is proven or unproven is a category error.

In other words, when we talk about the non-necessity of giving evidence for God, we mean it in the narrow sense (i.e. evidence sprouting from a pre-established philosophy that is not already rooted in God) and not in the broader sense (i.e. any types of reasons to believe whatsoever).

I'm simply saying that at some point, you have to spell out your God vs. the other competitors for the crown.

There is also the issue of having to point out how evidence not rooted in God runs aground, and evidence that is, does not.

CT

 

[DonP]

Then what does this mean?

Rom 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
NKJV

Seem like there was a knowledge of even the true God but they chose not to glorify Him and made images.

So if this is speaking of non-covenantal heathen, then it seems the knowldge of god for sure was in them from the creation and possible the knowldge of the God.

 

[steven-nemes]

Does Paul give someone an out for not believing in the trinitarian God? Do they have any excuse/apology?

Well it seems to me that Paul says that God's attributes are plainly seen and known and understood by the things made. Either his triune nature is known or it isn't.

If his triune nature is not known (and therefore people are not held accountable for not believing in the triune God), then a person might have an excuse for believing a God basically the same as Yahweh except unitarian, like Allah, or some other being.

Or, if his triune nature is known by the things that are made, then a person cannot have any excuse for believing in any other God but the triune God.

But it seems to me that some say that, if God can be known by the things that are made, then his existence is capable of being proved by way of rational argumentation (how this follows, I still don't see). But this means, then, that his triune nature is also capable of being proved through argumentation, since it is clearly perceived.

Either his triune nature is not known through nature (and it seems to me that from this follows the fact that Muslims or other monotheists have an excuse) or his triune nature is known through nature and capable of being proved through rational argumentation (which some seem to say, though I am doubtful there is any such argument).

If you notice a flaw in my reasoning, then let me know!

-----Added 4/6/2009 at 08:09:38 EST-----

Because then there is no moral responsibility for such beliefs. Sinners distort the truth; they don't innocently receive untruth.

Let's assume that is true; then the sensus divinitatis produces belief in God and the person himself willingly changes/acts against/distorts/etc his belief into belief X. Is that what happens?

 

[Confessor]

Either his triune nature is not known through nature (and it seems to me that from this follows the fact that Muslims or other monotheists have an excuse) or his triune nature is known through nature and capable of being proved through rational argumentation (which some seem to say, though I am doubtful there is any such argument).

If you notice a flaw in my reasoning, then let me know!

There is also the option of the Bible being obviously the revealed Word of God, and it being perspicuously foolish to reject it as God's Word. Therefore the triune nature is known through special revelation, yet all men are without excuse for their sin. This keeps people culpable for not believing in the triune God (unless they never receive a Bible), yet it does not attempt to say that trinitarian theology can somehow be approached via natural theology.

Of course, it's not as if we are saved by belief in strict monotheism or trinitarian monotheism; we are saved by grace through the arm of faith in Christ. Therefore if someone doesn't believe in a triune God, they are damned for their own sin and not necessarily for their lack of belief in the triune God (this would apply to those tribes that never hear the Gospel).

Because then there is no moral responsibility for such beliefs. Sinners distort the truth; they don't innocently receive untruth.

Let's assume that is true; then the sensus divinitatis produces belief in God and the person himself willingly changes/acts against/distorts/etc his belief into belief X. Is that what happens?

Um, assuming that is true, that is what happens.

But seriously, that is what I believe.

 

[steven-nemes]

There is also the option of the Bible being obviously the revealed Word of God, and it being perspicuously foolish to reject it as God's Word. Therefore the triune nature is known through special revelation, yet all men are without excuse for their sin. This keeps people culpable for not believing in the triune God (unless they never receive a Bible), yet it does not attempt to say that trinitarian theology can somehow be approached via natural theology.

This wouldn't work because, firstly, it is not what Paul seems to me to be saying in Romans 1, and secondly, because it has nothing to say to the countless men and women who died, without excuse, prior to any Scriptures being written. They were without excuse before God, yet they did not have the revealed Word of God written on paper to convict them, so that cannot be what is the damning factor in natural revelation.

Um, assuming that is true, that is what happens.

But seriously, that is what I believe.

How does a person go about taking the belief in God produced in them and distorting it willfully? When, at what point in life, does this occur?

And the objection that the sensus divinitatis producing false beliefs in them because of sin would be unfair, because they are not believing those things willfully, sounds like the objection that men can't be held responsible for sin because their physical state is such that they can't do otherwise. They are not given the "opportunity" to obey the law so they can't be held responsible.

I am having a hard time expressing myself right now, I'm very tired, so sorry if my writing is also tired...

 

[ChristianTrader]

There is also the option of the Bible being obviously the revealed Word of God, and it being perspicuously foolish to reject it as God's Word. Therefore the triune nature is known through special revelation, yet all men are without excuse for their sin. This keeps people culpable for not believing in the triune God (unless they never receive a Bible), yet it does not attempt to say that trinitarian theology can somehow be approached via natural theology.

This wouldn't work because, firstly, it is not what Paul seems to me to be saying in Romans 1, and secondly, because it has nothing to say to the countless men and women who died, without excuse, prior to any Scriptures being written. They were without excuse before God, yet they did not have the revealed Word of God written on paper to convict them, so that cannot be what is the damning factor in natural revelation.

Actually it would work, if one is able to find the deficiencies in the alternatives given up to that point. If a person died without ever hearing the good news of triune God given in the the gospel, there is nothing they could complain concerning.

CT

 

[cih1355]

Then what does this mean?

Rom 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
NKJV

Seem like there was a knowledge of even the true God but they chose not to glorify Him and made images.

So if this is speaking of non-covenantal heathen, then it seems the knowldge of god for sure was in them from the creation and possible the knowldge of the God.

All people know God in some sense. God's attributes are known through His creation.

I don't see how a person could arrive at the conclusion that God exists as a Trinity without the aid of special revelation.

 

[steven-nemes]

Actually it would work, if one is able to find the deficiencies in the alternatives given up to that point. If a person died without ever hearing the good news of triune God given in the the gospel, there is nothing they could complain concerning.

CT

It seems to me you are asserting the following:

(1) The Bible can be plainly understood to be the Word of God and anyone who thinks otherwise has no excuse because, well, it is plain it is.
(2) As for those who lived prior to the coming of the written scriptures, those people can be held responsible for not believing in God because the proposed religions during those times were false, contradictory, etc., so tey are without excuse.

This seems to me to presuppose that any person throughout any point in history is capable of reasoning and finding by way of logical inference contradictions, etc., in any and all alternatives to belief in the existence of God as expressed in the Bible, which I think is plainly false. I think some people simply don't have the reasoning capabilities and strengths to find inconsistencies in, say, ancient Greek religions, and so they couldn't reason to the conclusion that those religions are false and therefore they are without excuse; I think they are still without excuse despite the fact that they are not perhaps smart enough or enough of analytic thinkers to find inconsistencies in their religions.

Also, it seems to presuppose that people have moral obligations to use reason critically and discover truth regarding the nature of the universe and God, etc. Where is this in Scripture? Nowhere, I should think.

 

[Confessor]

This wouldn't work because, firstly, it is not what Paul seems to me to be saying in Romans 1

I never said that this was the content of Romans 1. I was providing an option which would make your statement above -- the one regarding God's triune nature, that either 1. non-Christian monotheists would have an excuse, or 2. trinitarianism can be definitively proven from nature -- a false dichotomy.

secondly, because it has nothing to say to the countless men and women who died, without excuse, prior to any Scriptures being written. They were without excuse before God, yet they did not have the revealed Word of God written on paper to convict them, so that cannot be what is the damning factor in natural revelation.

I never said that the revealed Word is what damns people. In fact, I provided an explicit example given the case of people who never receive the Word: "Therefore if someone doesn't believe in a triune God, they are damned for their own sin and not necessarily for their lack of belief in the triune God (this would apply to those tribes that never hear the Gospel)."

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "they did not have the revealed Word of God written on paper to convict them, so that cannot be what is the damning factor in natural revelation" -- you seem to be saying, If people did not have special revelation to convict them, then special revelation can't be the part of natural revelation that convicts them. But this does not make sense, for special revelation is not a subset of natural revelation. (I'm guessing this is not really an error at all in content, and that it is merely due to your fatigue as you noted at the end of your note, so you can leave this alone if you want.)

To smooth out the rough edges, I'll just state my position right here: people are without excuse and have some type of knowledge of God from mere natural revelation. The Bible is obviously God's Word and will be immediately accepted as His Word to any whose eyes God has opened; all who reject it are prima facie wrong in their rejection of it. Therefore, all are damned who never hear the Gospel (because convicted through natural revelation), and those who have somewhat of a knowledge of the Bible (viz. enough to know that God is triune) are punished for their denial of the Trinity, because they should have accepted the Bible as authoritative and therefore the Trinity as solid doctrine. But those who do not hear the Word are still damned; however they are not punished for their non-trinitarianism -- since they never were aware it was in the Bible anyway.

How does a person go about taking the belief in God produced in them and distorting it willfully? When, at what point in life, does this occur?

That's a good question. I'm not sure of the mechanics of it, but I can tell you that all natural men "suppress the truth by their wickedness...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:18-19).

And Bahnsen spends a long time in Van Til's Apologetic outlining the awkwardness of this case. Chapter 6 is entitled "The Psychological Complexities of Unbelief," pp. 405-460. It's obviously not a very simple thing to discuss -- such as, When in life does this occur? Steven, I obviously do not know that, but neither is such a topic very crucial to the present discussion.

And the objection that the sensus divinitatis producing false beliefs in them because of sin would be unfair, because they are not believing those things willfully, sounds like the objection that men can't be held responsible for sin because their physical state is such that they can't do otherwise. They are not given the "opportunity" to obey the law so they can't be held responsible.

It absolutely can be a viable objection. There has to be some sense of ability-to-do-otherwise that accompanies moral responsibility (not in the Pelagian/free will sense, of course -- I'm still an extremely staunch theological determinist); otherwise the analogies which are supposed to be arguments -- such as "God wouldn't punish a rock for falling; so also He wouldn't punish sinners for doing what they must do" -- would absolutely hold water.

By the way, I contend that this ability to do otherwise consists of the ability given a contrary desire, a counterfactual ability to do otherwise. I wrote a paper on this for my philosophy of religion class if you (or anyone reading) is interested.

Even if you would never grant any of the preceding two paragraphs, though, it is still clear that people cannot be held morally responsible for wrong beliefs if they did nothing to get them, or if they did not distort other beliefs that were actually good. Such people would be doing the best they can given their situation; they would be doing nothing wrong. People cannot be held morally responsible for things that they do not mistreat. That'd be like giving a child a broken toy and spanking him for breaking it.

You might counter that totally depraved sinners are doing the best they can and therefore cannot be punished for their necessary sin (to imply a reductio ad absurdum of my argument), but I reply that it still within sinners' ability in a sense to be sinless -- namely, if they had godly desires and a new heart -- the same distinction I outlined above, one of counterfactual desire. (Of course, this never occurs this side of heaven, and there is no free will for sinners to choose this, but that's beside the point. The ability exists in a sense, which is crucial to the argument.)

And please, please, anyone reading this -- don't mistake what I wrote for Pelagianism or Wesleyan holiness.

I hope you recover on your sleep, Steven.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Actually it would work, if one is able to find the deficiencies in the alternatives given up to that point. If a person died without ever hearing the good news of triune God given in the the gospel, there is nothing they could complain concerning.

CT

It seems to me you are asserting the following:

(1) The Bible can be plainly understood to be the Word of God and anyone who thinks otherwise has no excuse because, well, it is plain it is.
(2) As for those who lived prior to the coming of the written scriptures, those people can be held responsible for not believing in God because the proposed religions during those times were false, contradictory, etc., so tey are without excuse.

This seems to me to presuppose that any person throughout any point in history is capable of reasoning and finding by way of logical inference contradictions, etc., in any and all alternatives to belief in the existence of God as expressed in the Bible, which I think is plainly false. I think some people simply don't have the reasoning capabilities and strengths to find inconsistencies in, say, ancient Greek religions, and so they couldn't reason to the conclusion that those religions are false and therefore they are without excuse; I think they are still without excuse despite the fact that they are not perhaps smart enough or enough of analytic thinkers to find inconsistencies in their religions.

Also, it seems to presuppose that people have moral obligations to use reason critically and discover truth regarding the nature of the universe and God, etc. Where is this in Scripture? Nowhere, I should think.

It would be cleaner if we handled the two claims separately. Let us start with 1; do you believe that such is true or false? Or put a different way, do you think it is clear to reason that the Bible is God's word?

CT

 

[steven-nemes]

It would be cleaner if we handled the two claims separately. Let us start with 1; do you believe that such is true or false? Or put a different way, do you think it is clear to reason that the Bible is God's word?

CT

(1) The Bible can be plainly understood to be the Word of God and anyone who thinks otherwise has no excuse because, well, it is plain it is.

I don't know what you mean by 'clear to reason'. Do I think that (1) is true in some sense? I wouldn't know; probably not. I think a person cannot hold the Bible as being the word of God unless he has been regenerated; man in his sinful state could not "reason" to the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God any more than he can submit to God's law by an act of the will.

-----Added 4/8/2009 at 09:32:07 EST-----

I never said that this was the content of Romans 1. I was providing an option which would make your statement above -- the one regarding God's triune nature, that either 1. non-Christian monotheists would have an excuse, or 2. trinitarianism can be definitively proven from nature -- a false dichotomy.

Alright, but the idea that God's nature is revealed in the created order is in scripture; where is the idea that my ESV bible is plainly his written word and it is plain to see it is?

I never said that the revealed Word is what damns people. In fact, I provided an explicit example given the case of people who never receive the Word: "Therefore if someone doesn't believe in a triune God, they are damned for their own sin and not necessarily for their lack of belief in the triune God (this would apply to those tribes that never hear the Gospel)."

Alright, my mistake... I've been very sleepy lately and my mind is not at 100%.

That's a good question. I'm not sure of the mechanics of it, but I can tell you that all natural men "suppress the truth by their wickedness...what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:18-19).

And Bahnsen spends a long time in Van Til's Apologetic outlining the awkwardness of this case. Chapter 6 is entitled "The Psychological Complexities of Unbelief," pp. 405-460. It's obviously not a very simple thing to discuss -- such as, When in life does this occur? Steven, I obviously do not know that, but neither is such a topic very crucial to the present discussion.

Alright, I am only asking. Others hold the idea that belief in God is not immediately produced in a person, but that if a person were to apply his mind, reason, etc., he could come to the notion that God exists by what is made about him. You don't hold that, it seems to me; you seem to believe that belief in God at some point in a person's life is immediately produced in him but the person consciously ignores it or rationalizes it into another belief, etc.

It absolutely can be a viable objection. There has to be some sense of ability-to-do-otherwise that accompanies moral responsibility (not in the Pelagian/free will sense, of course -- I'm still an extremely staunch theological determinist); otherwise the analogies which are supposed to be arguments -- such as "God wouldn't punish a rock for falling; so also He wouldn't punish sinners for doing what they must do" -- would absolutely hold water.

By the way, I contend that this ability to do otherwise consists of the ability given a contrary desire, a counterfactual ability to do otherwise. I wrote a paper on this for my philosophy of religion class if you (or anyone reading) is interested.

Would you say then that if a person's desires had been different at a given point in time, he would have acted differently and this is the "ability to do otherwise"?

You might counter that totally depraved sinners are doing the best they can and therefore cannot be punished for their necessary sin (to imply a reductio ad absurdum of my argument), but I reply that it still within sinners' ability in a sense to be sinless -- namely, if they had godly desires and a new heart -- the same distinction I outlined above, one of counterfactual desire. (Of course, this never occurs this side of heaven, and there is no free will for sinners to choose this, but that's beside the point. The ability exists in a sense, which is crucial to the argument.)

Let's say that the belief-producing faculties in a person, like the sensus divinitatis, are subject to the basic, fundamental desires of a hypothetical man just as his actions are subject to those desires. He "sees what he wants to see" in a sense, I suppose. And so, a person with sinful desires, upon analyzing the world or what have you, has false beliefs produced in him because of them. And in this sense the sensus divinitatis is "broken" just as the will of man is "broken". It is not functioning as it ought to.

This is just a hypothetical that I thought up in response. Would there be any problems with it? I think it could be a proper counter to the assertion that a belief-producing-faculty that comes up with false belief would not be just.

 

[ChristianTrader]

It would be cleaner if we handled the two claims separately. Let us start with 1; do you believe that such is true or false? Or put a different way, do you think it is clear to reason that the Bible is God's word?

CT

(1) The Bible can be plainly understood to be the Word of God and anyone who thinks otherwise has no excuse because, well, it is plain it is.

I don't know what you mean by 'clear to reason'. Do I think that (1) is true in some sense? I wouldn't know; probably not. I think a person cannot hold the Bible as being the word of God unless he has been regenerated; man in his sinful state could not "reason" to the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God any more than he can submit to God's law by an act of the will.

Clear to reason just means, clear to someone who stopped to think about it.

Next, I am not making the claim about accepting the Bible as God word. It is a question of whether a person that stopped to think have to behave irrationally in order to reject the Bible as being true.

CT

 

[steven-nemes]

Clear to reason just means, clear to someone who stopped to think about it.

Next, I am not making the claim about accepting the Bible as God word. It is a question of whether a person that stopped to think have to behave irrationally in order to reject the Bible as being true.

CT

I don't think that any person can stop to think and come to the conclusion, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Clear to reason just means, clear to someone who stopped to think about it.

Next, I am not making the claim about accepting the Bible as God word. It is a question of whether a person that stopped to think have to behave irrationally in order to reject the Bible as being true.

CT

I don't think that any person can stop to think and come to the conclusion, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Alright so what is your answer to the second part, the part about having to behave irrationally to reject the Bible as true?

CT

 

[steven-nemes]

Alright so what is your answer to the second part, the part about having to behave irrationally to reject the Bible as true?

CT

I suppose I will respond with a question: what do you think would make a person irrational?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Alright so what is your answer to the second part, the part about having to behave irrationally to reject the Bible as true?

CT

I suppose I will respond with a question: what do you think would make a person irrational?

We can get into motives etc. later, the question at hand are results. Whether or not it is clear to reason that the Bible is true or whether such a claim is false. If it is clear to reason then a person would have to behave "against reason/irrational" in order to reject the claims of the Bible.

Or are you asking what does an irrational decision look like? If such is the question that you are asking, then the above should answer that as well.

CT

 

[Confessor]

Alright, but the idea that God's nature is revealed in the created order is in scripture; where is the idea that my ESV bible is plainly his written word and it is plain to see it is?

That's a good question. For now please accept it as a possible third alternative -- since the (reasonably) possible viability of a third option is all that is needed to demonstrate a false dichotomy. Otherwise, I will do some reading to find out the Scriptural basis for this, if there be any.

Alright, my mistake... I've been very sleepy lately and my mind is not at 100%.

Not a problem.

Alright, I am only asking. Others hold the idea that belief in God is not immediately produced in a person, but that if a person were to apply his mind, reason, etc., he could come to the notion that God exists by what is made about him. You don't hold that, it seems to me; you seem to believe that belief in God at some point in a person's life is immediately produced in him but the person consciously ignores it or rationalizes it into another belief, etc.

Yes, I would say that suppression of the truth presupposes possession of the truth; therefore people have to actually have the belief in God in order to suppress the truth in the first place. I'm curious to know how you interpret mankind's suppression of the truth differently from my interpretation. (I'm not trying to say there's no possible alternative; I'm just interested in hearing your interpretation of it.)

Would you say then that if a person's desires had been different at a given point in time, he would have acted differently and this is the "ability to do otherwise"?

Yes. However, I would not term it as an unqualified "ability to do otherwise," because of the connotations of free will.

Let's say that the belief-producing faculties in a person, like the sensus divinitatis, are subject to the basic, fundamental desires of a hypothetical man just as his actions are subject to those desires. He "sees what he wants to see" in a sense, I suppose. And so, a person with sinful desires, upon analyzing the world or what have you, has false beliefs produced in him because of them. And in this sense the sensus divinitatis is "broken" just as the will of man is "broken". It is not functioning as it ought to.

This is just a hypothetical that I thought up in response. Would there be any problems with it? I think it could be a proper counter to the assertion that a belief-producing-faculty that comes up with false belief would not be just.

I'd say that is a category mistake, for, to put it simply, beliefs are not a result of desires: we do not believe what we want to believe. Belief in propositions is a totally involuntary thing, although subsequently we can voluntarily embrace or voluntarily suppress that belief. Or, to put it another way, intellectual assent to propositions happens automatically and involuntarily, whereas the moral assent (embracing or suppressing) is voluntary.

However, if beliefs were completely matters of choice (an impossible stance as far as I see it), then yes, your rebuttal to my assertion would be completely valid. For in that case, the same structure would exist for a person making moral choices, which are necessary yet involving culpability, and a person believing certain things, which would be necessary but consequently also involving culpability (because there'd be no difference between the former and the latter).

 

[BrianLanier]

It should be noted that 'Reformed Epistemology' is not an apologetic method, but is a project in the epistemology of religious belief. While not constituting a school or method of apologetics, RE does utilitze philosophical arguments that are useful to Christian apologetics of most stripes.

See this essay by Michael Sudduth:

Reformed Epistemology and Christian Apologetics