Apologetic Game Changing Book?

[ChristianTrader]

The Clarity of God's Existence
The Ethics of Belief After the Enlightenment
by Owen Anderson

Description:
The Clarity of God's Existence examines the need for theistic proofs within historic Christianity, and the challenges to these since the Enlightenment. Historically (and scripturally), Christianity has maintained that unbelief is inexcusable. If failing to know God is a sin, the implication is that humans can and should know God. Humans should know God because his eternal power and divine nature are clearly revealed in the things that are made. And yet, Anderson argues, more time is spent on avoiding the need for clarity to establish inexcusability than on actually providing an argument or proof. Proofs that rely on Aristotle or Plato and that establish a Prime Mover or designer are thought to be sufficient. But the adequacy of these, not only to prove the God of theism, but also to prove anything at all, has been called into question by Enlightenment thinkers like David Hume.

After considering the traditional proofs, and tracing the history of challenges to theistic proofs (from Hume to Kant and down to the twentieth century), Anderson argues that the standard methods of apologetics have failed to sufficiently respond. Classical Apologetics, Evidentialism, Presuppositionalism, Reformed Epistemology, and others fail to adequately answer the challenges of the Enlightenment. If this is the case, what is the outcome for Christianity?

Anderson offers an explanation as to why traditional proofs have failed, and for what is necessary to offer a proof that not only responds to Hume and Kant but also establishes the clarity of God's existence. The traditional proofs failed precisely in not aiming at the clarity of God's existence, and they failed in this because of a faulty view of the goal of Christian life. If the blessed life is to be attained in a direct vision of God in heaven, then there is little to no reason to ask for more than the bare minimum required to get into heaven (justification). Furthermore, if the highest blessing is this direct vision, then the glory of God revealed in his work is considered as less important and even set aside. By way of contrast, if God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly revealed in his works, and the blessing comes in knowing God, then it is of the utmost importance for Christianity to demonstrate the clarity of God's existence.


https://wipfandstock.com/store/The_..._The_Ethics_of_Belief_After_the_Enlightenment

 

[ChristianTrader]

Beyond Plantinga and Improper Function: The Inexcusability of Unbelief

Here is a link to a paper that contrasts Dr. Anderson's project with Alvin Plantinga's

Beyond Plantinga and Improper Function: The Inexcusability of Unbelief
by Owen Anderson

Why do I need redemption? For what do I need to be forgiven? From what do I need to be saved? These questions posed to a Christian should elicit answers about sin, the punishment for sin, and the need for redemption. Yet is this account fair? Specifically, what is to be made of Reformed Epistemology and its well known advocate Alvin Plantinga? Does Plantinga's account of proper function make sense of the need for redemption, and preserve necessary concepts such as inexcusability, clarity, and rationality? In the following Plantinga's position will be described and then considered in light of the above questions. The assertion here is that Plantinga's position does not make sense of sin, or the need for redemption through the death of Christ. This is because on Plantinga’s view the unbeliever has an excuse for their unbelief, it is not clear that God exists, and human rationality is defective/not properly functioning. For the purposes of this paper it can be granted that Plantinga has established that theists are within their epistemic rights. This paper is not an argument against that aspect of Plantinga’s work, and some might say that that is all Plantinga was trying to do.

...

Quodlibet Online Journal: Beyond Plantinga and Improper Function: The Inexcusability of Unbelief - by Owen Anderson

 

[owenanderson]

Clarity of God's Existence book

Thank you for mentioning my book on this forum. I noticed that you also mentioned an older article I wrote about Alvin Plantinga. I have updated this article and used it as a chapter in another book of mine titled "Reason and Worldviews."

If you've had a chance to read my book about the clarity of God's existence I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Owen Anderson

 

[ChristianTrader]

Thank you for mentioning my book on this forum. I noticed that you also mentioned an older article I wrote about Alvin Plantinga. I have updated this article and used it as a chapter in another book of mine titled "Reason and Worldviews."

If you've had a chance to read my book about the clarity of God's existence I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Owen Anderson

I loved the book as well as your reason and worldviews book. I also read the book on basic beliefs by the guy who wrote the natural theology chapter of your reasons and worldviews book.

As a person coming from the Van Tillian viewpoint, it seemed to be somewhat of the next step. The unique thing about the Van Til project was how it seemed that he and his followers attempted to give the unbeliever no excuse while other "competitors" seemed to just go for Christianity being more probably than others.

Your project looks to be identical but instead of going by the way of transcendental argumentation (TAG), you focus more on just going from basic to less basic, so it is much easier to follow.

I have talked to a friend about your reason and worldview book and he has objected that your model does not work for infants and the mentally slow. We understand that they can be saved but if your model is right then they should not be able to be so.

I think that the objection would be akin to attacking Westminster confession ch. 1, for talking about the necessity of special revelation, but would like your view on it.

My biggest problem is that I have not read but so deep in philosophy past a few van tillian works, so I can't really see if your work is truly awesome or that I only think it is awesome due to my lack of philosophical depth.

Lastly, on your webpage it says that you are working on a new book. What does that work deal concerning?

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks for the heads up on this and welcome to the forum Owen.

I don't think I'll ever have the time to dive deep into philosophy but have read/listened to several histories of philosophy or of Western thought.

I've recently been going through the Institutes and find a certain simplicity and clarity in Calvin's simple assertions that man knows exactly what he's up to when he's supressing Truth.

I would never dismiss the work that those who are much more talented and studied than I put into working out a Reformed epistemology or apologetic but I often wonder what it achieves at a very ground level.

I find some of your summations very lucid, Hermonta, and I'm also looking forward to reading Owen's work when I get through a pile of other books that I need to read.

 

[ChristianTrader]

One other thing: Owen's books seems to have awaken me from my Theonomic slumbers. A key point made in his books concern the relationship between general and special revelation. General revelation has actual content to which people are responsible and are inexcusable for rejecting. It also puts some constraints on what special revelation looks like. Put another way, there is and has to be a natural law.

For me, Theonomy has its true bite only when one rejects natural law. Without natural law, one either has Theonomy or chaos. With natural law, one does not have to push so hard for continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament. One can then accept that some things were special for the jewish administration in the OT and don't need to be explicitly repealed in order to question the validity. If one attempts something like this without a robust natural law, then one is back again looking chaos in the face.

CT

 

[owenanderson]

clarity and inexcusability

Thanks again for your replies. My current book is titled "Religion and Reason in America" and is a history of religion in America, especially tracing how the Westminster Confession has been challenged, and how "reason" has been viewed in America. I hope it will be out next summer.

I also appreciate Van Til, but I think there is an important difference. He is helpful in arguing that there is no excuse. But I don't think that his appeal to the Triune God of the Bible can establish inexcusability because most people have not had access to the Bible. Instead, all people are and have been inexcusable because all alternatives to belief in God are contrary to reason.

When I was in graduate school one of my professors told me I was an intellectual pelagian because of my views about reason and inexcusability. I don't think this is true. I think it can be the case both that it is clear to reason, and that humans are predestined. I suspect that Reformed Epistemology goes the way it does in order to protect predestination, and sees little need to show it is clear if a person is predestined anyway. But we are called to show what is clear apart from a person's condition with respect to predestination.

As far as natural law goes, I believe this is also necessary for inexcusability. If the law cannot be known then from general revelation then those without special revelation cannot be held responsible. I agree with the WCF chapter 19.4 that "To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

In other words, I believe that challenge of our day is to show that there is a clear, general revelation that is full and comprehensive, and applies to all areas of our life. I think you were right when you said that the other views seem to only aim at possibility. What do you think?

I think you are doing a great job in your reading, apart from having a background in philosophy. Keep up the good work. I look forward to any other questions you might have. And thanks again for reading my books, it is very good to know that they are being read thoughtfully and are of help.

Owen

 

[owenanderson]

thank you

Semper Fidelis,

Thank you for your welcome and for including me on your forum. I look forward to hearing your thoughts if you get around to reading my book.

If I understand you about Reformed Epistemology, I agree that it does not seem to establish much. "Warranted belief" does not seem to help in showing that unbelief in inexcusable. It has been helpful in getting believers a seat at the academic table, but it might undermine that seat if there is not any further proof. If it is not clear that God exists, and there is an excuse for unbelief, then what does this mean for the Christian Gospel?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One other thing: Owen's books seems to have awaken me from my Theonomic slumbers. A key point made in his books concern the relationship between general and special revelation. General revelation has actual content to which people are responsible and are inexcusable for rejecting. It also puts some constraints on what special revelation looks like. Put another way, there is and has to be a natural law.

For me, Theonomy has its true bite only when one rejects natural law. Without natural law, one either has Theonomy or chaos. With natural law, one does not have to push so hard for continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament. One can then accept that some things were special for the jewish administration in the OT and don't need to be explicitly repealed in order to question the validity. If one attempts something like this without a robust natural law, then one is back again looking chaos in the face.

CT

CT,

Check out Book I of Calvin's Institutes. Calvin labors the light of nature to demonstrate God's clear revelation in the things created and then makes some profound points about the way men clench their eyes shut in relation to it to their own destruction.

When I read The Divine Right of Church Government, I was struck by how comfortable the Puritans were in arguing for Presbyterian government using the light of nature and the way that men had organized governments as but one of many supports for their case.

I would like to read more but I agree with Owen that it is possible to do a great deal from the light of nature. I think the fact that men are created in the image of God leaves them no "room" to escape some conclusions. Oh, they will throw up canards but they really know better.

I was speaking with a very devout Jew by accident a couple of weeks ago and we got into the discussion of the Messiah. It was clear that his authority and lens for the Scriptures was not going to permit me any way for him to agree on the proper interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus, when I asked him what he did with sin now and he stated that his prayer atones for sin I simply declared that it didn't and he was still in his sin. I had to simply declare what I knew he knew deep down even if he wasn't going to admit it. I felt inadequate in the sense that I wish I knew more about where he was coming from but the clarity of natural revelation can never fail to convict of sin on a certain level.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Dr. Anderson,
I do have a few questions somewhat related to your books.
1)In your reason and worldviews book, Natural Theology Chapter, Point #12 talks about addressing rational challenges to doctrines of Christianity. The Philosophical Foundations book by Gangadean was supposed to address them but I do not remember much in that book about the trinity or the incarnation. Is there a future book on those topics forthcoming?

2)What is your view of paradox? Is it unavoidable in core Christian Doctrines or is it avoidable by paying close attention to basic beliefs?

CT

 

[owenanderson]

Christian doctrines

Yes, Surrendra Gangadean is working on a book that will look at specific Christian doctrines like that. His earlier book is not about special revelation but focuses on general revelation.

Once we say that paradoxes are necessary we have no way of distinguishing between Christian paradoxes and paradoxes in other worldviews. Why believe Christian paradoxes? If we say it is because they are revealed to us, this is what the other religions say as well.

Further, when we say we believe a paradox, what do we mean? If something really is a paradox, is it meaningful? My understanding of the term is that it is a contradiction, and therefore it would not be meaningful (like square-circle). So how can we believe something that is not meaningful?

Does that help?

 

[owenanderson]

Calvin

Hi Rich,

My concern with Calvin's approach, and the sensus divinitatis, is that it can easily be reversed. We say "they know deep down," but "they" can say this of us as well. Richard Dawkins can say that we all know deep down that he is correct.

My impression is that we have to show that Richard Dawkin's view, naturalism, is self-contradictory at the basic level. Matter cannot have existed from eternity, nor can it account for intelligence--the human mind. What do you think?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Thanks for the quick reply,
I asked the question about paradox in part because of a new Doctoral Thesis published by a Van Tillian called, Paradox in Christian Theology: Reviewed by a friend here: Triablogue: Paradox In Christian Theology

A basic point raised is that no one has ever been able to take all the biblical data and avoid either contradiction or paradox. This however can be avoided if you do not accept all the Biblical data but instead go in some sort of heretical direction. Since this is the case, one needs to figure out how to accept at least some paradox's as an under defined problem.

I have the book and will read it sometime in the future, but was just looking for your current thoughts on the issue.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi Rich,

My concern with Calvin's approach, and the sensus divinitatis, is that it can easily be reversed. We say "they know deep down," but "they" can say this of us as well. Richard Dawkins can say that we all know deep down that he is correct.

My impression is that we have to show that Richard Dawkin's view, naturalism, is self-contradictory at the basic level. Matter cannot have existed from eternity, nor can it account for intelligence--the human mind. What do you think?

I think there's a difference between external and internal apologetics. I might be using the wrong terms.

Core to Reformed theology, however, is the testimony of the Holy Spirit and there is no philosophical way around that problem which will make it acceptable to a Roman Catholic much less a skeptic.

Thus, I think when we're talking about what really convinces us that Jesus is the Christ, there has to be an apologetic that we communicate within theology that explains why believe certain things and others don't.

On the other hand, as you note, we probably need to do a bit more than simply telling people that, if you're elect like me, then the Holy Spirit will reveal this to you.

My main point with Calvin, however, is that there is a very lucid explanation of the light of nature and he doesn't dismiss the fact that men have an innate knowledge of the things of God - albeit suprressed. I haven't read your book and feel inadequate to discuss more but I'm simply noting that an external apologetic can use this knowledge of God as leverage with men to get them to the point where they have to deal with their supression of Truth. Yet, in the end, it will be the Spirit's work to convict through the Gospel.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Hi Rich,

My concern with Calvin's approach, and the sensus divinitatis, is that it can easily be reversed. We say "they know deep down," but "they" can say this of us as well. Richard Dawkins can say that we all know deep down that he is correct.

My impression is that we have to show that Richard Dawkin's view, naturalism, is self-contradictory at the basic level. Matter cannot have existed from eternity, nor can it account for intelligence--the human mind. What do you think?

I think there's a difference between external and internal apologetics. I might be using the wrong terms.

Core to Reformed theology, however, is the testimony of the Holy Spirit and there is no philosophical way around that problem which will make it acceptable to a Roman Catholic much less a skeptic.

Thus, I think when we're talking about what really convinces us that Jesus is the Christ, there has to be an apologetic that we communicate within theology that explains why believe certain things and others don't.

On the other hand, as you note, we probably need to do a bit more than simply telling people that, if you're elect like me, then the Holy Spirit will reveal this to you.

My main point with Calvin, however, is that there is a very lucid explanation of the light of nature and he doesn't dismiss the fact that men have an innate knowledge of the things of God - albeit suprressed. I haven't read your book and feel inadequate to discuss more but I'm simply noting that an external apologetic can use this knowledge of God as leverage with men to get them to the point where they have to deal with their supression of Truth. Yet, in the end, it will be the Spirit's work to convict through the Gospel.

From reading Dr. Anderson's books, my feelings for what he is saying is this:
People seem to put too much wait on the idea of the Sensus divinitatis to do something that it should not do. The SD should be used as an explanation of how/why people act certain ways versus an argument against unbelief. If one shows that unbelief is irrational then go on about SD, then one does not veer off towards fideism.

The will is the problem, not the evidence etc. This argument can be made when the unbelievers mouth is closed, but until then it looks very much like special pleading.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi Rich,

My concern with Calvin's approach, and the sensus divinitatis, is that it can easily be reversed. We say "they know deep down," but "they" can say this of us as well. Richard Dawkins can say that we all know deep down that he is correct.

My impression is that we have to show that Richard Dawkin's view, naturalism, is self-contradictory at the basic level. Matter cannot have existed from eternity, nor can it account for intelligence--the human mind. What do you think?

I think there's a difference between external and internal apologetics. I might be using the wrong terms.

Core to Reformed theology, however, is the testimony of the Holy Spirit and there is no philosophical way around that problem which will make it acceptable to a Roman Catholic much less a skeptic.

Thus, I think when we're talking about what really convinces us that Jesus is the Christ, there has to be an apologetic that we communicate within theology that explains why believe certain things and others don't.

On the other hand, as you note, we probably need to do a bit more than simply telling people that, if you're elect like me, then the Holy Spirit will reveal this to you.

My main point with Calvin, however, is that there is a very lucid explanation of the light of nature and he doesn't dismiss the fact that men have an innate knowledge of the things of God - albeit suprressed. I haven't read your book and feel inadequate to discuss more but I'm simply noting that an external apologetic can use this knowledge of God as leverage with men to get them to the point where they have to deal with their supression of Truth. Yet, in the end, it will be the Spirit's work to convict through the Gospel.

From reading Dr. Anderson's books, my feelings for what he is saying is this:
People seem to put too much wait on the idea of the Sensus divinitatis to do something that it should not do. The SD should be used as an explanation of how/why people act certain ways versus an argument against unbelief. If one shows that unbelief is irrational then go on about SD, then one does not veer off towards fideism.

The will is the problem, not the evidence etc. This argument can be made when the unbelievers mouth is closed, but until then it looks very much like special pleading.

CT

Roger. I think I stated that in my own way. I was only noting that Calvin isn't really writing to the unconverted but, nevertheless, gives clear expression to the light of nature and lends some credence to the thought that arguments for God's existence are sustainable at that level, which the unbeliever must take stock of apart from special revelation.

 

[owenanderson]

SD

I like the way you both put it in terms of external/internal, and in terms of SD as an explanation but not proof. Hodge and Warfield distinguish between the work of the Holy Spirit, and knowing that it is the Holy Spirit working. What the Holy Spirit does is enliven a person to know God, thus if a person does not know, then in what sense can they appeal to the Holy Spirit?

A well known Christian philosopher/apologist once told me that we know based on the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit (as if this were a premise in an argument). I asked: what about the many other religions that make the same appeal? He responded: just because there are many counterfeits does not mean that the real thing isn't real. But my question was: how do we tell the difference? I think Christian is right that it becomes a case of special pleading, or table pounding, if we appeal to the Holy Spirit as a premise in an argument. Instead, the Holy Spirit enlivens a person to understand arguments, but the arguments in themselves are either sound or unsound and this is what must be shown regardless of whether a person comes to believe it or not.

So, can it be shown that all arguments that are raised up against belief in God the creator are unsound?

 

[Zenas]

Yes, Surrendra Gangadean is working on a book that will look at specific Christian doctrines like that. His earlier book is not about special revelation but focuses on general revelation.

Once we say that paradoxes are necessary we have no way of distinguishing between Christian paradoxes and paradoxes in other worldviews. Why believe Christian paradoxes? If we say it is because they are revealed to us, this is what the other religions say as well.

Further, when we say we believe a paradox, what do we mean? If something really is a paradox, is it meaningful? My understanding of the term is that it is a contradiction, and therefore it would not be meaningful (like square-circle). So how can we believe something that is not meaningful?

Does that help?

I seem to be confused about the nature of a paradox.

How I have come to understand the term is that it is in one sense contradictory, but in another sense entirely true.

For instance, it is true in Christianity that the low are made high and the high are made low; the rich are poor and the poor are rich; the unrighteous are righteous and the righteous are unrighteous, the mighty are weak and the weak are mighty, etc., etc.

Now, to simply say the poor are rich is contradictory on its face, but that's only if you're speaking in a monetary sense. The first term, poor is speaking in a spiritual sense, i.e. those who are contrite in heart. My understanding is that this only seems contradictory because the second term is qualifying a different category, i.e. reward or something other than spiritual poverty. If this is true, then the phrase is contradictory in its terms only, but not in its true meaning because the contradictory terms aren't being used in a contradictory fashion, they are speaking of different categories, the latter being affected by the quality of the first, i.e. if you are poor in spirit you are rich in heavenly reward and if you are rich in spirit you are poor in heavenly reward.

This is my understanding of a paradox, but it seems that I'm disconnected at some point, or have an entirely erroneous veiw of the term.

 

[owenanderson]

paradox

I think that could be one sense, in other words, there isn't really a contradiction although it initially appears contrary to what we expect. But some theologians have meant that there actually is a contradiction and yet we still must believe. This is the origin of Tertullian's phrase about the Trinity "I believe because it is absurd." But I don't really think the Trinity is a paradox or absurdity.

 

[sastark]

Dr. Anderson,

I must admit that I am unfamiliar with your work, but after reading this thread, I am very interested in reading "Clarity of God's Existence" as well as "Reasons and Worldviews."

I do have one question for you: on the ASU page describing "Clarity of God's Existence" (link) it is written that in your book you argue "If humans are guilty for failing to know God, as Christianity maintains, then they must be able to know God." I wonder though, if this can be established, biblically? What I mean to say is, I agree that men are inexcusable based on the knowledge of God in creation (ie, General Revelation); however, can we say that in order for men to be guilty they must be able to know God? I just don't see how that follows. Because of sin, men do not have the ability to know God (apart from the work of the Holy Spirit) and yet men are still guilty even having never heard the Gospel. It is true that General Revelation leaves men without excuse, but General Revelation alone is not enough for men to know God (in a salvific sense).

Perhaps you can help me understand your reasoning a bit?

Thank you, in advance.

 

[owenanderson]

inexcusability

Thanks for your question. By the way, I'd be blessed to hear your feedback on my books, but I do not want to pressure anyone to buy them.

I think what you said in your last sentence, and what the WCF says in 1.1, is what I maintain. Humans must be "able" to know, not actually know. So they are able to know God as creator through general revelation, but cannot having a knowledge of God as redeemer apart from special revelation. Is that what you were saying? What this means for Christians is that if the Holy Spirit has restored persons to knowing God, then they should be able to show this--and yet much energy is spent by Christians in trying to avoid this responsibility. That's what I look at in chapter two of my "Clarity" book.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Dr. Anderson,

I must admit that I am unfamiliar with your work, but after reading this thread, I am very interested in reading "Clarity of God's Existence" as well as "Reasons and Worldviews."

I do have one question for you: on the ASU page describing "Clarity of God's Existence" (link) it is written that in your book you argue "If humans are guilty for failing to know God, as Christianity maintains, then they must be able to know God." I wonder though, if this can be established, biblically? What I mean to say is, I agree that men are inexcusable based on the knowledge of God in creation (ie, General Revelation); however, can we say that in order for men to be guilty they must be able to know God? I just don't see how that follows. Because of sin, men do not have the ability to know God (apart from the work of the Holy Spirit) and yet men are still guilty even having never heard the Gospel. It is true that General Revelation leaves men without excuse, but General Revelation alone is not enough for men to know God (in a salvific sense).

Perhaps you can help me understand your reasoning a bit?

Thank you, in advance.

It seems that the whole discussion turns on three points

1)What does "able to know" mean
2)What are the consequences of the fall/sin
3)What does "not having an excuse" mean


1)Think about the case, that a cop pulls you over for speeding. You go to court to fight it. There are two situations in which you are guilty and one in which you are not.
a)The speed limit signs clearly specified what the speed was, you saw the signs but ignored them
b)The speed limit signs clearly specified what the speed was, however you did not pay attention and did not look at the signs so you did not know the speed
c)The speed limits signs were non existent, the speed limit changed with out any signs saying that it had changed so you did not know.

In a) and b) you are guilty because you either knew or should have known what the law was and slowed down. In c) you had no way of knowing and therefore the case against you should be thrown out.

In Dr. Anderson's book he attempts to show that for Christianity's claims to work, we have to argue that a) or b) are the case and that c is off the table.

2)In his books, it seems that Dr. Anderson is saying that the fall and sin do not change us to the extent that c) from above becomes the case. Sin and the fall messes with our will and related stuff and not with our ability to see clearly that we are deservedly hell bound and nothing that we can do to fix it. That false idols are in fact false etc.

If c) became the case, then it would seem that sin becomes an incoherent notion. Sin is acting against what God has clearly revealed for you to do (Either omission or commission). If God's revelation is not clear, then it seems that all one has are a bunch of (reasonable) excuses.

3)It seems that you in order to make the claim that someone has no excuse, then one would need to be able to say that one acted irrationally (based on what was available to them) in acting the way that they did.

Today, there are very few people that are willing to say that unbelief is irrational. Less probably maybe, but not irrational.

If there are problems in my thinking, then hopefully Dr. Anderson could correct me.

CT

 

[sastark]

Thanks for your question. By the way, I'd be blessed to hear your feedback on my books, but I do not want to pressure anyone to buy them.

I think what you said in your last sentence, and what the WCF says in 1.1, is what I maintain. Humans must be "able" to know, not actually know. So they are able to know God as creator through general revelation, but cannot having a knowledge of God as redeemer apart from special revelation. Is that what you were saying? What this means for Christians is that if the Holy Spirit has restored persons to knowing God, then they should be able to show this--and yet much energy is spent by Christians in trying to avoid this responsibility. That's what I look at in chapter two of my "Clarity" book.

I think I follow what you are saying. Thank you. I look forward to seeing your answer to this question, then, in "Clarity".

 

[sastark]

Thanks, Hermonta. I agree with you, up to this:

Today, there are very few people that are willing to say that unbelief is irrational. Less probably maybe, but not irrational.

I do believe unbelief is irrational, but I understand you qualify that with "what is available to them." I'm still not convinced that an unregenerate person is able to act "rationally" at all, based on their presuppositions, though.

Something for me to think about, I suppose.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Thanks, Hermonta. I agree with you, up to this:

Today, there are very few people that are willing to say that unbelief is irrational. Less probably maybe, but not irrational.

I do believe unbelief is irrational, but I understand you qualify that with "what is available to them." I'm still not convinced that an unregenerate person is able to act "rationally" at all, based on their presuppositions, though.

Something for me to think about, I suppose.

Could you explain your objections a bit more? Are you saying that their presuppositions cut them off from being reached?

CT

 

[sastark]

Thanks, Hermonta. I agree with you, up to this:

Today, there are very few people that are willing to say that unbelief is irrational. Less probably maybe, but not irrational.

I do believe unbelief is irrational, but I understand you qualify that with "what is available to them." I'm still not convinced that an unregenerate person is able to act "rationally" at all, based on their presuppositions, though.

Something for me to think about, I suppose.

Could you explain your objections a bit more? Are you saying that their presuppositions cut them off from being reached?

CT

Sorry if I was unclear. What I am saying is, the unregenerate man who says "There is no God" is being irrational. His entire worldview/philosophy will also be irrational at its base because it is built on the presupposition that "there is no God" or more specifically "The God of the Bible is not the true God."

These men can be reached due to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit enlivening them.

That's what I meant by saying unregenerate men are irrational.

 

[owenanderson]

Thanks for your example CT, I like that one.

Warfield distinuished between the role of the Holy Spirit, and a person's role as a witness. Of course it is true in Reformed Theology that a person cannot respond without the work of the Holy Spirit. But whether or not the Holy Spirit will work is beside the point that the Christian is to be able to show what is clear. If a person hardens in response to that, or accepts it, either way God is revealed (either in his justice or mercy).

I sometimes get the impression that Christians think that since the Holy Spirit must enliven a person for them to accept the Gospel, one need not be able to show what is clear. In this line of thinking, any argument could be given since it is not the argument that matters, it is the work of the Holy Spirit, and so one may just as well say anything.

I'm reminded of the person who told William Carey not to go to India as a missionary because "if God wants to convert the heathen He will do it Himself."

Warfield speaks of it this way: Paul plants, Apollos waters, but the Holy Spirit brings the increase. To say "it is up to the Holy Spirit" is like saying Paul may as well not plant, and Apollos may as well not water.

So on the one hand the Christian should be able to show what is clear, and on the other, if it cannot be shown then this is a significant problem for the Christian message of inexcusability.

 

[MW]

Unbelief is not non-belief; it contains its own internal rationality. Its irrationality is external to itself and is seen in relation to Ultimate Rationality -- God. John 3:20, "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." The sense of divinity accounts for man's rationality and irrationality.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Unbelief is not non-belief; it contains its own internal rationality. Its irrationality is external to itself and is seen in relation to Ultimate Rationality -- God. John 3:20, "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." The sense of divinity accounts for man's rationality and irrationality.

What is entailed by the sense of divinity? Or put another way, because of a person's sense of the divine what do they know?

CT

 

[MW]

What is entailed by the sense of divinity? Or put another way, because of a person's sense of the divine what do they know?

His eternal power and Godhead, Rom. 1. Some concept of right and wrong, Rom. 2.