Can someone affirm Reformed Orthodoxy and not classical apologetics?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is an answer to my question but its one your not willing to consider. They used CA because that's all they had pure and simple. But we have so many methods at our disposal that one can now be orthodox and adopt any number of methods and we're all "kosher" so to speak. If you adopt that view it alleviates the problem and we can all be orthodox and debate which one's better. Thats the only way out.
If not than answer the question, here's a simplified version how would a pizza be different if CT weren't true? Would it even exist at all?

Of course there are more methods. That doesn't mean that presup is correct.
 
Of course there are more methods. That doesn't mean that presup is correct.
If presup is wrong than answer the question. It's very simple you answer it from am CA POV and you prove me wrong if not you prove me right. It's that simple. In answering the question you prove the legitimately nature of TA's.
 
If presup is wrong than answer the question. It's very simple you answer it from am CA POV and you prove me wrong if not you prove me right. It's that simple. In answering the question you prove the legitimately nature of TA's.

Assuming I even understand the question, and I am not entirely sure I do, I don't see the profit in it. It seems you like are asking me to imagine that classical theism is false, and then what would the world be like? I'll be honest. I don't know. It's like asking what if God willed his own non-existence. I really don't know what the answer would accomplish.

With that said, classical theism has affirmed both that God is a necessary being and the world is contingent. If a necessary being didn't exist, then the world couldn't exist. Plantinga actually dealt with something like this. You might want to read it before you knock it.

That's my answer to the question. I'm still not 100% on the question.
 
Assuming I even understand the question, and I am not entirely sure I do, I don't see the profit in it. It seems you like are asking me to imagine that classical theism is false, and then what would the world be like? I'll be honest. I don't know. It's like asking what if God willed his own non-existence. I really don't know what the answer would accomplish.

With that said, classical theism has affirmed both that God is a necessary being and the world is contingent. If a necessary being didn't exist, then the world couldn't exist. Plantinga actually dealt with something like this. You might want to read it before you knock it.

That's my answer to the question. I'm still not 100% on the question.
I never brought up classical theism. I affirm that but I do think that's what this whole discussion goes back to. That being said. I never knocked Plantinga only your arguments as you stated them.
If you don't understand the question you don't understand Van Til. Despite your lovely book reviews I don't think you understand him.
 
Assuming I even understand the question, and I am not entirely sure I do, I don't see the profit in it. It seems you like are asking me to imagine that classical theism is false, and then what would the world be like? I'll be honest. I don't know. It's like asking what if God willed his own non-existence. I really don't know what the answer would accomplish.

With that said, classical theism has affirmed both that God is a necessary being and the world is contingent. If a necessary being didn't exist, then the world couldn't exist. Plantinga actually dealt with something like this. You might want to read it before you knock it.

That's my answer to the question. I'm still not 100% on the question.
You're arguing with a ghost who doesn't exist.
 
That is quite possible. Post-Idealist philosophy isn’t the clearest
Good thing Van Til and myself aren't that. You're trying to peg him in a system he doesn't belong in. If you understand him you'd be able to understand the question, how would a piece pizza be different if CT weren't true? If you understood him you'd be able him to answer it. Let's this discussion lye where it is, you don't understand him so please do me a favor and go and study him to understand him and we can take it up in a future discussion. A gentlemans truce.
 
Maybe someone can help me out here because Van Til doesn't reject natural theology as much as denies that a person can autonomously use natural theology as a way to reason about God. What Van Til seems to deny (in my mind) is that the unregenerate man can treat himself as the starting point and God as just one of many more things around him that he needs to classify and reason towards. It sounds like an arrogant assertiaon, I supose, because the world doesn't want to hear that the only way to reason correctly is to understand that you are the creature and that the only way to know anything is ectypally as you recognize that only God knows everything and that all knowledge is given by Him. It's not that Van Til denies the reasoning faculties of man but that they reason as if there is a mute universe and that the only voice they end up hearing is their own.

Is it also possible that the reason why folks int he past might have believed that there was no substantial difficulty in adopting apologetic categories is that the archetypal/ectypal distinction in knowledge and theology was shared among the various Christian bodies, even Roman Catholics. It seems that the Englghtenment srot of explodes this consensus. It seems like that's part of what's being said in this discussion.
 
Maybe someone can help me out here because Van Til doesn't reject natural theology as much as denies that a person can autonomously use natural theology as a way to reason about God. What
I suppose the ter ‘autonomous’ colors the discussion. I don’t see classicists like Sproul saying unbeliever should use autonomous reason. Rather, man can’t simply start with God’s own knowledge because to do so he would have to have God’s own knowledge
 
I suppose the ter ‘autonomous’ colors the discussion. I don’t see classicists like Sproul saying unbeliever should use autonomous reason. Rather, man can’t simply start with God’s own knowledge because to do so he would have to have God’s own knowledge
I wasn't arguing that classical apologtics assumes the auonomous reasing of man, but trying to articulate the kind of natrual theology that Van Til rejected. He writes, outrifght, that he believes that natural revelation is perspicuous but only to those who have been enlived by supernatural revelation. He rejects that a natrual theology can be accurately built that assumes man's ability to reason upward to God.
 
I wasn't arguing that classical apologtics assumes the auonomous reasing of man, but trying to articulate the kind of natrual theology that Van Til rejected. He writes, outrifght, that he believes that natural revelation is perspicuous but only to those who have been enlived by supernatural revelation. He rejects that a natrual theology can be accurately built that assumes man's ability to reason upward to God.
I suppose the key question is whether the discipline of natural theology (distinct from natural revelation) is legitimate. I can’t see Van til saying it is . I’m fairly ver Bahnsen rejected it
 
I wasn't arguing that classical apologtics assumes the auonomous reasing of man, but trying to articulate the kind of natrual theology that Van Til rejected. He writes, outrifght, that he believes that natural revelation is perspicuous but only to those who have been enlived by supernatural revelation. He rejects that a natrual theology can be accurately built that assumes man's ability to reason upward to God.
I agree Van Til believed in natural revelation. However, natural theology is precisely the construction of some kind of theology based on natural revelation, which he seemed to reject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top