owenanderson
Puritan Board Freshman
As a last final reply to Owen Anderson this thread has become very interesting!
Back to something PM said about wanting to protect young Christians from thinking something is easy only to find out it is not, this was a helpful glimpse into the possible psychology of what is going on. Having been convinced by some apologetic system that something or other is easy, you were overwhelmed at some point, and now you wish to show everyone else that this can also happen to them. This helps explain your approach.
For instance, I tend to want to start of by asking others in the dialogue if we agree on the meaning of terms. We can then proceed slowly to build step by step to agreement. You start of by saying "here's what you think, and here are 10 quotes to show it is wrong, and here are 15 implications that are counter to Reformed Theology, and another 10 quotes to show that Reformed Theology has rejected those implications."
I think your initial approach (back when you thought something was easy) is different from what I am doing. I am not really doing apologetic work, although my work my have implications for it. I am not starting out saying "as a Christian, how do I show Christianity is true?" I'm starting out saying "as a human, am I responsible to know anything?"
It is one thing to find out that, subjectively speaking, it takes a ton of work to come to agreement on anything (thus, apologetic work is difficult not easy). It is another to say that nothing is clear and everything is clouded by a million qualifications--the implication seems to be skepticism as Rev. W is pointing out. This would have significant implications for the ethics of belief.
I think all of the concerns you've raised about my approach, internalism, O-I-C, doxastic voluntarism, focus on knowledge of God not salvation, can be addressed but, due to subjective concerns, it takes time. That it takes time does not mean that it is not clear.
Back to something PM said about wanting to protect young Christians from thinking something is easy only to find out it is not, this was a helpful glimpse into the possible psychology of what is going on. Having been convinced by some apologetic system that something or other is easy, you were overwhelmed at some point, and now you wish to show everyone else that this can also happen to them. This helps explain your approach.
For instance, I tend to want to start of by asking others in the dialogue if we agree on the meaning of terms. We can then proceed slowly to build step by step to agreement. You start of by saying "here's what you think, and here are 10 quotes to show it is wrong, and here are 15 implications that are counter to Reformed Theology, and another 10 quotes to show that Reformed Theology has rejected those implications."
I think your initial approach (back when you thought something was easy) is different from what I am doing. I am not really doing apologetic work, although my work my have implications for it. I am not starting out saying "as a Christian, how do I show Christianity is true?" I'm starting out saying "as a human, am I responsible to know anything?"
It is one thing to find out that, subjectively speaking, it takes a ton of work to come to agreement on anything (thus, apologetic work is difficult not easy). It is another to say that nothing is clear and everything is clouded by a million qualifications--the implication seems to be skepticism as Rev. W is pointing out. This would have significant implications for the ethics of belief.
I think all of the concerns you've raised about my approach, internalism, O-I-C, doxastic voluntarism, focus on knowledge of God not salvation, can be addressed but, due to subjective concerns, it takes time. That it takes time does not mean that it is not clear.