Four arguments against the compromise solution called Theistic Evolution

[Semper Fidelis]

In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.

Exactly.

More on the matter....

Extract from Dictionary of Theological Terms entry on "Epistemology":

A consistently Christian epistemology recognizes the ontological Trinity as the ultimate starting point of all knowledge. It sees all the universe as God’s creation and holds that no fact of creation can be properly described without reference to God the Creator. In other words, every fact must be recognized as a created fact, or it cannot be properly recognized at all.

Thus, man’s thinking cannot be creative, but analogical. If he is to speak truly, man must say what God has already said. The triune God who has given us the Bible as His infallible revelation must be the ultimate starting point of all our knowledge. That is not to say that the Bible must become our source book for the study of, say, biochemistry or physics, but it is to say that all investigation into these and all other subjects must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.

God is the constitutive Creator and interpreter of the facts of the universe. Man can be only a re-interpreter. Man's highest achievement is to think God’s thoughts after Him. That is the true use of analogy—to think of things as God does.
​

Or, from

Van Til in his Survey of Christian Epistemology:

The necessity of reasoning analogically is always implied in the theistic conception of God. If God is to be thought of at all as necessary for man’s interpretation of the facts or objects of knowledge, he must be thought of as being determinative of the objects of knowledge. In other words, he must then be thought of as the only ultimate interpreter, and man must be thought of as a finite reinterpreter. Since, then, the absolute self-consciousness of God is the final interpreter of all facts, man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge. Since all finite facts exist by virtue of the interpretation of God, man’s interpretation of the finite facts is ultimately dependent upon God’s interpretation of the facts. Man cannot, except to his own hurt, look at the facts without looking at God’s interpretation of the facts. Man’s knowledge of the facts is then a reinterpretation of God’s interpretation. It is this that is meant by saying that man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge.
​

AMR

 

[ChristianTrader]

In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.

Oh I read the whole thing. I have the actual book. I simply pulled it off the shelf. It is a really interesting section. Thank you for pointing it out. I have no problem admitting error when appropriate. I still see no reason to admit such in this situation. I am also more confused by your most recent comment. What are you saying aided Owen's use of reason in this situation? It cannot be exegesis of the Bible. He is not saying, "You are wrong because you are forgetting X, or Y passage." It would make even less sense to say that the Holy Spirit helped him to see the impossibility of the situation. That would just push the argument back a step because the RCs claim the same Holy Spirit assistance. He is making a simple claim that the doctrine is nonsense and against reason. I see no way to imply some special regenerate reason etc.

CT

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

The problem is that you are now making Van Til and followers the standard for Reformed/Confessional Theology! (on this issue)

In your haste to skim and validate your claim you have actually ignored the context of that statement. Re-read the context and you will see that this is not unaided reason at work.

Exactly.

More on the matter....

Extract from Dictionary of Theological Terms entry on "Epistemology":

A consistently Christian epistemology recognizes the ontological Trinity as the ultimate starting point of all knowledge. It sees all the universe as God’s creation and holds that no fact of creation can be properly described without reference to God the Creator. In other words, every fact must be recognized as a created fact, or it cannot be properly recognized at all.

Thus, man’s thinking cannot be creative, but analogical. If he is to speak truly, man must say what God has already said. The triune God who has given us the Bible as His infallible revelation must be the ultimate starting point of all our knowledge. That is not to say that the Bible must become our source book for the study of, say, biochemistry or physics, but it is to say that all investigation into these and all other subjects must be interpreted in the light of the Bible.

God is the constitutive Creator and interpreter of the facts of the universe. Man can be only a re-interpreter. Man's highest achievement is to think God’s thoughts after Him. That is the true use of analogy—to think of things as God does.
​

Or, from

Van Til in his Survey of Christian Epistemology:

The necessity of reasoning analogically is always implied in the theistic conception of God. If God is to be thought of at all as necessary for man’s interpretation of the facts or objects of knowledge, he must be thought of as being determinative of the objects of knowledge. In other words, he must then be thought of as the only ultimate interpreter, and man must be thought of as a finite reinterpreter. Since, then, the absolute self-consciousness of God is the final interpreter of all facts, man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge. Since all finite facts exist by virtue of the interpretation of God, man’s interpretation of the finite facts is ultimately dependent upon God’s interpretation of the facts. Man cannot, except to his own hurt, look at the facts without looking at God’s interpretation of the facts. Man’s knowledge of the facts is then a reinterpretation of God’s interpretation. It is this that is meant by saying that man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge.
​

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So God has not revealed his infinite justice in natural revelation? If he has then where am i off? To a certain extent, I would be following Princeton's goal of using reason rightly. If one does not wish to call that "neutral" then I am fine with that.

CT,

From the responses above, it should now be more clear that Rev. Winzer's earlier implication, that no one reason's from a neutral position, is correct. Moreover, if you are "using reason rightly", you must presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ. If you do not make this presupposition, then you have no properly justified epitemological warrant to anything you are asserting, and of course, even this position is not a neutral one.

AMR

 

[ChristianTrader]

So God has not revealed his infinite justice in natural revelation? If he has then where am i off? To a certain extent, I would be following Princeton's goal of using reason rightly. If one does not wish to call that "neutral" then I am fine with that.

CT,

From the responses above, it should now be more clear that Rev. Winzer's earlier implication, that no one reason's from a neutral position, is correct. Moreover, if you are "using reason rightly", you must presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ. If you do not make this presupposition, then you have no properly justified epitemological warrant to anything you are asserting, and of course, even this position is not a neutral one.

AMR

Why must I presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ? I am not attacking the correctness of the belief of the triune God of Scripture; I am asking a simple question of why that has to be my starting point in order to be justified.

CT

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The problem is that you are now making Van Til and followers the standard for Reformed/Confessional Theology! (on this issue)

Er, no. I view such a statement as directed to appeal to the hoi polloi and I reject it as merely attempting to deflect the topic elsewhere. Must I quote from the forefathers to avoid anti-Van Til caviling? The matter at hand is properly justified warrant and neutrality of reason. You have been given ample material explaining both and your refusal, "I still see no reason to admit such [error] in this situation" is oddly entrenched.

AMR

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------

Why must I presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ? I am not attacking the correctness of the belief of the triune God of Scripture; I am asking a simple question of why that has to be my starting point in order to be justified.

What is knowledge? If you know something, knowledge, what is it exactly in your view?

AMR

 

[ChristianTrader]

The problem is that you are now making Van Til and followers the standard for Reformed/Confessional Theology! (on this issue)

Er, no. I view such a statement as directed to appeal to the hoi polloi and I reject it as merely attempting to deflect the topic elsewhere. Must I quote from the forefathers to avoid anti-Van Til caviling? The matter at hand is properly justified warrant and neutrality of reason. You have been given ample material explaining both and your refusal, "I still see no reason to admit such [error] in this situation" is oddly entrenched.

AMR

If the matter at hand is properly justified warrant and the neutrality of reason, then that is fine with me. You have some work to justify your assertions about lack of justification. I see nothing but assertions being placed on top of assertions.

CT

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------



---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------

Why must I presuppose the revelation of God in Holy Writ? I am not attacking the correctness of the belief of the triune God of Scripture; I am asking a simple question of why that has to be my starting point in order to be justified.

What is knowledge? If you know something, knowledge, what is it exactly in your view?

AMR

I start with a correspondence with reality.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If the matter at hand is properly justified warrant and the neutrality of reason, then that is fine with me. You have some work to justify your assertions about lack of justification. I see nothing but assertions being placed on top of assertions.

Sigh. I took up the discussion after your quite unfair dismissal of Rev. Winzer along the same lines as you do to me now, hoping that it would be edifying to you and perhaps others. If you are going to continue being aggressive, I am happy to move along. While at PB, I am uninterested in the clash of debate that typifies other discussion forum venues. When I want that experience I seek it elsewhere. I post here seeking a respite from personalizations and vitriol. Nevertheless, when someone draws first blood, as you have and continue to do, I am up to the challenge of responding in kind, but I would rather not.

I have asked you plainly to explain what you think knowledge means. What do you know you know? You can take that up and run with it, or not. I am more than meeting my burden in the discussion, although I am beginning to wonder at what price to my general feeling of well-being in this holiday season.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I start with a correspondence with reality.

Would you not also say that God establishes that reality?

AMR

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Oh I read the whole thing. I have the actual book. I simply pulled it off the shelf. It is a really interesting section. Thank you for pointing it out. I have no problem admitting error when appropriate. I still see no reason to admit such in this situation.

Let me point out what you are skipping over:

Despite Turretin’s intimation that one can “build” on natural revelation and Witsius’ use of the term “foundation” it is clear that they do not intend to undermine their prior assumption that “supernatural theology” is “strictly called revealed, because its first principle is divine revelation strictly understood, and [because] it is grounded on the word, not on creatures.” Rather Turretin’s intention is to elaborate his other claim that theology drawn on other forms of knowing “as a superior from inferiors” in the very specific sense that it “presupposes certain previously known things upon which it builds revelation.” Thus, despite the fact that reason and faith “are of different classes, the former natural, the latter supernatural,” they are not “opposed”: rather “reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.” Not corrupted reason, but reason “as sound and in the abstract” concurs with and supports theology. Indeed, as Owen indicates, reason can discern when theological claims are illegitimate—as in the case of the utterly irrational Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This is not a mystery from beyond reason, like the Trinity, but a teaching that is contrary to reason—as Turretin would say, a doctrine that proposes not incomprehensible but incompossible things.137

In other words, the way reason is being spoken of here is to show that reason can support theology to show something is not a mystery but is incompossible. BUT (and this is important), this is first understood in the backdrop that supernatural theology is "...grounded on the word, not on creatures". The reasoning that Owen is arguing for is a Christian using reason as a tool to see the true from the false but not a pagan using reason to come to a correct supernatural theology.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I start with a correspondence with reality.

Would you not also say that God establishes that reality?

AMR

I would say that God does establish reality.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Oh I read the whole thing. I have the actual book. I simply pulled it off the shelf. It is a really interesting section. Thank you for pointing it out. I have no problem admitting error when appropriate. I still see no reason to admit such in this situation.

Let me point out what you are skipping over:

Despite Turretin’s intimation that one can “build” on natural revelation and Witsius’ use of the term “foundation” it is clear that they do not intend to undermine their prior assumption that “supernatural theology” is “strictly called revealed, because its first principle is divine revelation strictly understood, and [because] it is grounded on the word, not on creatures.” Rather Turretin’s intention is to elaborate his other claim that theology drawn on other forms of knowing “as a superior from inferiors” in the very specific sense that it “presupposes certain previously known things upon which it builds revelation.” Thus, despite the fact that reason and faith “are of different classes, the former natural, the latter supernatural,” they are not “opposed”: rather “reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.” Not corrupted reason, but reason “as sound and in the abstract” concurs with and supports theology. Indeed, as Owen indicates, reason can discern when theological claims are illegitimate—as in the case of the utterly irrational Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This is not a mystery from beyond reason, like the Trinity, but a teaching that is contrary to reason—as Turretin would say, a doctrine that proposes not incomprehensible but incompossible things.137

In other words, the way reason is being spoken of here is to show that reason can support theology to show something is not a mystery but is incompossible. BUT (and this is important), this is first understood in the backdrop that supernatural theology is "...grounded on the word, not on creatures". The reasoning that Owen is arguing for is a Christian using reason as a tool to see the true from the false but not a pagan using reason to come to a correct supernatural theology.

First off, let me repeat, I have never advocated building a supernatural theology naturally. I have advocated that reason used by anyone can be used to sit in judgment of false/contradictory supernatural claims. For your explanation to have teeth against my position, you would have to say that if the reasoning done by Owen, was given to an unbeliever, they would not be able to to come to the same conclusion that transubstantiation is nonsense. I see nothing in that article that defends such a position. I have absolutely nothing against - “reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.” Faith is not against reason and one's reasoning faculties do not become better once one is regenerated.

My claim since we left the Theistic Evolution portion of the thread is that Islam is against reason. It is also against various supernatural claims made by Christianity, but that is on top of it being against reason.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My claim since we left the Theistic Evolution portion of the thread is that Islam is against reason. It is also against various supernatural claims made by Christianity, but that is on top of it being against reason.

Your claim, when the discussion left TE was this:

Thankyou for the information. I will keep a look out for the book. The arguments are all very effective but they are only lopping off the branches. The axe needed for the root of the tree is "Revelation." Revelation demands that man be receptive to the creative will of God. The only true God is the God of revelation. The only true worship is the worship which bows to His sovereign will and purpose. Theistic evolution makes man a creative genius who is capable of finding out God by tracing His footprints in His works. Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves. At its root this religion is no better than the practice of those who lived without the revelation of God and brought in "divinity" as a control for the uncontrollable elements of life.

I'm not sure if I am following. The function of the excerpted book is to expound what can be known about God by natural revelation. One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live. It cannot tell us how to become right with God in our fallen state. I am not understanding your negative view on "Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves." Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?

CT

Such knowledge is grounded on the word and not on the creature.

 

[ChristianTrader]

My claim since we left the Theistic Evolution portion of the thread is that Islam is against reason. It is also against various supernatural claims made by Christianity, but that is on top of it being against reason.

Your claim, when the discussion left TE was this:

Thankyou for the information. I will keep a look out for the book. The arguments are all very effective but they are only lopping off the branches. The axe needed for the root of the tree is "Revelation." Revelation demands that man be receptive to the creative will of God. The only true God is the God of revelation. The only true worship is the worship which bows to His sovereign will and purpose. Theistic evolution makes man a creative genius who is capable of finding out God by tracing His footprints in His works. Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves. At its root this religion is no better than the practice of those who lived without the revelation of God and brought in "divinity" as a control for the uncontrollable elements of life.

I'm not sure if I am following. The function of the excerpted book is to expound what can be known about God by natural revelation. One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live. It cannot tell us how to become right with God in our fallen state. I am not understanding your negative view on "Such a genius determines the God he worships and serves." Aren't we obligated to decide which God is the correct one over against various other claims of Godhood?

CT

Such knowledge is grounded on the word and not on the creature.

I stand by my statement here and do not believe it contradicts my further statements. The issue is simply what can be known by natural revelation. The claim implied there is that all non Christian Theistic religions violate reason. If this is true, no one should have any problem with my God claim stance. If you believe that position to be false, then that is perfectly fine.

Next, let us go back to the bolded claim from the Muller book - “reason is perfected by faith and faith supposes reason.” If faith supposes reason, then faith cannot contradict reason. If faith cannot contradict reason then faith must give an account to reason as to how it is not being violated. If this is not the case, then how could Owen use reason to sit in judgment of the faith claim of transubstantiation?

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I stand by my statement here and do not believe it contradicts my further statements. The issue is simply what can be known by natural revelation. The claim implied there is that all non Christian Theistic religions violate reason. If this is true, no one should have any problem with my God claim stance. If you believe that position to be false, then that is perfectly fine.

If it is perfectly fine then we have nothing else to discuss but you took issue with Matthew's initial objection on this basis. The whole point is that we don't believe that this much fruition can be gained by natural revelation and the light of nature. It's not as if no pagan ideas can be shown to violate the light of nature (as some of God's eternal attributes are understood as above) but Reformed theologians have insisted that the kind of divine knowledge you're arguing for (all non-Christian Theistic religions shown to be false) is beyond what natural revelation can reveal to man apart from special revelation. This quote is key:

“… though God inhabits inaccessible light, he has made himself visible in some manner in his Son, who is the image of invisible God and God with us. Whosoever endeavours to come to God by any other way shall find him a Judge and not a Father.” The duplex cognitio Dei thus creates a paradox of the union and disunion of philosophy and theology in the great orthodox systems: on the one hand, God is the fountain of light by which we perceive all things, while on the other we cannot truly receive this divine light apart from Christ. Thus—if as Calvin said—knowledge of God and knowledge of self are intimately related, there can be no truly useful unregenerate knowledge. Philosophy, although it is a crucial adjunct to theology, stands under judgment, and even the nominally nonsoteriological loci of the system cannot be understood without faith. Again we see that the prolegomena are not an isolated point of departure but in fact depend upon the system they propose to ground.

Consequently, Owen is not speaking about bare reason ascending to a knowledge of God but he is speaking about a reason that is already grounded in faith illuminated by special revelation. Reason then becomes an aid but it is not the starting point but revelation is.

Socinians are an example of those who begin with unaided human reason in order to judge theistic truth claims and they can hear no voice but their own.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I would say that God does establish reality.

How do you know this? Is not knowledge properly justified true belief?

AMR

 

[ChristianTrader]

I would say that God does establish reality.

How do you know this? Is not knowledge properly justified true belief?

AMR

Knowledge is properly justified true belief. The question is whether I can have properly justified true belief concerning God without presupposing him from the getgo. I would love to see such demonstrated. I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.

I know it because reason and Scripture tell me such.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.

I don't know who you think has argued this. I don't believe it is Biblical either.

[Natural Revelation] is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation.

There can now be no complete and saving knowledge of God through reason or nature, but because of the remnant of knowledge and because of our perception of the Law, we are all left without excuse in our sins. Thus, the entire anthropological and soteriological structure of Reformed theology must be brought to bear on the prolegomena, to the end that the initial epistemological statement of the system recognizes the impossibility of saving knowledge apart from the divine initiative. Despite the great respect he manifests for reason and philosophy throughout his treatise, Du Moulin, like Aretius—and, for that matter, like Calvin—concludes that revelation supplies man’s only hope: the epistemological problem is surmounted only in Christ, only in the One who reveals God as Father.

You are creating a false dilemma:

Either:

a. A person accepts this:

One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live.

or

b. A person must accept this:

I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.

I know you are not this obtuse.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.

I don't know who you think has argued this. I don't believe it is Biblical either.

Please explain - http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/fou...n-called-theistic-evolution-71373/#post913747

[Natural Revelation] is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation.

Given this quote, it seems that we have two options.

1)Bowing the knee to Allah, Baal etc. is not sin and therefore people who do are not without excuse for doing so.

2)Bowing the knee to Allah, Baal etc. is sin, and therefore people are without excuse for doing such even without ever seeing/hearing Special Revelation aka. the Bible.

There can now be no complete and saving knowledge of God through reason or nature, but because of the remnant of knowledge and because of our perception of the Law, we are all left without excuse in our sins. Thus, the entire anthropological and soteriological structure of Reformed theology must be brought to bear on the prolegomena, to the end that the initial epistemological statement of the system recognizes the impossibility of saving knowledge apart from the divine initiative. Despite the great respect he manifests for reason and philosophy throughout his treatise, Du Moulin, like Aretius—and, for that matter, like Calvin—concludes that revelation supplies man’s only hope: the epistemological problem is surmounted only in Christ, only in the One who reveals God as Father.

You are creating a false dilemma:

Either:

a. A person accepts this:

One conclusion is that natural revelation can tell us which God claim is correct and how we are supposed to live.

or

b. A person must accept this:

I see no way of reading Romans 1 as saying, one is without excuse only if one has access to and/or presupposes the Bible.

I know you are not this obtuse.

The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.

CT

I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse without Special Revelation but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among all, is not possible only by means of Natural Revelation. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.

CT

I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse without Special Revelation but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among all, is not possible only by means of Natural Revelation. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.

Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?

CT

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.

CT

I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse without Special Revelation but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among all, is not possible only by means of Natural Revelation. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.

Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?

CT

I agree with the answers that Matthew gave you, which were much more nuanced. The Muslim has access to natural revelation but the Koran further blinds him from the truth and confirms him in his sin. There is not a solution to the problem of this blinding that can be solved by an appeal to natural revelation alone nor will natural revelation free him from this blindness.

 

[ChristianTrader]

The only clarification that I would add is that I have steadfastly maintained that saving knowledge of God is only available in special revelation. Other than that, I steadfastly maintain my claims.

CT

I have not claimed otherwise. As we discussed earlier in this thread, however, we all acknowledge that man is without excuse without Special Revelation but Matthew and I have steadfastly maintained that deciding which God claim, among all, is not possible only by means of Natural Revelation. We agree that Natural Revelation may leave men without excuse and even allow men to know that certain theistic claims are irrational but this is different than stating that Natural Revelation alone will be sufficient to settle all false theistic claims.

Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?

CT

I agree with the answers that Matthew gave you, which were much more nuanced. The Muslim has access to natural revelation but the Koran further blinds him from the truth and confirms him in his sin. There is not a solution to the problem of this blinding that can be solved by an appeal to natural revelation alone nor will natural revelation free him from this blindness.

The question was never whether or not the Muslim has access to natural revelation. The question was whether that access is enough in and of itself, to show Islam to be irrational and worthy of rejection. This is simply a yes or no question. If the Islamicist does not properly use reason and natural revelation but continue to bow the knee to Allah, then that is close to the definition of without excuse.

Lastly, I see no basis for the claim that natural revelation is not enough to free him from the blindness of the Koran etc. The confessional claim is that there is no saving knowledge of God without special revelation. It is not that false/irrational claims cannot be rejected outside of knowing the Bible.

CT

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?

Actually, the point Rev. Winzer made is (emphasis mine):

To begin with, Islam makes claims about the Bible. So it is impossible to evaluate Islam without at least comparing it with the Bible. Further, it makes claims about the prophet of God. It is only on the understanding that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus that the claims of the prophet can be proven to be false. As the divine-human person of Jesus is a matter of special revelation, and this truth is necessary to prove the falsehood of Islam, it should be obvious that special revelation is needed to prove that Islam is false from a Christian perspective. Without the truth, one might suspect a falsehood, but he can't prove a falsehood.

So, to know, to have a properly justified belief, that Islam is false it is required that one knows the truth claims of the Bible. Hence, the only answer to your question is that one cannot know Islam is false without first knowing the Bible is true. Natural revelation is necessary, but insufficient to succeed in falsifying Islam.

AMR

 

[ChristianTrader]

Okay the next question is simply, "Do you agree with Rev. Winzer that one cannot know that Islam is false without first knowing the Bible and that it is true or do you agree with me that natural revelation is enough to refute Islam"?

Actually, the point Rev. Winzer made is (emphasis mine):

To begin with, Islam makes claims about the Bible. So it is impossible to evaluate Islam without at least comparing it with the Bible. Further, it makes claims about the prophet of God. It is only on the understanding that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus that the claims of the prophet can be proven to be false. As the divine-human person of Jesus is a matter of special revelation, and this truth is necessary to prove the falsehood of Islam, it should be obvious that special revelation is needed to prove that Islam is false from a Christian perspective. Without the truth, one might suspect a falsehood, but he can't prove a falsehood.

So, to know, to have a properly justified belief, that Islam is false it is required that one knows the truth claims of the Bible. Hence, the only answer to your question is that one cannot know Islam is false without first knowing the Bible is true. Natural revelation is necessary, but insufficient to succeed in falsifying Islam.

AMR

That would only be true if one believed that Islam makes no claims that are against reason/against natural revelation but only against Christianity/special revelation. To make your assertion stick, you must demonstrate that such is the case. The argument that I put forward defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation.

CT

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That would only be true if one believed that Islam makes no claims that are against reason/against natural revelation but only against Christianity/special revelation. To make your assertion stick, you must demonstrate that such is the case. The argument that I put forward defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation.

You will have to unpack your "argument" from natural revelation alone a wee bit more than what you have presented to date:

Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct? Let me show how this can be done. Natural revelation reveals natural law and how we have violated that natural law put forward by the infinite, eternal God. Every attempt at a religion must answer how we can regain a right standing with the creator. Islam states that a finite creature can make up for the evil on his record by certain actions. This only makes sense if God's justice is subservient to his mercy. Or another way of saying it, is that His justice is not infinite. That is inconsistent with the revelation of God in natural revelation. Therefore Islam is false. Knowing whether or not the comments concerning Christianity are true or false, is not necessary to invalidate Islam.

For example, while claiming natural revelation alone, you offer up "eternal", "right standing", "God's justice subservient to his mercy", among others, that are pregnant with special revelatory knowledge from Scripture.

AMR

 

[ChristianTrader]

That would only be true if one believed that Islam makes no claims that are against reason/against natural revelation but only against Christianity/special revelation. To make your assertion stick, you must demonstrate that such is the case. The argument that I put forward defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation.

You will have to unpack your "argument" from natural revelation alone a wee bit more than what you have presented to date:

Okay, since this is the case, you have no principled object to showing Islam is false without an appeal to the truth of Christianity, correct? Let me show how this can be done. Natural revelation reveals natural law and how we have violated that natural law put forward by the infinite, eternal God. Every attempt at a religion must answer how we can regain a right standing with the creator. Islam states that a finite creature can make up for the evil on his record by certain actions. This only makes sense if God's justice is subservient to his mercy. Or another way of saying it, is that His justice is not infinite. That is inconsistent with the revelation of God in natural revelation. Therefore Islam is false. Knowing whether or not the comments concerning Christianity are true or false, is not necessary to invalidate Islam.

For example, while claiming natural revelation alone, you offer up "eternal", "right standing", "God's justice subservient to his mercy", among others, that are pregnant with special revelatory knowledge from Scripture.

AMR

They are not in the least special revelation concepts. No one needs special revelation to understand any of these terms/phrases.

1)Eternal. This simply means always existing, no beginning, not bound by time. Something/someone must be eternal in order for anything to be here now; or else we would have something from nothing. That is an incoherent concept. In every explanation of reality, there must be a being that fits this bill. The only difference is who/what is thought to fill this role.

2)Right standing. - This simply implies a natural law (moral law in Christian terms) that we can know and that we have violated. The wrath of the infinite/eternal God revealed in natural revelation spoken of in Romans 1, is against our violation of His law.

3)Justice subservient to his mercy - An implication of an infinite God is that God is not limited by anything (beyond Himself). An implication of being finite is to have limits or be limited. To believe that God's justice can be set aside in favor of his mercy/love, would imply that his justice is limited in a way that His Love/Mercy is not. I believe this to be inconsistent with the God that is known through natural revelation.

The various terms can be/should be unpacked much further, but I see no basis for the claim that they cannot be understood or known only from special revelation.

CT

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

They are not in the least special revelation concepts. No one needs special revelation to understand any of these terms/phrases.

Let's see...

1)Eternal. This simply means always existing, no beginning, not bound by time. Something/someone must be eternal in order for anything to be here now; or else we would have something from nothing. That is an incoherent concept. In every explanation of reality, there must be a being that fits this bill. The only difference is who/what is thought to fill this role.

So says Islam, determinism notwithstanding.

2)Right standing. - This simply implies a natural law (moral law in Christian terms) that we can know and that we have violated. The wrath of the infinite/eternal God revealed in natural revelation spoken of in Romans 1, is against our violation of His law.

So says Islam's moral oughtness, non-Christianity, notwithstanding.

3)Justice subservient to his mercy - An implication of an infinite God is that God is not limited by anything (beyond Himself). An implication of being finite is to have limits or be limited. To believe that God's justice can be set aside in favor of his mercy/love, would imply that his justice is limited in a way that His Love/Mercy is not. I believe this to be inconsistent with the God that is known through natural revelation.

Natural revelation declares God is and we ought; we don't, and are therefore guilty. Thus says Islam, Sharia law, sword verses, etc., notwithstanding.

Now when you start to juxtapose God's attributes of justice, mercy, and go on to declare inconsistencies involving the will of God you have moved beyond natural revelation into the realm of God's declarations of His character in Holy Writ. Islam disagrees on many aspects therein, and you are now back where we started in the discussion, standing atop the foundation of natural revelation smack in the middle of special revelation.

The various terms can be/should be unpacked much further, but I see no basis for the claim that they cannot be understood or known only from special revelation.

I disagree. Your words belie a wee bit of believer's hindsight, no? It is all so "obvious" to you, and to me. But then again, we are Christians. From what you have written, I don't think you have formed your argument from natural revelation alone to support your assertions.

You claim your view "defends the position that Islam makes claims against reason and not just against special revelation". If you have a genuinely objective argument (your "reason used by anyone") then one naturally wonders why there are Muslims.

May I suggest you construct a hypothetical conversation between the Muslim and this properly functioning reasoning man of yours. Or maybe try formulating a couple of syllogisms that would substantiate your claims. It would help flesh out the bones I am picking at right now.

AMR