Comments on: Formulating a Christian Epistemology https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/ Reformed Theological Resources Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:11:08 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7 By: t.jamesarchibald https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-52894 Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:53:52 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-52894 Justified still applies. I think, though, that the one who makes reality is the one by whom we must have our assumptions justified. If this one is the God of the Bible then, this creator of reality is gracious. I think He knows that we are not capable of knowing absolutely, that is, like Him since, we are, being a creation, limited in many ways. The question is are we justified by God in believing what we believe. In the end, I believe, we are justified (by God) only when we are not being negligent or neglectful in using our God given cognitive faculties (and other faculties). The mistake we make is judging our knowledge by ourselves or by those around us.

]]>
By: Mike https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-30749 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:52:23 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-30749 Sorry:

In the next to last paragraph, instead of saying “Thus we would wind up with two worldviews but with one contradicting the other.”, I meant to say “Thus, even if we had two separate internally consistent worldviews, we would wind up with one contradicting the other”.

]]>
By: Mike https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-30737 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 16:30:48 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-30737 Steve – The reason that we can make statements with such a large claim as “The problem is that unbeliever couldn’t make sense of the world if the unbeliever’s worldview was true” is that in order to make sense of this world requires a very specific type of God. Consider the God of the Bible. This God is a holy, righteous God. He is a God who has a burning hatred of sin. But this God also loves people who are sinful and wants to be reconciled with them. And this leads to the requirement for the atonement: the death, burial and and resurrection of Jesus so that God could be reconciled with sinful people. But how is this connected with the presuppositional method?

The critical point is that if God is a holy, righteous God then he must punish sin. We all understand that when a crime occurs, a sin occurs and that that crime/sin must be punished in order for justice to be done. If God could just wink at sin, if he could simply forgive sin because he chooses to do so then how could God be holy and righteous? And if he is not a holy, righteous God, a God with a hatred of sin, then what is to prevent God from sinning? If anyone wants to deny that such a God could sin – how could they know that? And if God can sin then God can lie. And if that is the case how could we have any confidence in any revelation given by such a God? So the worldview with such a God provides no more justification than an atheistic worldview.

So to have a worldview that provides us with an epistemology adequate to make sense of this world requires a worldview with an atonement theology (i. e. a way for a holy, righteous God to be reconciled with sinful people). As far as I am aware only Christianity does this.

Or consider this issue from another perspective. Imagine a God (like the Islamic conception of God) who is a unity (as opposed to a trinity). This solitary God, without a creation to interact with, would be eternally alone. No one else to love. No one else with whom to communicate or have fellowship. In the case of such a solitary God, love, fellowship and communication would not be essential to its being. But without these qualities it is difficult to imagine that this God is actually personal at all. A God for whom a relationship with another is eternally irrelevant is an abstraction, an idea or a thing more than a person. Thus, the existence of a personal being requires at least two persons.

On the other hand, one of the attributes of both the Triune God of the Bible and the Unitary God of Islam is the concept of aseity. God is self-contained, self-existent, self-sufficient. He has no needs at all. He is “a se”. But if God is a unity and is personal then God can’t be “a se” (since for him to be personal requires someone else to relate to). He becomes dependent on his creation. Likewise, if God is “a se” he can’t be personal (since there is no one else to relate to). So God can be personal or he can be “a se”, but he can’t be both. Yet the Koran describes God in personal terms while indicating that God is “a se”.

However, for the Triune God of the Bible, the Father has always existed and has had a personal relationship with the Son and the Holy Spirit for all eternity. And vice versa. Thus, for the Triune God of the Bible there is no conflict between his aseity and his personal nature. Thus, the Trinity, like the concept of atonement, is an essential part of a worldview with an epistemology adequate to make sense of the world. Again, as far as I am aware only Christianity does this.

Finally, since there is an almost infinite number of worldviews, how do I know there isn’t a worldview (that I don’t know about) which is coherent and free of internal contradictions? Actually, if you look around the world and down thru history, there are really only about five or six basic worldviews. All other worldviews involve making variations to one of these basic worldviews. And it’s easy to see where they fail.

Also, consider this: It is impossible for there to be two worldviews such that each contains an epistemology adequate for us to make sense of the world. Why? Because if even if each is self coherent and internal consistent, one will inevitably contradict the other. If two worldviews are completely consistent with each other then they really aren’t two worldviews, they are in reality one worldview. Example: If you have a worldview that is accepts all the tenants of the Christian faith (nature of God, man, creation, atonement, eschatology, etc), how can it be anything other than the Christian worldview with a little bit added on? But as long as that added on part is completely consistent with the Christian worldview, so what? Thus we would wind up with two worldviews but with one contradicting the other. We would know that at least one worldview had to be wrong but we wouldn’t know which. We would still be completely in the dark.

So there can only be only one correct worldview if we are correct in our assumption that the world is truly intelligible. And that is the assumption we both made when we began our conversation way back when. 😉

]]>
By: Carl https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-28132 Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:54:07 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-28132 Steve, welcome back.

Mike, Jim- appreciate your helpful resources. Some I was already familiar with, others I may take advantage of in the future. I am aware, however, of VTs numerous assertions upholding (his understanding) of natural man’s limited ability to reason. Please note the words in italics from my earlier post: “Van Til, in my opinion, does not hold firmly enough man’s ability to reason and his (in)ability to understand spiritual matters in each one of his hands.”

I think Nate’s “Irrecoverable nonsense and incoherence of non-Christian thought” helpfully and truthfully summarizes VT’s ultimate position on this. Hopefully we agree. If we begin to ‘pad’ this with numerous disclaimers VT makes (in various places) I think we would have to question the validity of the assertion itself (meaning that we are not dealing with absurdity and nonsense at all). A discussion worth having, but one I care not to start here.

I suppose I am interested in a related but more general point, one I would (still) like you to comment on: Regardless of whether or not we agree on how (and how much) Van Til actually ‘concedes’ to natural man’s ability to reason, his position on this is not Calvinistic. Does the panel concede this?

]]>
By: Steve Ruble https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-28089 Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:25:07 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-28089 And I should learn to refresh the page before I post comments. Hi Jim!

I’d be very interested in a show about the Van Tillian (et al.) concept of self-deception. I’ve always thought that it seemed like such a nihilistic, depressing thing to believe… after all, if you believe that some people are entirely deceived about the nature of reality (and even about what they themselves believe), you must admit the possibility that you, yourself, are the one who is utterly deceived. After all, you wouldn’t be able to tell, would you?

]]>
By: Steve Ruble https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-28088 Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:16:31 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-28088 Well, I stopped checking this thread and missed out on a very interesting conversation. Jonathon, I’m sorry I got upset and wrote so aggressively; Nate, I stand by the things I wrote in response to you but I wish I’d been more sympathetic in how I stated my position.

I don’t suppose anyone is checking this thread at this point, but if they are: I wonder if those of you who follow Van Til’s way of thinking realize what a large claim you’re making when you write things like, “The problem is that unbeliever couldn’t make sense of the world if the unbeliever’s worldview was true.” There is an essentially infinite number of worldviews an “unbeliever” could have, each with their own assumptions and arguments. I don’t see how you could construct an argument which shows that each and every possible worldview must be inconsistent or incoherent, without addressing the claims of each worldview individually. A blanket dismissal of all non-Christian worldviews doesn’t seem to actually demonstrate “the impossibility of the contrary”, as there could perhaps be a non-Christian worldview (of which you are unaware) which is in fact coherent and free of internal contradictions. How would you eliminate that possibility?

]]>
By: Jim Cassidy https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-28056 Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:22:44 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-28056 For what it’s worth (or not) Mike nails it spot on. I appreciate Carl’s patience in hanging in there with us on this one. But the putative tension between VT’s doctrine of indirect proof and total depravity is answered by his understanding of Romans 1 (did I miss it, or has R. 1 not yet entered this discussion?). Dr. Oliphint nicely expounds this passage in his Reasons for Faith, ch 6 (among other places).

I think that a book, perhaps, more than any other which develops VT’s thought at length is his Common Grace and the Gospel. Bahnsen’s Van Til reader also addresses this as well. Bahnsen’s dissertation on self-deception is also salient to this discussion.

]]>
By: Henry of Harclay https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-28037 Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:41:10 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-28037 Fellows,

At one point in the show you said we’re justified for believing there is dog in the park who is actually a robot from Japan. I thought we were justified through Christ alone. Are you deviating from your orthodox Reformed soteriology? Many Pauline scholars have come to the conclusion that Paul’s Gospel was the proclamation of the lordship of the dog in the park who is actually a robot from Japan. James Dunn objects; he thinks that the dog must be from Israel, not Japan. We have to take account of the Bible’s context, he says. Anyway, I think you should reexamine your basic tenants of the Gospel.

– a concerned listener

]]>
By: Mike https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-27232 Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:09:04 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-27232 I have not ready much of Van Til’s material. However I am familar with Dr. Bahnsen’s teaching and since he probably knew Van Til’s thinking better than anyone else I believe I am in apoition to answer.

“What I am saying in particular here is that Calvin’s clear teaching on natural man’s ability to understand (earthly) things (1.2.13-17) is not upheld in Van Til’s work in spite of the best of his efforts to show the contrary.”

Bahnsen/Van Til clearly taught that that the unbeliever could make sense of the world. In one of his lectures, Dr. Bahnsen talked about the surgeon who operated on his heart and Bahnsen wanted it that way because he was so competent at what he did. The problem is not that the unbeliever can’t make sense of the world. The problem is that unbeliever couldn’t make sense of the world if the unbeliever’s worldview was true. Things like the laws of logic only make sense within a Christina worldview. Yet the unbeliever uses the laws of logic even as he denies the Christian worldview. Bahnsen/Van Til referred to this as living on borrowed capital. The unbeliever is borrowing from the Christian worldview even as he denies the Christian worldview. The presuppositional method is to point out this inconsistency – to show how everything he thinks or does only makes sense if he presupposes the Christian worldview.

“Van Til, in my opinion, does not hold firmly enough man’s ability to reason and his (in)ability to understand spiritual matters in each one of his hands.”

Bahnsen/Van Til also clearly taught that the unbeliever recognizes God but that he suppressed the truth. I remember Bahnsen comparing the unbelievers suppression of the truth to a ball floating on water. You can hold the ball underwater but it always wants to come to the surface. Simarly, the unbeliever surpresses the truth in their mind, pushing it down and down but the truth is always wants to come back up (to their consciousness).

Hope this help. If you want to get a better understanding of Van Til/Bahnsen go to http://www.cmfnow.com/. They have plenty of books and tapes there that will cover this material in as much detail as you need.

]]>
By: Carl https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-27143 Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:22:59 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-27143 Nate, thanks again for your time.

The topic is broader than the venue so I tried to prioritize my response, commenting only briefly (or not at all) on things where there is general agreement in our views. Thanks for your patience.

I pitch my tent with Calvin. Though his words are (obviously) not inspired I think that the faithfulness and diligence of his exegeses, the consistency and agreement of the sum of his work, his contributions to the forming of the confessions (enduring the test of time), all compel me to evaluate with utmost caution the need of those who would develop his doctrines. No only the need, mind you, the very structure being built should be sustainable by the doctrines being developed. What I am saying in particular here is that Calvin’s clear teaching on natural man’s ability to understand (earthly) things (1.2.13-17) is not upheld in Van Til’s work in spite of the best of his efforts to show the contrary.

‘Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those (the heathen philosophers) who drew up rules for discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance with reason?’ (1.2.15)

“Irrecoverable nonsense and incoherence of non-Christian thought” does not fit Calvin’s picture, and more importantly, I think the Scriptures will not sustain the notion. Van Til, in my opinion, does not hold firmly enough man’s ability to reason and his (in)ability to understand spiritual matters in each one of his hands. Ability to recognize God (with sensus divinitatis and reason) belongs to the former, to know Him (salvifically) to the latter- this appears to be Calvin’s position. Yet if we follow Van Til to his end man may be rendered excusable, or at least left without one important witness, for his natural thoughts are not possessed – nor ever fully capable – of recognizing God’s eternal power and Godhead. And though I have not read all his work, I somehow doubt he is elsewhere in his writings making a more convincing case for man’s utter absurdity of thought outside Christ while upholding, biblically, the “no excuse” clause we are constrained by. One has to grant the distinction between earthly and spiritual, but if we uphold the distinction I think Van Til’s case is in danger of falling apart.

This is my primary objection to his approach. To it I would add the over-arching concern I have about any AP work that seeks to ‘prove’ the truth. The notion of laboring in forming or attaining complex proof(s) – even on the basis of challenging the idea of proof itself – I think is a dead end for Calvin. Scripture “deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments” (1.7.5), and he clearly upholds this by not extending beyond the simple argument working with manifest witnesses. So a particular (novel) method of arguing non-belief is of secondary importance. Arguing – or the (life-)labor in forming a high-ground philosophical or other argument to prove the truth of our faith – itself is the issue, and it is hard to conceive why this should be perceived more favorably by us today than it was for Calvin in his own time.

But naturally I am aware of what you mean when you say “challenging unbelief” and agree that we are to persuade men. I hold, however, that our persuasion should be foremost exegetical in nature because the Scriptures emphasize not the supremacy of (any) argument but rather man’s predicament (sin) and God’s salvation and atonement through Christ. So in regards to AP being but one of the means… I suppose my concerns mentioned above apply.

In the matter of serving the Church – for the strengthening believers in their faith – my objections become less strenuous. Particularly if AP is not emphasized as among the primary means (reading/studying the word/preaching/studying sound doctrine…), and with a constraint of simplicity on philosophical apologetics (2Cor 11:3).

To your third point- I can certainly relate to your appreciation of things, though given the above you may see how I would not necessarily bundle all AP with the graces you mentioned (1Cor 10:23). But I understand and appreciate what you are saying.

In all, Nate, I am not so naive as to think that a (frontal) challenge to Van Til’s work at this place (wts!), with this crowd (!!), would go down particularly well. So I all the more appreciate your time and the spirit of your reply. My post is also not intended to demean the labor of anyone and I assure you that I have no intentions of causing regular ‘disturbance’ on your pages. Frankly, it is but for one word in the title of your forum and for what it represents that I keep returning: reformed. Though assaulted from many angles it (still) represents to me the doctrine worth contending for.

Thanks.

]]>
By: Mike https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-27102 Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:10:51 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-27102 Jonathan,

I didn’t follow the section (about 35 minutes into the conversation) where you talked about justification. You talked about consistency with the “actual”. And then you defined what “actual” was. That’s where I got confused. You talked about a “huge amount of evidence that we can stack up that will make the evidence topple over so that we no longer have a plain understanding of us being created in the image of God”.

Are you simply saying that something can only be truly justified if it is consistent with the claims of Christian scripture (because without the Christian worldview we can’t know anything at all)?

]]>
By: Nate Shannon https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26908 Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:14:25 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26908 Hi Carl,

Great quote! That really brings it home. You must have an earlier edition – I don’t see that quote on pg. 298 of the Oliphint edition. Anyway, I believe what we’re getting at here is what Van Til calls the impossibility of the contrary. This is the apologetic method, or method of argumentation/interaction which Van Til believed was necessary given the nature of truth. Due to the fact that the unbeliever bases his thinking on a rejection – or pretended rejected – of the triune God of the Bible, his system will always prove incoherent and self-defeating. A non-Christian system might appear to make sense at times or on particular matters, but it is only incoherent patch work, because it is based on rejection of truth itself.

One either confesses the triune God of the Bible or one does not; the two systems – and in Van Til’s mind, there are two and two only – are irreducibly antithetical. For this reason, there can be no exchange of reasons, no discourse based on evidence or proofs, since the notion of fact is itself a function of one’s greater, prior commitments. On Christian grounds, all facts are God’s facts; so the idea that a ‘fact’ could undercut Christian belief is a non-starter, it just doesn’t make any sense. Here’s where we can say something surprising about unbelief: when the unbeliever pretends to assume a “neutral” stance by treating Christian theism as a hypothesis, he implies that he can tell the difference between a Christian theistic fact and a fact which is not Christian theistic. The unbeliever’s position begins to look a lot like omniscience, while the fact is, that it is the Christian position which is truly humble, since we readily concede that there will be things which we cannot explain, stumbling blocks to our understanding, things we would rather not have to deal with intellectually; but to use paradox is only immanent, or apparent, but not ultimate, since God is rational, personal, just, and faithful.

That’s the long way around to saying that if there are no facts (evidence, proofs, reasons) which are in truth held in common between the Christian and the non-Christian systems, there can be no exchange based on such things. Therefore the best proof of Christian truth, if the term ‘proof’ will bend a little for our uses here, is the irrecoverable nonsense and incoherence of non-Christian thought.

There’s more to it than that – its important to realize, in my view anyway, that even given the antithesis which Van Til thought about so much, the non-Christian system will always handle God’s truth, because that’s all there is. So the non-Christian will always be borrowing Christian capital, as Van Til says, making moral pronouncements, making aesthetic judgments, campaigning for justice or the moral value of truth, and so on. But all of these things reside supremely only in the God of the Bible.

So you have two elements: incoherence – refusing to acknowledge God, and the inescapability of our knowledge of God and our nature as imago dei, reflective of the Creator. Its a very striking image, of a person utterly wrapped in the truth his sinful pride drives him to deny and refuse, in every aspect of his life.

Thanks!

]]>
By: Carl https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26833 Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:56:32 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26833 Nate, I am grateful for your thoughtful reply (and, yes, you heard me right) and will have a few thoughts forthcoming. It’ll just take a bit to express them duly – please stay tuned.

To Jonathan- although I appreciate your willingness to condescend I think I would prefer an answer still.

You may be correct, I may have fully misunderstood VT. Maybe my issue is really with how I see his approach being applied (!)… But I would still like to know how you understand, for example, his (summary) statement like –

“The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.” (p.298, The Defense of The Faith)

– in light of some rather important references I gave. (by important I mean faithful to the Scriptural teaching)

I should hope this would be easy enough to at least comment on without asking for panel approved ‘VT credentials’ upfront.

Thanks.

]]>
By: Nate Shannon https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26823 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:58:15 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26823 Carl,

If I hear you right, you’re bringing up an interesting and important point. People are not brought to Christ because of apologetic arguments; they are brought to Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is a crucial point for apologists – and preachers, evangelists, missionaries, and so on – to keep in mind. The gospel does not ‘depend’ on us. Van Til was very aware of this fact, which I think is part of why he was so determined in his opposition to what he called the “block” method, or any kind of apologetic which attempted to gradually ease a person into the full scope of Christian confession. This kind of slow, piecemeal approach, is problematic from a number of angles, but two reasons for our distrust in it are that “attenuating” Christian doctrines means compromising them irrecoverably; and, secondly, just what we’re talking about: no one is converted by arguments, but by the Spirit, they must be born again (not a gradual process).

However the Holy Spirit works through various means, right? Apologetics is as good as any means through which the Holy Spirit might work on the hearts of unbelievers, when we defend and commend the faith. An unbeliever can be brought to question his own thinking in new ways, or can be challenged to take the faith he thought he new more seriously.

Apologetics serves the church as well, in important ways. Christians need to know that Christian truth is not limited to churchy matters, that they can serve the Lord in many ways, and they need to understand how Christian commitments interact with secular thought. If every secular philosopher in the world rejects outright our – a Christian – critique of secular philosophy, that does not make our view wrong, and that does not render the work of philosophical apologetics useless, not by a long shot, since apologetics is also important for serving the church.

I’ve described two noble services of AP – challenging unbelief and serving the church. There is a third. Apologetics is beautiful, fascinating, challenging, and downright fun. Praise God. For me at least, apologetics is a like playing baseball professionally – it’s so much fun, I can’t believe I could make a living doing it, and I almost feel guilty – but I definitely feel grateful. There doesn’t have to be a reason to sit in a comfortable chair and read a great book, nor a reason for playing soccer on a fall morning, nor one for sipping the perfect coffee, listening to music, viewing a painting, looking into my beautiful wife’s eyes. God made all these things; enjoying them is enjoying Him.

Thanks

]]>
By: Jonathan https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26816 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:50:08 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26816 Carl,
I think you have seriously misunderstood Van Til. Based on your comment, I am not convinced that you have even read Van Til at all. Tell us what you think Van Til’s apologetic method is and/or what his conclusions are, and maybe we can help.

]]>
By: Stephen https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26815 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:38:43 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26815 Apropos Carl’s comment I think Lesslie Newbigin’s critique of philosophical apologetics may have something to contribute to the discussion…see especially his later book Proper Confidence. Newbigin may not have the Reformed pedigree of Van Til, but his thoughts on the relationship of faith and epistemology were every bit as profound. I enjoyed the podcast. Blessings!

]]>
By: Carl https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26807 Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:44:18 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26807 I for one appreciate Steve’s (Ruble) persistence and consistency. I think his challenges expose some of the more obvious problems and limitations inherent in philosophical apologetics (or any branch of study that labors to prove the truth of our Christian position or disprove others). Van Tillian merger is no exception, and I am not at all convinced that it actually conforms with the reformed confessions and their very basic tenet(s).

Is it not God’s own revelation that forms the only true basis for our belief? And is it not “an inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts” to this revelation (the Scriptures) as the only Word of God?

Therefore, do not these very propositions (which I am well aware that Van Til affirmed) clearly contradict his conclusions? His creative use of concepts notwithstanding, to think that an unregenerate person could grasp the ‘absurdity’ of his/her position through exposition of the (wrong) underlying presuppositions? How does this follow anyway? More importantly how does this notion fit our reformed line given some of the very clear assertions on this subject speaking to the contrary?

WCF:
1.5. …”our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of the Word of God], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
1.6. …”we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word”

WLC
4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
A. …the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.

Calvin’s Institutes:
1.8.13 “…it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith.”

I appreciate your time to answer my (very basic) question.

]]>
By: Nate Shannon https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26779 Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:19:00 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26779 On second thought, I’ve over complicated things. This website has a title, and titles are usually chosen to give some indication of the content to be found there. “reformedforum” is no exception, as Camden explains at the opening of nearly every recording: the intention is explore topic X “from a Reformed perspective.” If I visit romancatholicforum.org, I would expect my Roman brethren to use terms my familiarity with which is limited or none. nor would I expect my theological commitments to be thoroughly or even well represented there, maybe derided, if mentioned at all. If I go to atheistforum.org, I would be laughed out of town if i complained that those sorry atheists haven’t bothered to consider the points of view of non-atheists, esp. of committed Reformed Theologians. I would expect to find atheists talking about atheistic things and generally assuming an atheistic perspective, just as I would expect to find Roman Catholicism assumed in the discussions at romancatholicforum.org.

But you say “reformed bubble” as a pejorative, as though we were a “smug” circle of diversity haters. Whence the ire, friend?

]]>
By: Nate Shannon https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26777 Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:01:42 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26777 Steve (in Toronto),

Yes, the discussion here on the comment page is shameful; I only made it worse, and I regret it.

I think it is worth noting that the program is open to anyone, and I think it’s great when folks of all persuasions listen and engage – that makes for thrilling dialogue. The program is however primarily – not exclusively – crafted for a particular audience, one, and two, attempts to push the threshold of previous explorations of the topics covered (we try to make progress). For both of those reasons, much is often assumed. There’s another hiccup – of the panel here, all of us share a particular apologetic tradition which is quite distinctive. This commonality creates a practical danger: it’s too easy to take for granted views which we hold in common, and to overlook explanation/defense of those views. Those oversights would be conspicuous to the outsider. I wish the result didn’t come off as “smug,” but it just might, as you say.

All that is to say that the “reformed bubble” is somewhat by design, the smugness sort of an unfortunate side effect.

Thanks

]]>
By: Steve in Toronto https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26757 Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:32:32 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26757 Please folk lets try to raise the tone of the discussion a bit. After hearing this show I immediately checked the posts to see if Mr. Ruble had turned up to let a bit of air out of our hosts smug reformed bubble but this discussion is painfully juvenile. Please guys lets try to be more civil.
Peace
Steve in Toronto

I would also suggest that Mr. Ruble be invited to be a guest on your show I would love to hear you guys interact in real time.

]]>
By: Steve Ruble https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26627 Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:10:09 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26627 Jonathan, pretending that you aren’t reasoning autonomomously does not give you a magic brain. Pretending that you don’t need to justify your claims doesn’t make them justified.

As for circularity… Everyone (including you) assumes that sense perception and reason are generally reliable. But you and your friends pretend that you can justify that assumption by making massive additional assumptions, which you justify on the grounds that they’re your assumptions and you have magic brains. You think you can bootstrap your way to certainty by pretending that you have a better starting point than anyone else, but assertion does not make it so, Jonathan. You’re exactly as pathetic as everyone else who claims to have a revelation that they are correct.

]]>
By: Jonathan https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26605 Sun, 14 Nov 2010 04:38:39 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26605 “They’ve been laboring for millenia under the impression that one needs reasons and arguments to justify a conclusion”
Name one proposition that has been justified according to a purely autonomous system . (Rhetorical – there isn’t one)

“it only exasperates me”
According to what standard is this frustrating you? (Rhetorical – we refuse to be held accountable to Steve Ruble’s nebulous weltanschauung, this should make any atheist upset)

“endless circle”
Please provide your example of a non-circular argument. (Rhetorical – there isn’t one)

]]>
By: Steve Ruble https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26600 Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:58:51 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26600 Nate, your arrogance is astounding.

You and your cohort seem to think that you can resolve or avoid all the complexities and conundrums of epistemology by asserting that you simply know the truth. You should share your insights with professional philosophers! Imagine how surprised they’ll be! They’ve been laboring for millenia under the impression that one needs reasons and arguments to justify a conclusion… what will they think when you reveal to them that one must only assume that one is correct to be assured of true knowledge?

What I continue to fail to understand, Nate, is how you and your friends are able to give one another the impression that your arguments and assertions are intellectually respectable. Does it make you feel better to pretend that you’re doind reasoning, rather than echoing dogma? When Camden says, “That’s very helpful,” do you feel like you’ve actually made a point?

I’m not sure why I listen to or respond to your little pseudo-intellectual session; it only exasperates me. I guess I hope that by prodding you I might plant the seeds of the questions that would break you out of your endless circle – although you’re so invested by this point that I doubt you could admit it even if you realized you were wrong. Oh well. None is so blind as he who refuses to see.

]]>
By: Nate Shannon https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26578 Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:02:26 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26578 Steve,

I wonder if after each exchange here in the comment area, you have your brain fully replaced and you start from scratch. I am beginning to think that you listen to these recordings only so long as, and only for the purpose of, finding something you can say you laughed at and which you can mock after taking it out of context. That is really very uninteresting and unimpressive. (I would say you should hold yourself to a higher standard, but if you an atheist, why should you?) The basics of how our commitments to Christ and Scripture structure our view of knowledge still escape you. I don’t even think your comments here deserve a thoughtful response, to be frank. When your heart is really ready to think through the issues, we’ll be here. “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.” Apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ, you will never grow. “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

]]>
By: Steve Ruble https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc148/#comment-26537 Sat, 13 Nov 2010 00:12:24 +0000 http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/?p=1458#comment-26537 One of your panel members said something to the effect that your assumption that your knowledge claims were justified by God leaves you in a much better position than “those guys who can’t even tell whether a dog is a robot”. I almost laughed out loud. I know that the claim was followed up with disclaimers that it was all very general, and “more work needs to be done in that area” but, seriously, how does your God help you determine whether the dog is a robot?

Do you get some special knowledge alert alarm in your brain when you become a Christian, or are do all your knowledge claims continue to be exactly as fallible as they were before? I think you’ll agree that you continue to be fallible. So what do you get, exactly? The feeling that your knowledge claims are more justified? The possibility that they are more justified? If they aren’t actually any more justified, what difference does it make?

]]>