patrick,

I would argue that worldview, or philosophy for that matter are not as prevalent in how one holds a wrench, or pen, but in the ultimate motivation behind doing so and what those goals are and the limits upon what they do.

Let’s take the Christian plumber, he works to glorify God as a plumber, so he may not do certain jobs (maybe at a brothel), he may vet his suppliers so he doesn’t use businesses that don’t have his beliefs, etc… but first and foremost he does it to glorify God. Does that mean by default he is the greatest plumber of all? No, but his motivation for working and his work take on a Godly character. He has a firm belief in contract, in ensuring the price is right, not cheating his customer etc (and so do non-Christians, but is this the image of God manifesting itself in them?)… As is pointed out in the audio he can justify his actions and does so with God. But we can’t just limit the impact of worldview there, worldview impact all his decisions in a day and ultimately in his life.

Some examples are relativism, value of diversity, legal abortion, etc…. so our plumber in his daily life follows his world view, and ultimately when taken with others determine such large issues. My world view prohibits me from going to Starbucks. If enough people shared my world view it would be out of business and Planned Parenthood would be out of a source of funding.

Sorry can’t edit apparently.

It should read “The ticket is based on all knowing there is a limit and it is your duty to find out what it is and abide by it, not that the limit was not known

Hermonta,

In your analogy is God the speed limit? Because a more perfect analogy is God is the fact a limit exists and the person is acting in a way that he can ignore God’s existence and then go, “look there is no proof” The ticket is based on all know there is a limit and it is your duty to find out what it is and abide by it, not that the limit was not known.

Also if the law of God is written on the hearts of men, then is that not knowledge of God being intrinsic to a persons existence? How about being in the image of God, would that not also qualify? How about non-believers exhibiting Godly characteristics, such as compassion, and love? are these not examples of how His image, law and knowledge of him are manifested in all men.

Your last sentence is an embarassingly obvious non-sequitur. Your premise does not imply your conclusion. You are just baldly asserting that it does.

One problem with worldview talk was highlighted by this discussion. Other worldview thinkers would answer the questions Jared asked about worldviews quite differently. Across all the Christians writing about worldviews, there does not seem to be much consistency in what worldviews are, to what extent people hold them, what difference they make in ordinary professions, etc. E.g. some worldview writers would argue that Christians do, in fact, do plumbing, genetic analysis, truck driving (etc.) in a distinctively Christian way that is substantively different compared to how non-Christians do those activities (they rarely specify what that involves, though). Sometimes it feels like D.G. Hart’s arguments against the meaning(lessness) of the term “evangelical” count just as much against “worldview”!

Jared and Nathan also brought up the non-Christian grounding for the laws of nature. There are many sophisticated theories non-Christians have developed which may turn out true—counter-factual theories of laws, anti-realist and reductionist theories (Van Fraassen—before he was a Christian!), Humean theories, Armstrong’s universalist view, etc. Even if Christianity is true, any of these might be the right analysis of laws. Comparatively, as far as I know in philosophy, there is is no “Christian” account of natural laws. You might even say Christians are operating on borrowed capital here… Yet why in apologetic discussions do Christians argue as if Christians are the only one that can justify natural laws (without actually arguing against extant theories of laws)?

As a bonus, such a position as mine is able to make sense of what happened to Adam and why he fell. If implanted knowledge was sufficient, then the fall is inexplicable.

Next, all claims of self-evidences are world-view based. Or according to some beliefs that a person holds, other beliefs follow naturally. If one does not hold the same sets of beliefs then one will consider different things to be self evident.

As one gets into various arguments direct and indirect, without an appeal to the Bible, the Van Tillian distinctives begin to be lost.

This would mean that knowledge of God is not just something which people lose, but something that they never attain in the first place. Is that what you intend to say?

As for the fideism charge: implanted belief in God is self-evident, not without evidence. On the other hand, even if someone rejects this self-evident belief, Van Til and I still have recourse to indirect forms of argument, showing that without a foundational belief in God, no other beliefs are justified.

Next, my position is that one can suppress and be responsible for such suppression of things that they do not in fact know. For example think of a highway with speed limit signs. If a driver, looked away whenever they coming close to and pass such a sign, they would be ignorant as to what the speed limit of that area was. Would that be excusable when they are pulled over by the police? No. They would still, rightfully, get a ticket. Knowing God is not necessary for suppressing the knowledge of God. All one needs is a proper method to know God that someone was in rebellion towards doing.

Next, it is true that people are not neutral towards God but instead either hate or love Him. However that does not imply that there is no neutral method by which those who love God can show the God haters that such actions are irrational.

Next, we do not see universal belief in the Truine God (the only God that in fact exists). We see belief in a great deal of things besides the God of Scripture. Such does not imply that all such folks actually know God but instead are just twisting their belief in rebellion. It does imply that Bob Dylan was correct when wrote, “Gotta serve something.”

If in fact all other worldviews are incoherent, it should not matter with which premises that you begin, one should ultimately end up in the same place.

I am not a Thomist but you are correct that NT/NL go together, Neither should be feared but instead both should be embraced.

Thanks for the reply,… I read through that book and didn’t catch that,… I’ll have to go back to that part. Thanks. Enjoyed both shows you’ve been on. Soli Deo Gloria!

Hermonta

As for the first point, about annihilation, I had in mind this statement: “Our earthly bodies are the only part of the present world that Scripture says will be transformed and taken up into the world-to-come.” –David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, p. 66.

For the second point, VanDrunen certainly believes that the conscience is distorted by sin. But as far as I can tell, he thinks that the true deliverances of conscience can be recovered, without any help from special revelation. The question I was trying to raise is this: without having recourse to Scripture, how do we figure out what are the true deliverances of the conscience, and what are sinful distortions?