Monday, December 31, 2012

The argument from reason

A friend asked me what I thought of Victor Reppert’s argument from reason. Here’s my response:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just finished reading his version of the argument in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Here are my off-the-cuff impressions:

i) I think it’s a good argument. I think it can be popularized.

ii) In popularizing theistic proofs, I think we need to clarify the value and limitations of popularized theistic proofs. I think we should classify popularized theistic proofs under defensive apologetics rather than offensive apologetics. I think they can be useful in giving Christians supporting arguments for their faith. They can give Christians some intellectual confidence or assurance.

However, I think it would often be a mistake for a Christian to imagine that this equips him to go on the offensive and pick fights or do battle with unbelievers.

In debate, a specialist usually has an advantage over a nonspecialist. He can argue circles around the nonspecialist. Even though the specialist may be dead wrong, he can do a snow job on the nonspecialist.

An atheist who’s a clever young philosophy major has a lot of strategies at his disposal to deflect a popularized version of the AFR. If Joe Six-pack Christian gets into an argument with an unbeliever like that, he may well lose the argument, not because he’s wrong, but because he lacks the sophistication to field the counterarguments.

And that experience could disillusion him. That might shake his faith. Leave him worse off than before. So we need to make sure the nonspecialist has reasonable expectations about what a popularized theistic proof can accomplish.

iii) There’s also the question of how to interpret the AFR.

a) Is it one argument, or a bundle of distinct arguments?

Reppert divides the argument into six subarguments, but are these six distinct arguments from reason, or are these six supporting arguments for the same basic argument?

b) For instance, is dualism essential to the AFR? Take an idealistic version of atheism like McTaggart’s idealism. Everything would be mental.

Yet that would still be vulnerable to the AFR. Mentality is not interchangeable with rationality. Take the clinically insane.

c) Likewise, some people I’ve read think this is about the determinism/indeterminism debate. That if our beliefs are determined, then our beliefs are arbitrary. But I think that objection misses the point of argument.

Seems to me the AFR isn’t targeting the general principle of determinate beliefs, but beliefs determined by a mindless process.

By the same token, the AFT would also target accidental beliefs. Beliefs which result from a stochastic process.

iv) In popularizing a theistic proof, the key is to find and exploit good illustrations. For instance, Reppert uses the hypothetical example of someone who throws dice to decide what to believe. You could expand on that example.

a) We’d say that’s an irrational way to choose beliefs, because there’s no essential correlation between the selection process and the truth of the corresponding belief. And that’s because it’s just a matter of chance what combination the dice will yield on any particular throw.

Mind you, there’s a sense in which the randomness is determined by physical conditions and mathematical constraints, which is why we can calculate the odds. Only so many combinations are mathematically possible.

But there’s no internal relation between the dice and the beliefs. The same throw could select a different belief, or a different throw could select the same belief. It all depends on how the dice are positioned in the fist, the angle of the throw, the amount of force behind the throw, &c.

b) One might compare this to loaded dice. The dice are loaded with the intention of yielding a particular result, for a purpose. To win by cheating.

v) Scrabble would be another example.

a) In one respect, that’s a physical state which can represent something else. The arrangement of letters can refer.

But lettered sequences aren’t inherently meaningful. Rather, that’s based on language, alphabets, and spelling systems. That’s a code which we use to assign meaning to inanimate objects. An arbitrary convention. The significance is contingent on an agreed-upon set of rules. Mutual understanding.

b) Likewise, we distinguish between words which are fortuitously formed by shaking the box, then emptying the contents onto the table, and words which are intentionally formed by a player selecting Scrabble pieces from a pile and arranging or rearranging them to spell a word or sentence.

If a girlfriend and boyfriend were playing Scrabble, and she saw her boyfriend shake the box, resulting in the pieces randomly spelling “Will you marry me?”, she wouldn’t treat that as a marriage proposal (unless she was deluded). But if she saw him take pieces on the table and arrange them to spell “Will you marry me?”, she’d rightly interpreted that as a marriage proposal.

These are ways of illustrating the difference between beliefs produced by a reliable process and beliefs produced by an unreliable process.

vi) Finally, one stock objection to the AFR is that the evolution of reason is trustworthy, for if it wasn’t trustworthy, we wouldn’t still be around.

I haven’t kept up with all the current literature on that debate, but I think that appeal is flawed on multiple grounds:

a) It’s an a posteriori counterargument to an a priori argument. The AFT is an argument in principle. An empirical argument really can’t disprove an argument in principle. It isn’t that kind of argument.

b) Reasoning back from the outcome doesn’t yield that premise. Even if we grant macroevolution, even if we grant that our survival retroactively validates the fact that evolution selects for reliable beliefs, that’s not an argument for naturalistic evolution. At best, that would be an argument for theistic evolution. For guided evolution.

If, for instance, we keep rolling sixes, we don’t conclude that we’re lucky. For there quickly comes a point where that’s too lucky to be sheer luck. Rather, we conclude that the dice are loaded.

c) If brainpower confers a survival advantage, how did our less cerebrally endowed precursors survive to evolve bigger brains?

d) Insects survive and thrive without brainpower or true beliefs. So where’s the connection?

e) According to evolutionary history, the vast percentage of biological organisms became extinct.

f) The appeal is circular. You can only cite the success of evolution in producing advantageous beliefs on the prior assumption that your brain can be trusted to evaluate the evidence. But that’s the very issue in dispute.

34 comments:

  1. The question that doesn't get asked often enough in my opinion is whether or not we should even expend this amount time on arguments from natural theology. I am not saying we should not devote any attention to the subject, but I wonder if this area deserves the kind of attention it garners.

    1. God saves through the foolishness of preaching, not the intellectual or rational power of theistic proofs.
    2. They already know God is, but they twist and pervert that knowledge and will do so as long as they are in an unregenerate state.
    3. I suggest acquaintence with attacks is okay, but mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel would serve our purposes far greater than intellectual pugilism. Paul warned Timothy about this activity more than once.

    Will we lose most of the arguments?It actually depends on what our goal is. Again, that question is far too often ignored in these discussions. But yes, usually we will lose from the natural perspective, but only because we can't change ultimate commitments of blind sinners through intellectual prowess. But neither did Paul. If they find our message and response to their skepticism foolish and/or offensive, no worries; Scripture predicted this would happen. Winning an argument is not the goal. Accurately articulating the gospel should be our primary concern.

    That being said, I do think Christians should be acquainted with the objections they are going to hear and expect them. But should such objections shake genuine faith? Not in the slightest. And if it does, perhaps we have a misplaced faith to begin with and that is a much bigger problem than being able to manage theistic arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i) One problem with just preaching the Bible is that most unbelievers are unchurched. They aren't where they hear expository preaching on a regular basis, if at all. So that's an antidote without an audience.

    ii) Another problem is that if unbelievers have been taught to view the Bible as just a bunch of politically incorrect bronze age fairy-tales, then evangelism has no foothold.

    iii) If unbelievers seem to have all the arguments, and we can't respond in kind, that creates a very bad impression of the faith.

    iv) There's an oft-repeated apostasy narrative where intellectually defenseless Christian youth lose their faith in college.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i) The NT culture was entirely unchurched. In addition, I do not think it a bad thing to launch offensives against unbelieving worldviews and have them think about what they really beleive.

      ii) This presupposes that unbelieving hearts have to operate on the same presuppositions as the faithful just to get started. Paul said very well that the gospel was foolishness and offensive to this world. Yet, God powerfully saves men despite their natural-born enmity toward God and the gospel.

      iii) The faith will always have a bad impression on those who are sworn agressively to destroy it or passively to ignore it as a religous fairy land.

      iv) They never had genuine faith to begin with and college exposes the leaven that they have always been (assuming they persist in throwing off the faith).

      I admit that we must do a better job in the trenches of Sunday School, Bible study groups, and discipleship of educating the believing community. However, we have limited amounts of time and people cannot focus on the seemingly endless objections to the faith that they will encounter. For this reason, we must provide some education on the big items, and a very narrow focus on the most important item of all: presenting the gospel as succinctly as possible. People will get discouraged if they think they have to come up with all these responses to defend the faith. We have to find a way to help them focus. Delivering the gospel has to become so natural for them that they can do it in their sleep. Then we equip them with some simple critical thinking skills and teach them how to go on the offensive when encountering skeptics, just to get skeptic to think. We rip off their mask as Banhsen would say.

      Delete
    2. i) The NT culture was entirely unchurched.

      In what sense? Knowledge of the OT was rather strong in Paul's target areas. What do you mean by this statement?

      Delete
    3. I mean that the Greco-Roman culture had no clue what "the Church" was, far less than our culture does.

      Delete
    4. Ed Dingess

      “The NT culture was entirely unchurched.”

      That’s a gross overstatement. Both Jews and Gentile Godfearers or proselytes were exposed to Scripture when they attended synagogue. That’s not comparable to biblical illiteracy in our own time.

      “Paul said very well that the gospel was foolishness and offensive to this world. Yet, God powerfully saves men despite their natural-born enmity toward God and the gospel.”

      Paul didn’t simply preach the gospel. When evangelizing Jews, he quoted Scripture, but when he was engaging pagans, he quoted pagan writers as well as appealing to divine creation and providence (Acts 14 & 17).

      “They never had genuine faith to begin with and college exposes the leaven that they have always been (assuming they persist in throwing off the faith).”

      You need to distinguish between backsliders and apostates.

      Delete
    5. The percentage of Jews relative to the overall population was Infinitesimal. The percentage of Gentile converts to Judaism was even smaller. We are talking about a Church community, a Christian community that was brand new. The culture as a whole had very little idea what this movement was really about. They did not live in the information age in which we live. The unchurched in THAT culture was nothing like what we call unchurched. How could it be?

      Paul's quotation of a pagan source does not show that Paul would approve of AFR. There is nothing in either text to show that Paul used human reason, unbelieving human reason in order to show the rationality of the Christian gospel so that these intellectuals would respond positively to a message they could at least respect. In addition, the results at Lystra were devestating. They stoned Paul and thought him dead. At Athens, it was not much more effective in terms of how man would consider it, for only a few believed.

      Perhaps some of these kids are backsliders who, after divine correction return to their senses. But I think I said if they persist in their rejection, they were never saved to begin with.

      I am still waiting to hear anyone step up and admit openly that they do not think the Scriptures are sufficient in and of themselves for modern evangelism. We need more than just Scripture, more than just the gospel, more than just the word of the cross. If faith comes by hearing the word of God, granted miraculously to the human heart in regeneration, why the extreme effort in intellectual pugilism?

      I am not saying we should not be ready to have some discussion around objections to Christian claims. What I am saying is that the focus is out of balance and that our faith must always reside in the gospel as opposed to intellectual debate. I am often engaged in this discussion myself. But my approach is offensive. I rarely permit an unbeliever to put me on the defensive. And when they do, I quickly spin them around and put their back against the cage, so to speak.

      Delete
  3. Ed Dingess.

    The question that doesn't get asked often enough in my opinion is whether or not we should even expend this amount time on arguments from natural theology. I am not saying we should not devote any attention to the subject, but I wonder if this area deserves the kind of attention it garners.

    I notice you have a blog called, "Reformed Reasons." You might, then, want to consider the Reformed views on the matter. A place to start would be Michael Sudduth's The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology (Ashgate, 2009).

    Also, one wonders what amount of "time" you have in mind? How much time *are* we spending on the topic, and how much is too much? Not that you have to give a precise answer, it could be vague. A ballpark guesstimate will do.

    1. God saves through the foolishness of preaching, not the intellectual or rational power of theistic proofs.

    Who said God saves "through the rational power of theistic proofs"? (While I'm not even sure what such a denial *means*.) You're attacking an anti-intellectual boogeyman. A scarecrow of your own making. At any event, you'd do well to grant an audience to such Reformed stalwarts as J. Gresham Machen:

    ***
    It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God. That can overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation useless. But as a matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.
    ***

    2. They already know God is, but they twist and pervert that knowledge and will do so as long as they are in an unregenerate state.

    Again, you'd do wel to read the Sudduth book mentioned above. But moreover, your scan is overly restrictive. You seem to think the only purpose of natural theology arguments are to convince or convert or answer *non*believers. Lastly, it's highly contentious, given the current state of the art of epistemology, that *all* men "know" that God exists—granted, even if we suppose Paul is talking about all human beings whoever (concepti?), he may be using 'knowledge' in a way that diverges from how we use it in the field of epistemology, but in that case, the arguments against natural theology based on Romans 1 become very dubious and ostensibly otiose.

    3. I suggest acquaintence with attacks is okay, but mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel would serve our purposes far greater than intellectual pugilism. Paul warned Timothy about this activity more than once.

    I'm not even sure what this *means*, but I have a feeling Reformed bloggers, like yourself, with all their wrangling and taking the time to argue against natural theology are exempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The apostles did not spend their time engaging in rational proofs for the existence of God. They preached the cross and trusted God to do His work in bring to faith those whom He has called from eternity past.

      The Corinthian Church was intimately familiar with Greek philosophies. Paul established a clearly antithetical relationship between God’s wisdom and the world’s wisdom. By wisdom he clearly means how one reasons about reality. Not only does Paul point out that his preaching had no components of worldly reasoning in it, he admitted that his method and message were esteemed to be moronic and offensive. Yet in 1 Cor. 2:5, it seems this humble approach served to keep faith in its proper perspective.

      What other purpose would we have in interacting with arguments against the existence of God but to deliver the truth in hopes of conversion? 2 Tim. 2:23 tells us to reject foolish and ignorant speculations know that they generate debates. You fail to provide a biblical reason for why we would engage in these discussions if it is not to turn a heart to Christ. In 2 Tim. 2:25 the point is that God may grant them repentance.
      You next point concerning Paul’s epistemology and what he meant by γνωστός in Romans 1 is disturbing. You attempt to establish a radically skeptical view of how we should read Romans 1 and from there you move to quite dogmatic conclusion. Dogmatism generally does not follow from skepticism my brother. If Paul is not talking about all human beings, then the universal language about wrath must also be localized. Have you thought through those implications? It would appear to me that you have not. Secondly, why would God’s existence be so obvious to those in Romans 1 and not all? Why would this group have some special knowledge of God that seemingly falls short of special revelation but rises above general revelation? Rom. 2:14 indicates again that Paul is thinking universally as we make our way to Romans 3:10-18. Any alternative interpretation of Romans 1-3 is wrought with numerous hermeneutical flaws not to mention exegetical pot holes along the way.

      I spend very little time addressing natural theology on my blog. It has its place. Paul did an excellent Job in Romans one of helping us understand its place. I prefer Paul’s writing on religious epistemology over guys from our day. Contrary to your skeptical speculation regarding the subject group of Romans 1 and your desire to introduce complexity into Paul’s meaning of the word knowledge where none exists, his language to the Roman Church is clear enough for us to understand.
      V.18-19 Wrath is universal along with the knowledge of God.
      v.20 God’s revelation in creation is visible for all those in creation to see. This revelation introduces the concept of culpability according to Paul. If universal knowledge does not exist, universal culpability does not either. And if that is true, the wrath of v.18 loses its universal aspect.
      v.21 “They know God…follows God’s universal display of His attributes in creation.
      v.22-32 illustrates and describes the condition of fallen mankind as a whole.

      There is no sound exegetical reason why anyone should deny the universal application of Romans one to all of mankind considering the immediate context, the grammar, and broader context of the entire book.

      I would recommend you consider Greg Bahnsen’s and Cornelius Van Til’s work in this area. Also of excellent value are Oliphant’s projects, Reasons {for Faith}, and Revelation to Reason. The dichotomy set up between reason and faith is false one. Either Reason sets as magistrate over faith (the unbeliever’s position) or reason serves faith as her servant. We do not have a reasonable faith. On the contrary, we have faithful reasoning. And that is the basis for why my blog is called “Reformed Reasons.” My reasoning is reformed by the faith supplied to me by God in Christ Jesus my Lord.

      Delete
    2. Ed Dingess,

      First, how are you licensing your move from *descriptive* reports of what you take to be how the apostles spent their time to your *normative* conclusion? Second, do you find no disparity between times? The Greeks believed in the divine and the supernatural and the miraculous, so there was lot of common ground. Other audiences were Jews, who shared in common the OT. You don't seem to appreciate the flawed reasoning you're using and the inappropriate mapping of the apostles’ intellectual and apologetic context onto our own.

      You then say my "point concerning Paul’s epistemology and what he meant by γνωστός in Romans 1 is disturbing." Why you find the need engage in such hand-wringing and introduce such emotionally loaded terms, is inscrutable. What's the cause for your concern? You say, "You attempt to establish a radically skeptical view of how we should read Romans 1 and from there you move to quite dogmatic conclusion." Well, why is this? Because I said *concepti* don't "know" God if Paul meant that as something like justified or warranted true belief? Ed, I'm afraid that's not very "skeptical." And what, exactly, was my "dogmatic" *conclusion*, Ed? You don't tell us? Was it that if "know" is not used by Paul to mean something like justified/warranted true belief, then your appeal to Romans 1 is ostensibly otiose? How is *that* dogmatic, Ed? Indeed, I even used the term 'ostensibly'! Or perhaps you're referring to my claim that your claim about Romans 1 is "highly contentious." Well, it is, Ed. I have several respected commentaries that will substantiate this, and which I can cite if you'd like?

      You then ask me "If Paul is not talking about all human beings, then the universal language about wrath must also be localized", and claim this is an "implication" I haven't thought through. However, this is not so. For example, there are *other* passages that could justify God's universal wrath. You also need to deal with the cases of putatively obvious candidates for exception, such as concepti, or those born severely mentally disabled, etc. But more apropos, God's existence is clear and *all* and those men who do not know that he exists *ought* to "19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." This here grounds the wrath, and has you can see this says *nothing* about *actual* knowledge. There is a category called *culpable* ignorance, Ed. Now, you may not *like* what I have to say about all of this, but I have shown that the supposed unsavory implication of my position is unfounded.

      Lastly, I have read Bahnsen, Van Til, and Oliphint. Actually, I have reviews up of all their book on my goodreads.com site. I know my Van Til and Bahnsen. However, I have grown to appreciate and see several errors with their views. Some of them minor, some major. But let's put all this aside and point out the irony here: Van Til and Bahnsen did not think that you should just "preach and trust God to do the work." Actually, Bahnsen denies this is the appropriate representation of his position in his book Always Ready. Moreover, when you write, "I suggest acquaintence with attacks is okay, but mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel would serve our purposes far greater than intellectual pugilism," you show your unfamiliarity with the men you called to your defense. For Van Til and Bahnsen thought they had an invincible *positive* argument, TAG, and spent the majority of their time *not* "mastering how to give a succinct presentation of the gospel." So I wonder if *you* have read your Van Til and Bahnsen.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and just what do you mean by, "worldly reasoning"? What is that, exactly? Logic? Or something more nefarious? If so, why do you take it that it's relevant to a discussion of natural theology? Does natural theology, as such, reply on said nefarious understanding? Or are you only attacking a specific *model* of natural theology, but not the *project* per se? If the former, why was it assumed that anyone here defended whatever problematic *model* you had in mind and not some other model? What about, say, the dogmatic model favored by many of the Reformed scholastics?

      Delete
    4. Worldly reasoning as defined by a right intepretation of God's revelation. Space does not permit protracted rebuttals in the comments section of these blogs as I am sure you are aware. The Greek word SOPHIA in the context of Corinthians relates to how one "understands" reality, life, the world around them, how things are. Perhaps it is better understood in our venacular as "worldview." Paul uses it more in Corinthians than he does anywhere and in fact more than any other writer uses it anywhere else. God says he will destroy the wisdom of the wise of this world. Paul asks where is the philosopher, the lawyer, and the rhetoritian of this age? The Greeks look for wisdom and the Jews for a sign. But God gives them the foolishness of preaching and a cross. Not exactly what people using worldly wisdom would consider compelling in the least. In fact, from human wisdom's perspective, this was quite unimpressive and perhaps even insulting. God chose the foolish things, the unreasonable things of this world to show off His reason, His power, His love, His righteousness! That there is a distinction between God's wisdom (reasoning) and the world's wisdom (reasoning) Paul makes emphatically clear!

      So, if we are going to argue from reason (AFR), the real question is, "who's reason?" God's reasoning or sinful man's reasoning? The two are quite opposed to one another.

      I would also be more than willing to engage in a rich discussion of that last question as well should you be so inclined. :-)

      Delete
    5. Ed, yes, as I pre-coged, your claim was a bit of pious rhetoric that doesn't affect the AFR or Steve's post, or my comments. For 'reason' in the context of the AFR is *not* what you describe above, viz., "worldly reason." Rather, it's concerned with mental causation, the ontological status of beliefs, logical inferences, etc. It has nothing to do with how one "understands" reality, but, rather, a common *process* common to all men, and operative before the fall and likewise will be after the fall. It would be helpful if you didn't invoke such rabbit-trails and palpably irrelevant terms such as 'worldly reason' that only serve the point of gaining pious points but which have little to nothing to do with the actual dialectic.

      Delete
    6. Its nice to see you refer to sincere talk about godly living, sanctification, and that our speech be always seasoned with salt as "pious rhetoric."

      Based on your comments I have to presume that you accept the idea that there is such a thing as neutral cogitation when it comes to the our knowledge of the reality of God or, say, spiritual matters?

      My point stands. True presuppositional apologetics would deny that men cogitate on neutral ground. There is an ethical component to all human cogitation. There is a starting point in the process of reason. Why do you think that two brilliant minds with the same IQ, education, and exposure to the very same arguments, facts, materials can believe two completely opposing things regarding the same proposition. We do not believe because we reasoned rightly. We reason rightly because we believe.

      The idea that men reject the Christian faith because there is a flaw in their reasoning is simply without basis in Scripture. Man's rejection of God is moral, not intellectual. Man's intellect, heart, and will are held captive by Satan. He is BLIND to the truth of the gospel, and unless he receives sight, a miracle, he is going to remain hostile to the faith, both unwilling to reason rightly and unable to reason rightly. This is the miserable condition in which man finds himself. Only an act of grace can save him from himself and his love of sin. Christian epistemoology, metaphysics, ethics, cogitation all humbly submit to God's sovereign rule and recognize that what we know about reality, ethics, and the human intellect, how we understand things depends entirely on revelation. We begin with revelation, with God, not with the human mind, not with neutrality in any sense of the word. If you don't understand that, then you most certainly have not read Bahnsen and Van Til correctly. Rumination, like every other human behavior must submit to the Christian ethic and the only way it can honor God is through regeneration.

      You say rather bluntly that this "mental causation" was basically unaffected by the fall. Total depravity would argue that nothing in the human person was unaffected by the fall. What else do you think escaped sin's curse? This is the "bridge" I spoke about earlier. I didn't think it would come into view so quickly.

      Delete
  4. Paul:
    The Greeks believed in the divine, the supernatural, and the miraculous and yet when Paul preached the resurrection of Christ, they thought him to be mad. So then, the miracles claims of the gospel should not have been so shocking I suppose. Yet they were. I am curious how we account for that little historical fact. Here is a prescription or two for you: 1 Cor. 2:1-5; 1 Tim. 4:6-7; 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 2:14-26; 4:1-5

    You are interpolating modern epistemological categories on Paul? Do you really think Paul thought in the same categories of modern philosophers? I simply objected to your muddied waters of Romans 1 in terms of those whom Paul was speaking about and your overly complex observation of the grammar in that text. Taken at face value, the language is universal and the grammar seems quite clear-cut for one who wants to allow the text to speak on its own. You muddy the waters in an attempt to secure legitimacy around the discussion in hopes that perhaps we can turn Paul into a modern epistemologist. I reject your views on both fronts and ask that you provide clear exegetical reasons for your assertions. My emotional response is due to the fact that I see the logical end of your argument as a theological bridge to serious error and potentially worse.

    The context of wrath in Romans one is universal as is the condition of man, as is the proclamation of the gospel. Verse 14 supports a universal reading of Romans 1 and your pontificating has done nothing to alter such an interpretation even in the slightest.

    I do wonder what commentators think that the traditional interpretation of Romans one, held for centuries by the majority of conservative scholars would call this view contentious. Why is this view contentious and the other view not contentious? Why is the language you use about not knowing if this knowledge is universal or speculating that Paul is using philosophy here "not contentious?" Before I forget, commentaries written by men don't substantiate the truthfulness of a view. Only Scripture, rightly interpreted, can do that. But I would love to see those arguments. You have my curiosity up. I have dozens of commentaries on Romans and I can't find any that actually say this. I could be reading over it though.

    Bahnsen's position on neutrality eliminates from the start the idea that we can reason an unbeliever to a position of faith. "Those who follow the intellectual principle of neutrality and the epistemological method of unbelieving scholarship do not honor the sovereign Lordship of God as they should; as a result their reasoning is made vain." (Always Ready, 8) "Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world's intellectuals by wearing the badge of neutrality only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God's truth. (Ibid. 7) Again, "Nothing remotely similar to what is called in our day the historical argument for Christ's resurrection plays a part in Paul's reasoning with the philosophers. (Ibid. 273)

    If you wish to have a more serious discussion about the interpretation of Paul in Romans 1, I would be very happy to oblige you.

    It is one thing to address views, consequences, arguments etc. I have no problem having discussion about these very important issues. But your comments about my having read Bahnsen or Van Til was a slight that is unbecoming for charitable conversation between brothers in Christ. Attack my views all day. Attack my methods as you wish. Perhaps I will learn something along the way. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from unnecessary insults like the last line in your comment. What good do these conversations do us if in the process we behave uncharitably toward one another?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ed,

    They thought him mad because of how they understood 'resurrection,' the thought Paul was putting forth a strange, new, female deity. Remember, you told me to read Bahnsen, well, here's what he says: Instead, they viewed Paul as bringing strange, new teaching to them (vv. 18-20). "They apparently viewed Paul as proclaiming a new divine couple: 'Jesus' (a masculine form that sounds like the greek iasis) and 'Resurrection' (a feminine form), being the personified powers of 'healing' and 'restoration.' These 'strange deities' amounted to 'new teaching' in the eyes of the Athenians." In any event, you're still reasoning fallaciously. That they accepted the supernatural and the miraculous *in general* does not mean that they would accept the *particular* claim; however, my point was about a deeper disparity: the Western world, largely, rejects those categories *as such*, and we are thus in a *different* apologetic *context* and we should suppose that everything the apostles did in their times is *normative* for our times.

    On Paul, you're tilting at windmills. You'll note that I said that *in the context* of modern epistemology, the claim "all men know God" is probably *false*, but if Paul meant the term in some special sense, then all men, even concepti, may know that God exists, but then it's not clear how this is at all relevant to the discussion of natural theology considering that that discussion takes place in *contemporary* contexts and contemporary views of knowledge. So, you have simply read me uncharitably. *I* never said Paul was a modern epistemologist. In fact, *I* tried to say he *wasn't* in order to show the near-irrelevance of your invokation of him to speak to the modern epistemological issues at question in the current dialectic. You then end your pious argument by the predictable "warning" that I'm headed to "serious theological error." I LOLed at that. It's a clear sign that one's *arguments* aren't cutting it when one has to make such (ridiculous and unfounded) accusations.

    On Rom. 1: that you had to ask simply shows you're unfamiliar with the literature. To claim your view as the "traditional conservative view" is flat-out *false*, the problem is the the Greek is open to different interpretations, e.g., whether the 'knowledge' is "in" or "among" them. The latter has been held by many reputable commentators, one example is Cranfield, whose Romans commentary is highly regarded. The second problem is that Paul does not address such issues as to whether the knowledge that is supposedly had is had *diachronically*. This isn't even *addressed*, and so the passage does not say that some men couldn't at a time *lose* what they once had. The text is simply *underdetermined*, Ed, your rather (over) confident proclamations aside.

    As far as your remarks about Bahnsen, *yawn*, no one here has ever argued that we can "reason someone into the faith." The position taken up here, which I can say Bahnsen would agree with, is that quoted above by the great Presbyterian J. Gresham Machen. No, what *I* said was that Bahnsen have *positive* arguments for the faith when you said we only need to concern ourselves with *criticisms* of the faith, so I put you at odds with Bahnsen on this.

    On the offer for a "more serious discussion," thanks but no thanks. I've discerned that you're unprepared in both knowledge of the relevant philosophical issues and biblical issues, and have a bark that is by far louder than your bite. I have no desire to have bad arguments thrown my way only to be told about my serious errors and the path to hell I'm carving out for myself in order to give weight to said bad arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While I appreciate Banhsen’s apologetic, I admit I do not follow him everywhere he goes. There is nothing in the text to support Bahnsen’s conjecture that the Athenians did not understand Paul to be talking about the literal resurrection. There are more cultures and epics than we could possibly identify. I agree that the difference between our culture and that culture and many, many other cultures is indeed vast. In your way of thinking, the Church has to produce tons and tons and tons of different ways and strategies for “reasoning” with those different cultures. In the ancient Church’s way, since everything flowed through one message, delivered using one method, and effective due to the work of one God, she did not have to bother herself with multiple methods for defending the faith or propagating the gospel. Now that is what I call efficient.

    Why is your reference point modern epistemology? Modern epistemology is filled with skeptics everywhere you turn. It is mostly a godless and faithless group of arrogant, self-important people who pride themselves on coming up with arguments that only they can understand. Is this a reflection of biblical truth? Is this what God had in mind when He enlisted men into the service of His kingdom? What I am saying is that our time should be spent mostly in the text, in exegesis of the revelation that God has given us as opposed to the intellectual sin of running from one convoluted speculation after another. Men of this cloth are some of the most arrogant sort, priding themselves on their philosophical acumen. They go out of their way to lift themselves up above others. There is hardly a shred of humility to be found among them. They are frankly, far too important for their own good.

    The phrase in question, en autois, appears in NA28 some 29 times in 28 verses. And, as is the case with all language, context is the single greatest determinant of meaning. Its use with the dative case would better be understood as "to them." By use of the word "among," I wonder if you are implying that this may suggest, "not all." Would this not have significant implications for the sensus divinitatis? The following phrase also supports the notion that to or in them is the better interpretation: ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. "For God made it known TO THEM! There is no good reason, outside of a commitment to some theological grid, to attempt to interpret this phrase as "among them." Moreover, even if "among them" were presumed to be a better rendering, it fails to remove the problem because the very next phrase supports a certain kind of knowledge of God that is internal. The plural pronouns in the text force either a local identity or a universal one. We cannot have it both ways.

    I have nowhere implied that we should not make use of “any” positive arguments for the faith. I have said they have their place, but that that place should be much, much smaller than the one it currently occupies. More gospel, less philosophy…a lot less philosophy, and a lot more gospel.

    I never said you were on your way to hell. I never implied that even for a second. What I did say was fair and you have not shown it to be otherwise. What you have done is sit upon your perch, looking down in a most condescending manner speaking quite uncharitably to a fellow believer and you have done so without good cause. All your theological education may have given you tons of information and lots of neat ways to formulate arguments and speak in tones of extreme condescension. What it has apparently not done is shaped your life with humility, not even a little by the tone of your comments.





    ReplyDelete
  7. Ed, your argument from silence isn't impressive. I never said *the text* told us that some of the Greeks possibly understood the "resurrection" to be a female deity. Of course, we have to account for why they said Paul was setting forth new *gods* (plural, Ed). Some commentators have noted the similarity between the Greek word for 'resurrection' and the name of a goddess, moreover, in Greek myth, female deities were often associated with raising of the dead. Anyway, you're still not dealing with what I called the deeper point, so this wrangling is uninteresting to me.

    On your "modern epistemology" dig, I also will let this one go, as that is not my reference point and you have only misunderstood me twice. Either you're unable or unwilling to understand my point. I have no desire to repeat myself.

    On the Romans 1 issue. Supposing Barrett, Cranfield, et al. are wrong, so what? While I never said the phrase did in fact mean "among them," but simply told you why the disagreements exist and that it's false to say there's a single, standard interpretation of the text, your reading doesn't undermine my argument. For even if your reading is correct, it does nothing to address the diachronic point I raised, neither does it address the issue of concepti and the severely mentally disabled.

    You did not use the word "hell," you're right. You said the logical outworking of my views lead me down a dangerous theological bridge and on to "serious error" or "worse." One wonders what the world you think is *worse* than *serious* "theological error." So knock off the white hat routine. I'm not buying. You're a typical Reformed anti-intellectual. You make grand claims, puff your chest out, and when you're responded to in a sensible way and discover you don't have the *arguments* to back up your claims, you start making accusations about the other's potentially *worse* than serious theologically erroneous path, and making many other false-but-pious-sounding charges, such as we think we can merely "argue people into heaven" and that we support and endorse "wordly reasoning." Of course, these claims were shown to be baseless, but you just ignore your overreaching attempts to win an argument and then call the other guy a big meany. I have no desire to sit here and be lectured by a self-appointed internet discourse police who can't bring anything theologically or philosophically interesting to the table but who becomes a holier-than-thou hall monitor to take attention of his deflated reasoning. You will note that from the start it was judged *impossible* for you to be wrong, and you judged me with potential worse-than-serious theological error, endorsing worldly reasoning, and thinking we can argue people into the kingdom. You tried to get some "reductios" of my views, which were subsequently shown to be baseless, and you just ignore these refutations and continue on making mere assertions—and then you have the gaul to tell me I'm not "humble." Take a good, long look in the mirror, Ed, and worry about yourself, not me. You're not my mom or my pastor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul,
      The view that Romans 1 is not universal has the potential to lead to the denial that Romans 2 and 3 is universal language as well. Otherwise, one is rightly charged with arbitrariness in interpretive method. How can I argue that Romans 1 is not universal and Romans 2 & 3 is without being accused of arbitrariness? That is my point. One begins with a simple error and potentially ends up with a serious error in how they view original sin. How do you think open theism came to be? Do you think it was the product of sincere men just seeking to engage in sound exegesis of the text? Hardly!

      Concerning your comments around modern epistemology, and your hint that Paul may have been thinking of warrant or justified true belief in Romans 1, one need only ask to whom was Paul writing in order to answer that question. Philosophers and scholars are all too often guilty of thinking that Scripture was written to a closed group of highly trained and technically skilled people. Scripture was written to ordinary men and women with pastoral concerns at their center. I am sorry if that disappoints your desire to take even the clearest of texts and turn them on their head so that you may have your intellectual playground where you are free to engage in unrestricted speculations. Scripture was not written to provide intellectuals with the fodder they desire to play their intellectual games.
      I am not nearly as reformed as you have read me to be. I am a Calvinist. I hold to the John MacArthur brand of reformed thought. I am somewhere between covenant and dispensational, in a theological no-mans, or few-mens land. Both systems are too flawed for me to label myself as either.
      Who are you to tell me to "Knock off the white hat routine?" I am interested in growing in love and sanctification. Otherwise, my interactions with brothers in Christ on these matters turns out to be merely intellectual, cold, and hypocritical, without any chance of adding to my spiritual growth.
      If dragging you to Scripture and applying clear rules and guidelines for biblical exegesis and demanding that Scripture itself is supposed to be simple and clear more often than not is anti-intellectual, then I suppose I am guilty. My presupposition is that Scripture is absolutely necessary for spiritual growth. It is God's revelation to His church and understanding it is essential for our spiritual well-being. If I am right about that, then it must be easier to understand than philosophers portend. It is not a philosophy textbook nor was it written primarily to a handful of scholars who just can't seem to think highly enough of themselves and who love to talk down to others. It is a pastoral guide for how the Christian group, the Christian community is supposed to carry on its life. It is an expression of divine truth intended to instruct, rebuke, correct, and profit all who read it.

      If Scripture is not performing a sanctifying work in your heart, generating love for the brothers, and a humility to lead, then what is the point? The single greatest proof we are Christians is love! Jesus said it more often than we can count. It is love. And with love comes a genuine humility, a true sense of our own sinfulness and pride.
      "that which is known about God," "God made it evident to them," "His attributes have been clearly seen," "His attributes have been clearly understood," "Even though they knew God," "They know the ordinance of God."
      Only a philosopher or radical intellectual would wonder what Paul is trying to say here.

      Delete
  8. Who are you to tell me to "Knock off the white hat routine?"

    He's a person who, like me, runs into mock pious people like you all the time. You're oozing with criticism and condescension for your opposition, yet lack the means to demonstrate the flaws they allegedly have and which warrant your disdain. I deal with people like you on my own site all the time, but they're in the Anabaptist/Mennonite/Charityite/Amish/generic-fundie camp where you'd normally expect such preening of feathers. I'd actually hold you in even greater contempt than Paul Manata because you describe yourself as Reformed while your anti-intellectualism demonstrated on this blog doesn't reflect that. You may write better and have a wider vocabulary, but your mentality is the same as any backwoods hick who bellows, "I don't need no fancy learnin' or caulidge edumucashun! I just need JeEEZuz!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

      Delete
    2. I do know how, and I responded appropriately. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. Mock pious persons will always protest that they weren't treated right when corrected. That's definitional to mock piety.

      Delete
  9. Ed,

    The view that Romans 1 is not universal has the potential to lead to the denial that Romans 2 and 3 is universal language as well.

    Yawn, even if it does have this potential, that doesn't imply that it has this potential when conjoined with *other* beliefs, such as the ones I pointed out. This is like me saying that your belief in God's sovereignty "has the potential" to lead to hyper Calvinism. So should I mention that every time you speak about God's sovereignty? Well, I could if I wanted to be a bore like you, but I charitably assume you have *other* beliefs that don't lead to hyper-calvinism, and I act charitably until given reason not to.

    Concerning your comments around modern epistemology, and your hint that Paul may have been thinking of warrant or justified true belief in Romans

    Yawn, that wasn't my "hint" or my assertion or my claim. You simply have failed, repeatedly, to so much as grasp the point I made, even when I clarified it for you.

    Who are you to tell me to "Knock off the white hat routine?"

    A member of the moral community, and as such a member, I have such a right. You make baseless accusations about me, put forth ridiculous charges, and when I push back you turn into Debbie DoGood.

    Other than that, it appears that you've given up the debate on the substantive issues. This is typical of your type. You lack the chops to argue the points and so you try desperately to move the discussion to unfallisiable accusations and the ethics of discourse, where you try to play the victim defending the pure cause of righteousness. Political liberals and internet Arminian theologians do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ed, btw, I notice you spend a lot of time here arguing about all sorts of things and not spending your time developing succinct gospel presentations etc. In fact, you seem to spend more time telling others how to behave and criticizing natural theology and lawgic and book larnin than Steve or others do discussing natural theology arguments. The irony is rich!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have no idea who I am and what I spend my time doing. For the first time in my life, I took 12 days off in a row. I had a little spare time and decided I would put my other studies aside for a little distraction. I read Steve's blogs and agree with better than 95% of what he says. I have been reading him for years. There are only a few links on my blog and Steve is one of them. My goal is not to win a debate. It is to influence toward a certain direction. I always seek to influence behavior.

      When someone turns to rudeness and begins to cast insults rather than just deal with the subject, I have every right as a fellow Christian to call them on it. In fact, we all have a duty to hold one another accountable for uncharitable behavior everywhere we see it. This is a public forum that non-Christians visit. Is it any wonder that they think Christians are just as mean as everyone else when they see insults hurled about?

      I have no trouble with you telling me that my conclusions are all wrong and my reasoning is flawed and why. You are duty-bound to do so. We all are. But to cast insults about my knowledge and accuse me of being anti-intellectual without fully interacting with my thinking is over the top. You have barely seen a few statements from me on this subject and you make these sweeping statements about me. And your tone is far less than charitable. If the Word of God cannot cause us to disagree and criticize with some degree of respect, love and humility, we need to search our motives for why we are in the word to begin with. God knows my heart. These words are not just "pious rhetoric." I believe they accurately reflect God's thoughts on this matter as well, if my understanding of Scripture is even close to accurate.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ed Dingess,

      I say all this respectfully:

      1. I don't read Paul as rude at all. Rather I read him as intellectually rigorous. Perhaps his intellectual rigor comes off as rude to you even though it's not.

      2. In fact, I don't see how what Paul is striving to convey to you isn't consonant with Biblical ethics.

      3. Proof-texting isn't the same as understanding "the whole counsel of God," which, as I'm sure you know, is what we're called to do.

      4. At the risk of stating the obvious, interacting with others in a combox on a public apologetics blog like Triablogue isn't entirely the same as interacting with people in real life. Such as at church. Or at work. Or at home. Or elsewhere. You're not talking to a person face to face or even over the phone. As such it'd be helpful for everyone involved if you adjusted your expectations accordingly.

      5. As for the insulting bit, well, to be frank, sometimes it's actually good to be insulting. Biblically speaking, the apostles could be insulting toward others. Likewise our Lord himself insulted many of the Pharisees, among others. The Bible calls people fools, stupid, ignorant, etc. All these could be said "to cast insults about my knowledge and accuse me of being anti-intellectual..." But it's not immoral to do so, and there could even be a moral obligation to do so.

      Logically speaking, Peter Geach (as well as others like Doug Walton) has said the following:

      Ad hominem arguments. This Latin term indicates that these are arguments addressed to a particular man - in fact, the other fellow you are disputing with. You start from something he believes as a premise, and infer a conclusion he won't admit to be true. If you have not been cheating in your reasoning, you will have shown that your opponent’s present body of beliefs is inconsistent and it's up to him to modify it somewhere. This argumentative trick is so unwelcome to the victim that he is likely to regard it as cheating: bad old logic books even speak of the ad hominem fallacy. But an ad hominem argument may be perfectly fair play.

      Let us consider a kind of dispute that might easily arise:

      A. Foxhunting ought to be abolished; it is cruel to the victim and degrading to the participants.

      B. But you eat meat; and I'll bet you've never worried about whether the killing of the animals you eat is cruel to them and degrading to the butchers.

      No umpire is entitled at this point to call out "Ad hominem! Foul!" It is true that B's remark does nothing to settle the substantive question of whether foxhunting should be abolished; but then B was not pretending to do this; B was challengingly asking how A could consistently condemn foxhunting without also condemning something A clearly does not wish to condemn. Perhaps A could meet the challenge, perhaps not; anyhow the challenge is a fair one - as we saw, you cannot just brush aside a challenge to your consistency, or say inconsistency doesn't matter.

      Ad hominem arguments are not just a way of winning a dispute: a logically sound ad hominem argues does a service, even if an unwelcome one, to its victim - it shows him that his present position is untenable and must be modified. Of course people often do not like to be disturbed in their comfortable inconsistencies; that is why ad hominem arguments have a bad name.

      Delete
    3. Rock,
      I appreciate everything you said even though I disagree with it. I read Wilson's book and he made some good points but I also think he goes overboard. You have demonstrated my point very well by disagreeing with me, but doing so with grace and respect. I was saying one thing: due to the noetic effects of sin, AFR is overblown as are most apologetic arguments today because of their lack of gospel content. I have now said another: we are all duty bound, even in forums like this, to treat one another with dignity and respect. We are brothers, not hostile enemies of the faith. The purpose is not to win an argument, but to have a robust conversation that eventually changes us or at least causes us to pause and reconsider things we previous held to be true. I appreciate your comments because they show that charitable disagree can take place, and in my view, it must if we are to be the salt and light we are commanded to be.

      Delete
  11. When someone turns to rudeness and begins to cast insults rather than just deal with the subject, I have every right as a fellow Christian to call them on it.

    Since you obviously haven't done that yourself, no, you don't have that right.

    But to cast insults about my knowledge and accuse me of being anti-intellectual without fully interacting with my thinking is over the top.

    So would it be okay to cast insults about your knowledge and anti-intellectuality assuming your thinking was fully interacted with? See, I know you wouldn't agree to that. You're too hypocritical. It's your mock piety all over again. Not to mention that I've been keeping up with your dialogue with Steve on this blog for the past couple months, and I know your thinking has been thoroughly dissected and refuted and blown to smithereens.

    I love watching how people point out obvious flaws and errors and blatant contradictions in your words, Ed, and how you just go about ignoring them when you respond. Your mock piety is so blatantly obvious it's funny sometimes. Paul just pointed out how you're not doing what you said we should in, "mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel," the contradiction and hypocrisy is blatant, and what do you do? You simply ignore it when you respond. Your mock piety is evident to all, it's clear as crystal, and yet you go on unphased in your performance, hoping people don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

    Go on pretending you want a love-fest, Ed. We all know it's not true. You just got mad when your opposition pushed back and called you out for who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Prince,
    Perhaps you should take this post, take the whole thread even, place it before your pastor, let him review your comments toward me and ask him if they fall into the category of Christ-like diaglogue. Scripture has some very sober things to say about how young men should respond to older men. Let someone else see the kind of tone you take with men you don't even know. Look at Rock's comments. He disagreed with me, but his disagreement had an entirely different flavor to it.

    BTW: there isn't a single contradiction or a shred of incoherence between any of the remarks I have made. And, no one has pointed one out. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible;
      in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,
      sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. Tit. 2:6-8

      Key words/phrases: σωφρονεῖν, παρεχόμενος, τύπον καλῶν ἔργων, σεμνότητα, λόγον ὑγιῆ, ἀκατάγνωστον

      Sometimes we miss the point that the primary concern of Scripture is not gaining enough knowledge to show off our intellectual prowess, but rather, pastoral, primarily concerned with values, attitudes, behaviors, speech toward one another.

      That anyone would accuse me of anti-intellectualism would be mocked by those who actually know me, like my pastor, my elders, my friends, my colleagues. My library contains over 5,000 volumes that I have been collecting for 0ver 33 years now. I have over 20 Systematic Theology projects alone, totaling at least 35 volumes and then some. I have an entire seven foot shelf reserve for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and I am out of room. I have given away close to a hundred volumes because I am out of space. I have between 30-40 volumes devoted to nothing but the canon and textual criticism. I am nowhere close to being anti-intellectual. The argument is a non-sequitur. It is a fact that many philosophers and scholars love to make the simple complex, along with many young seminary students or recent grads who think they have arrived at a station of brilliance because they have read a book or two and passed an exam. It is also a fact that Scripture was written to the simple, common believer, not for purposes of intellectual power, but to perform the work of Christ in the heart.

      The idea that Scripture requires a college education in order to be rightly understood is no different from Rome's version of the magisterium. Only the doctors of the church may interpret the text because it is just too difficult for "those poor lay folk." I am not the first one to point this out. It seems that some of the young men on this forum don't understand what I am saying. Perhaps if they were to read me in context, that would help. Reading people in context is the Christian way to read, the ethical way to read. We have an ethical obligation to one another NOT to misrepresent their remarks, not to take them out of context, and not to force on them a view or a position they do not espouse.

      Scripture is sufficient for defending itself and attacking ungodly philosophies where they stand. It is the proverbial "lion in a cage." You want to see how well it can defend itself and attack, just open the cage. The gospel is what is needed if men are going to begin to use their rational gifts in a way that glorifies and honors God. Every part of man has been impacted by the fall. Nothing remains in him that is not tainted with sin and cursed. If you don't understand that, then I recommend you put down your philosophy books, your books on epistemology, and stop reading Craig's reasonable faith blog, and pick up a Bible.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you should take this post, take the whole thread even, place it before your pastor, let him review your comments toward me and ask him if they fall into the category of Christ-like diaglogue.

      Shall I ask him specifically if it falls into the category of Christ's words to the mock pious frauds of his day?

      And for the record, I, like you, don't submit what I say to a review board.

      Scripture has some very sober things to say about how young men should respond to older men.

      Bite me. Like Paul said, you're not my mom or my pastor. Plus, the Bible has sober things to say about how young CHRISTIAN men should respond to older CHRISTIAN men. Your mock piety belies your claims to be a Christian “older man” in the first place. And quite frankly, that wouldn’t make a difference to me. I respond to everyone alike. I don’t have to be less adamant towards you even if you are a Christian.

      Let someone else see the kind of tone you take with men you don't even know.

      I can see right through you, Ed. I know your kind very well.

      Look at Rock's comments. He disagreed with me, but his disagreement had an entirely different flavor to it.

      So Rock was gracious. What of it? He had no obligation to be gracious after how you've conducted your dialogues with people like Paul and Steve who have been more than gracious in their dedication of their time and efforts to interact with what you say. He has the option to be gracious or not to be gracious. He chose the former, I chose the latter. You may like Rock’s decision more than mine, but we weren't obligated to go one way or the other.

      I like to respond in ways that reveal my opponents' flaws for the benefit of others, their feelings notwithstanding.

      BTW: there isn't a single contradiction or a shred of incoherence between any of the remarks I have made. And, no one has pointed one out. Just saying.

      Paul Manata:
      "Ed, btw, I notice you spend a lot of time here arguing about all sorts of things and not spending your time developing succinct gospel presentations etc. In fact, you seem to spend more time telling others how to behave and criticizing natural theology and lawgic and book larnin than Steve or others do discussing natural theology arguments. The irony is rich!"

      Prince Asbel:
      "Paul just pointed out how you're not doing what you said we should in, "mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel," the contradiction and hypocrisy is blatant, and what do you do? You simply ignore it when you respond."

      Paul Manta pointed it out, I reminded you of it, and so you're 'just lying'. It's amazing to be accused of sinful conduct in my dialogue with you when you're not only oozing with mock piety, but commit blatant lying as well. You're such a goon.

      That anyone would accuse me of anti-intellectualism would be mocked by those who actually know me, like my pastor, my elders, my friends, my colleagues. My library contains over 5,000 volumes that I have been collecting for 0ver 33 years now.

      Yeah, and Dave Hunt claimed to know more about Calvinism than most Calvinists because he could show you his vast array of reformed works and the highlighting in them. You’re not the first anti-intellectual to protest the title due to his comprehensive library of books.

      Delete
    3. The idea that Scripture requires a college education in order to be rightly understood is no different from Rome's version of the magisterium.

      Of course, I never said you needed a college education to rightly understand scripture. I used the backwoods hick purely as an example of someone who prefers not to refine his way of thinking since, allegedly, he only needs Jesus, whatever that may mean. You can simply remove college from that mock sentence I wrote, and it still fits you fine.

      Scripture is sufficient for defending itself and attacking ungodly philosophies where they stand.

      Right, which is why your pithy statements about, “mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel,” are undermined by these very words.

      It is the proverbial "lion in a cage." You want to see how well it can defend itself and attack, just open the cage.

      Why? Why not spend my time, “mastering how to deliver a succinct presentation of the gospel?” You’re STILL contradicting yourself on this point. I know it, Paul knows it, and you know it.

      And on that note, I knew the gospel looong before I knew it could defend itself on any intellectual level with other religions. So did a lot of my former acquaintances from back then. Most of them still don’t believe that, though they could present the gospel to you quite well. Merely knowing the gospel and how to present it doesn’t prove the Bible’s ability to refute contrary worldviews. That requires more than simply knowing the gospel.

      Every part of man has been impacted by the fall. Nothing remains in him that is not tainted with sin and cursed.

      You don’t have to tell me that, Ed. I’m a Calvinist, and am no fan of William Lane Craig.

      Delete
    4. Prince Asbel,
      I will commit this exchange and you to prayer. Some men actually take the Word of God so seriously, that they try their best to live it out, even on internet forums. I pray God blesses you and helps you to grow to a state of maturity in Christ. That is why we examine the Scriptures to begin with.

      That is all for this subject.

      Delete