I've viewed a number of that atheist's videos in the past where he critiques William Lane Craig's arguments for God's existence and many of his critiques are the same ones I've come to or used as a Van Tillian to critique traditional methods and arguments of apologetics (including Craig's) in contrast to a presuppositional approach. That atheist is clearly a very intelligent guy and I think his strength is his very weakness. He has way too much confidence in his reasoning abilities and makes the fundamental error of assuming that the truth is discoverable apart from God. It's because of intelligent and thoughtful non-Christians like this atheist that I've come to the conclusions I have in blogs like THIS and THIS.
It's unfortunate that Lydia doesn't have a correct understanding of Calvinism. Lydia McGrew wrote in the comments section:
The second sentence illustrates that you will never make a Calvinist of any stripe (and a darned good thing, too), because the T in TULIP as understood by real Tulip-ers definitely means total, total, total depravity and hence the denial that reality is intelligible to us. Our intellect itself is deemed to be too fallen. One expression of this I have read is that too the non-redeemed, every apple is a God-denying apple. (I'm not making that up.)
Apparently, she misunderstands the Calvinistic doctrines of general revelation, of Total Depravity, of the imago dei, or of the various presuppositional apologetical methods among Calvinists that deny intellectual and moral neutrality (e.g. Van Tillian vs. Clarkian et al.). She also seems to not realize that some Calvinists hold to classical apologetics.
A Van Tillian would agree that TO the non-Christian "every apple is a God-denying apple." But NOT because the external world is unintelligible, NOR because non-Christians are inherently flawed intellectually. Rather, non-Christian use their God given intellectual ability in a morally skewed way. Van Til often used the analogy of a buzz-saw that's very sharp but its settings are tweaked incorrectly. Non-Christians are similarly tweaked incorrectly even though they are as intelligent as Christians (in some cases more intelligent).
On the contrary, a Van Tillian would argue that all facts and experiences (to some degree or another) testifies to the existence of God. So, the "God-denying apple" is only in the eyes of the non-Christian beholder. For Van Til, the apple actually is evidence for God's existence and the non-Christian is misinterpreting the evidence because of his depravity.
On Lydia McGrew's blog "Truth Unites... and Divides" said... "He's so young, let's keep hoping and praying for him." If anyone does feel led to pray for him, his name is Scott Clifton. Interestingly he's also an actor and musician.
I've viewed a number of that atheist's videos in the past where he critiques William Lane Craig's arguments for God's existence and many of his critiques are the same ones I've come to or used as a Van Tillian to critique traditional methods and arguments of apologetics (including Craig's) in contrast to a presuppositional approach. That atheist is clearly a very intelligent guy and I think his strength is his very weakness. He has way too much confidence in his reasoning abilities and makes the fundamental error of assuming that the truth is discoverable apart from God. It's because of intelligent and thoughtful non-Christians like this atheist that I've come to the conclusions I have in blogs like THIS and THIS.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that Lydia doesn't have a correct understanding of Calvinism. Lydia McGrew wrote in the comments section:
The second sentence illustrates that you will never make a Calvinist of any stripe (and a darned good thing, too), because the T in TULIP as understood by real Tulip-ers definitely means total, total, total depravity and hence the denial that reality is intelligible to us. Our intellect itself is deemed to be too fallen. One expression of this I have read is that too the non-redeemed, every apple is a God-denying apple. (I'm not making that up.)
Apparently, she misunderstands the Calvinistic doctrines of general revelation, of Total Depravity, of the imago dei, or of the various presuppositional apologetical methods among Calvinists that deny intellectual and moral neutrality (e.g. Van Tillian vs. Clarkian et al.). She also seems to not realize that some Calvinists hold to classical apologetics.
A Van Tillian would agree that TO the non-Christian "every apple is a God-denying apple." But NOT because the external world is unintelligible, NOR because non-Christians are inherently flawed intellectually. Rather, non-Christian use their God given intellectual ability in a morally skewed way. Van Til often used the analogy of a buzz-saw that's very sharp but its settings are tweaked incorrectly. Non-Christians are similarly tweaked incorrectly even though they are as intelligent as Christians (in some cases more intelligent).
On the contrary, a Van Tillian would argue that all facts and experiences (to some degree or another) testifies to the existence of God. So, the "God-denying apple" is only in the eyes of the non-Christian beholder. For Van Til, the apple actually is evidence for God's existence and the non-Christian is misinterpreting the evidence because of his depravity.
DeleteOn Lydia McGrew's blog "Truth Unites... and Divides" said... "He's so young, let's keep hoping and praying for him." If anyone does feel led to pray for him, his name is Scott Clifton. Interestingly he's also an actor and musician.
ReplyDelete