tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8805122692643966310..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: New Monasticism RedivivusRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51681536951565091172010-08-30T08:49:34.269-04:002010-08-30T08:49:34.269-04:00Dear Dustin,
For the time is coming when people w...Dear Dustin,<br /><br /><b>For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.</b> (2Timothy 4:3-4)<br /><br /><b>SOLA FIDES...</b> The Protestant Revolt had many causes including state politics. Also the worldly lifestyle of certain popes, bishops and priests of that time helped to fuel the fire. <br /><br />However, the doctrine, <br /><a href="http://users.binary.net/polycarp/obey.html" rel="nofollow"> Justification by Faith Alone </a>, was the spark. <br /><br />This heresy exaggerates the truth concerning salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. <br /><br />Even though some members of the Church at that time, such as Tetzel and Erasmus, may not have fully understood the doctrine of salvation, this does not excuse this heresy. <br /><br />It claims that Christians are saved by <b>faith alone.</b> As biblical support, St. Paul is usually cited: <i>"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."</i> [Romans 3:28] <br /><br />Now this verse does not contain the word <b>"alone."</b> Martin Luther actually added <b>"alone"</b> to this verse in his Bibles in order to promote this new doctrine. <br /><br />According to the RSV and NAB Bible translations, the phrase, <b>"by faith alone",</b> only occurs once in the Bible, and that verse condemns this doctrine: <i>"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." </i>[James 2:24] <br /><br />The other error is interpreting the <i>"works of law"</i> in Romans 3:28 as all good works. <br /><br />From the context, it is obvious that St. Paul is referring to the Law of Moses, and the <i>"works of law"</i> are circumcision, eating kosher and other Jewish practices (Acts 15:1-21). <br /><br />St. Paul writes elsewhere in the Bible: <i>"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love."</i> [Galatians 5:6] St. <br /><br />Paul’s understanding of faith, as expressed in the Bible, includes more than a confident trust in God, but also obedience to God (Romans 1:5). <br /><br />Also according to Catholic understanding, good works are not what I do but what God does through me by grace (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Romans 2:7), so there is no reason to boast (Ephesians 2:9). <br /><br />Even though Martin Luther still understood salvation in terms of grace, some later Christians did not. <br /><br />With the loss of focus on grace, this heresy eventually led to a <b>"faith-alone"</b> version of Pelagianism. <br /><br />This is the reason that some (not all) Protestants reject some or all of the Sacraments, sometimes even Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Peter 3:21).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940745178193985942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73237905445921228732010-08-12T11:20:34.776-04:002010-08-12T11:20:34.776-04:00Hi Dustin,
Thank you for following up on this. Y...Hi Dustin,<br /><br />Thank you for following up on this. Your explanations here have been very helpful.JMattChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14428264407573101935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86677271258258750432010-07-04T17:18:22.431-04:002010-07-04T17:18:22.431-04:00Hi JMattC,
UPDATE 7-4-10: As I noted earlier in t...Hi JMattC,<br /><br />UPDATE 7-4-10: As I noted earlier in this combox, my friend Sye TenBruggencate of Sinner Ministries (www.proofthatgodexists.org), who is a careful student of Dr. Greg Bahnsen, informed me that Bahnsen clearly affirmed what I have stated below in one of his recorded talks. <br /><br />This clarifying information is found in the Q & A at the end of lecture 1 (@ 1:15:35 in http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/gb201_podcast.mp3) of this series (http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/07/greg-bahnsen-on-van-tilian-apologetics.html). I am grateful to learn that Bahnsen affirmed that the demonstration of God's existence from the impossibility of the contrary is first and foremost *grounded* in the self-attesting Word of God. Thus, I will make the necessary changes in my past and future teaching regarding my "reformulation" of Bahnsen's argument. Thank you for prodding me on this issue, for I have wondered about this for some time and am relieved to hear that Bahnsen agreed with my suggestions.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46807040178291328452010-07-02T23:07:57.549-04:002010-07-02T23:07:57.549-04:00Hi JMattC,
UPDATE 7-2-10: A good friend, Sye Ten...Hi JMattC,<br /><br /><b>UPDATE 7-2-10:</b> A good friend, Sye TenBruggencate of Sinner Ministries (www.proofthatgodexists.org), who is a careful student of Dr. Greg Bahnsen, informed me this evening that Bahnsen clearly <i>affirmed</i> what I have stated above in one of his recorded talks. While I await this clarifying information, I want to give Bahnsen the benefit of the doubt since I respect him as a careful Christian scholar.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58958261214044604842010-07-02T10:21:14.242-04:002010-07-02T10:21:14.242-04:00Hi JMattC,
Let me first state that in my opinion,...Hi JMattC,<br /><br />Let me first state that in my opinion, Dr. Greg Bahnsen was the greatest debater and Christian apologist of the 20th century. I have learned more from him than any other apologist and the fact that he upheld the Van Tilian tradition of the primacy of Biblical revelation in apologetics means that he will always have a warm place in my heart. Now on to my qualifications. <br /><br />Dr. Bahnsen argued that Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. In other words, according to Bahnsen, all contrary worldviews are impossible because on their own standards they refute themselves. He summed this up in a more pithy way, "The proof that God exists is that without Him you can't prove anything." Indeed, it is true that all non-Christian worldviews are false. However, this is not only because they contradict themselves, for that doesn't <i>necessarily</i> prove Christianity true, but primarily because they contradict the Bible, which both affirms Christianity and denies all her opponents by explicit declaration (2 John 9). Thus, My contention is that Bahnsen's definition of the impossibility of the contrary is overstated since it doesn't necessarily prove Christian theism to be true, but only shows that all other known worldviews are false. To say that Christian theism is true because all other known worldviews are false is to overstate the case, for that doesn't necessarily prove Christianity true, it only notes that all her competitors are false. To demonstrate the truthfulness of Christianity, we need <i>proclamation</i> of the gospel combined with Holy Spirit regeneration (2 Cor. 4:6). Any demonstration of the TAG, while very useful and necessary, must admit this upfront if pressed by an opponent of Christian theism. Some will decry this as fideism, but we respond by saying, "If you can provide me an authority higher than God by which we can ground the preconditions for the intelligibility of reality, then I'm all ears." In other words, we are honestly and openly admitting what most other worldviews fail to admit, we begin with our divine Criterion in order to justify our divine Criterion. <br /><br />I think that presuppositional apologist Dr. Scott Oliphint has a more biblical definition of the impossibility of the contrary wherein he defines it as "Christianity is true and everything else that opposes it is false." Thus, given how Oliphint defines it, what follows is my modification of the "impossibility of the contrary":<br /><br /> P1 - Since there is no authority higher than God's word to confirm God's word, the Scriptures are self-attesting and self-authenticating (Heb. 6:13).<br /><br /> P2 - Christianity is exclusively true because God says so in His word (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5).<br /><br /> C - Therefore, it <i>necessarily</i> follows that all contrary worldviews are impossible since they contradict God's word and as such are self-refuting (Pro. 26:4-5).<br /><br />This modification is rigorous and Biblical. Teaching this to Christians is clearer and it would force them to learn their Bibles and use that as their primary source in apologetic engagement. This is a more profitable and wise use of time versus spending most of your time studying secular philosophy and false religions; a task that can never be completed since newfangled philosophies and religions are being created all the time. In sum, my exhortation is this: defend the Biblical God and the Biblical gospel with the Bible. Stand on the hill of God's word to defend that selfsame Hill. Jesus and the apostles did it, and we should too.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46619916045831214742010-07-02T02:20:18.552-04:002010-07-02T02:20:18.552-04:00Hi Dustin,
I appreciate and agree with your prese...Hi Dustin,<br /><br />I appreciate and agree with your presentation of TAG. However, I'm not clear on how Bahnsen overstated it. Are you suggesting that he did not openly admit what you say Christian apologists ought to admit?JMattChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14428264407573101935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55102454398586277882010-07-01T12:42:25.296-04:002010-07-01T12:42:25.296-04:00Hi JMattC,
My view is that TAG is useful in apolo...Hi JMattC,<br /><br />My view is that TAG is useful in apologetical discussions. However, when pressed by the unbeliever, intellectual honesty dictates that the apologist openly admit that the premise(s) in question are assertions/beliefs held by the apologist based upon Scripture rather than that which can be externally verified and agreed upon by the unbeliever. Every philosophically astute user of TAG that I've personally interacted with has admitted this. <br /><br />Here's an example of what I mean formulating the TAG using the logical laws known as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens:<br /><br />Modus Ponens form (X > Y, X, :., Y)<br /><br /><b>P1 - If reality exists and is intelligible then God exists since God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of reality.</b><br /><br />P2 - Reality exists and is intelligible.<br /><br />C - Therefore, God exists.<br /><br />Modus Tollens form (X > Y, ~ Y, :. ~ X)<br /><br />P1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.<br /><br /><b>P2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility.</b><br /><br />P3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)<br /><br />P4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)<br /><br />C (A): --> God does exist (Law of negation.)<br /><br />Unbelievers are going to question the bolded premises in the modal forms of the TAG I presented above. Some (i.e., solipsists) will also question that reality (at least reality external to them) is intelligible as well. At this point is it the job of the person using the various forms of the TAG to point out that the basis for the questionable premises in the above forms above is based upon <i>Scripture</i> and then go on to refute their unbelief via an internal critique and show that Christian theism necessarily provides said preconditions <i>per the Scriptures</i>. <br /><br />However, again, if pressed, it must be openly admitted by the apologist that TAG cannot show the necessity of the Christian God based upon premises that are agreed upon by both believer and unbeliever alike through external verification, but instead said premises are based upon <i>God's own declaration in Scripture of the true nature of reality.</i> And so, the bolded premises above in the various forms of the TAG are Scripturally derived, not externally verified and agreed upon by the unbeliever since an unbeliever doesn't have the ability to verify what he cannot affirm in his heart of hearts. <br /><br />In other words, the questionable premises in the various forms of TAG are questionable to the unbeliever because they are <i>factual statements of Christian belief</i>, and by virtue of that, they are not statements that the unbeliever will readily agree to due to the unbeliever's spiritual deadness. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop the apologist from using TAG to begin fruitful conversations with unbelievers regarding the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge, reality, and ethics and in so doing present an opportunity for an internal critique of the unbeliever's worldview and the proclamation of the gospel.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51910529640852215132010-07-01T02:57:59.172-04:002010-07-01T02:57:59.172-04:00Dustin,
This is off topic from the present post b...Dustin,<br /><br />This is off topic from the present post but I have a question. You stated in a fairly recent post that you thought that Greg Bahnsen had overstated the trancendental argument. Could you elaborate on this? I'm not looking for an argument or anything but am simply interested in hearing your thoughts on Bahnsen's use of TAG.JMattChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14428264407573101935noreply@blogger.com