Sometimes, when arguing that the universe requires a self-existent first cause, I'm told by Christians that I ought not argue the way Aristotle did because his god, the Unmoved Mover, was an idol and not the true God.
Here are some words from R.C. Sproul responding to this charge (transcribed from Sproul's lecture, "God of the Bible vs. God of Philosophy"):
What I hear from people objecting to our labors to construct the self-existent, eternal being is that that only gets us to the First Cause, and to the God of the philosophers, and it doesn't get us to the God of the Bible, therefore the approach is false, and what we come out with is false because it is not the complete picture. It's only a partial picture of the true God.
Now, the question is this: Do we have to have a comprehensive knowledge of God in order to have true knowledge of God?...If indeed we would have to have a total, comprehensive picture of God in order to have a true understanding of God, then this would only mean…that we have no true knowledge of God. Because we certainly don't have a comprehensive knowledge of God. In other words, what I'm saying is, even if our knowledge of God is partial, that does not mean that it's untrue. It is true as far as it goes, and even though we grant that what we've achieved so far in our reasoning process is only to get to a self-existent, eternal being, that that certainly is part of what the Bible reveals to us about the character of God. Because whatever else the Bible reveals about the nature of God, the Bible certainly teaches that He is eternal, that He is self-existent, and He is the One who is the Creator of all things.
Now at that point, Aristotle says "yea, and amen." Is Aristotle wrong? No. And the fact that a pagan philosopher agrees that there has to be a self-existent, eternal being does not vitiate the truth of the Christian claim. In fact, it agrees with it. And we're saying, yes, we agree with Aristotle in the sense that there has to be a first cause, and that that first cause has to be self-existent, and that that first cause has to be pure actuality, and that first cause has to be pure being, and that that first cause has to be eternal. We say, thank you very much, Aristotle--you agree with us, we agree with you, on this cardinal point, which is only a partial point of our knowledge of God. But it is a crucial portion of our knowledge of God because, ladies and gentlemen, it is precisely this aspect of the Christian understanding of God that is constantly under attack by atheistic systems of thought…And so I think there's great value in establishing that not only faith but reason, as well, demonstrates the logical necessity of having a self-existent, eternal being.
Thanks Daniel,
Neither do I. In fact, neither do I think presuppositionalists and evidentialists are very far apart. I tend to think of myself as both and tend to view Bahnsen as both. After all, he is certainly using evidence in his arguments.---
Hi Lars,
Agreed. I don't think there is much, if any, connection between the OP and the presuppositionalists. I merely have linked to Bahnsen's thinking for those who might be curious about what he was saying. I am a big fan of his as I am of most other apologists.
----
Good points, Brad.
As Daniel pointed out, man is without an excuse. But that doesn't mean he will not condemn himself.
Posted by: Daron | January 03, 2011 at 09:10 PM
Hi DebW, thanks for your answer, I guess I probably was misunderstanding your original frustration about the quote. However, I guess that my reply to you might still be to oppose your attempt to set up the statement to be self defeating because it really isn't since it admits that even it needs to be interpreted--evidence of this is that you discount it and I dont. If the statement was so self evident as a "brute fact", we'd be crazy to disagree--or more precisely, one or both of us would be crazy.
Posted by: Brad B | January 03, 2011 at 09:35 PM
Sproul on presup and classical apologetics.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=312101737278
Posted by: Daron | January 03, 2011 at 10:44 PM
>>therefore probably a mistake to suppose that presuppositionalism is refuted by the observation that “partial knowledge can be true knowledge.”
Whoa, there! I'm not trying to refute all of presuppositionalism with this idea, I'm merely making a case for using the first cause argument.
Also, I should point out that the problem some people have that I'm referring to isn't that the information came from pagans, it's that the god described by those pagans is not the true God, therefore their arguments for that false god won't lead to the true God. That is, their ideas aren't discounted merely because they're pagan, as if pagans can never have knowledge. This is what I tried to communicate in the post by putting the emphasis on what Aristotle (the pagan) was describing (i.e., an idol), not on the pagan himself.
Since "You're dim-witted" isn't generally an acceptable response to people, it's good to think about responses. It's good to respond to Bahnsen et al. as well, but since I didn't bring them into it, I'm not sure why I'm being charged with misrepresenting them.
Posted by: Amy | January 03, 2011 at 11:07 PM
The presuppositional position always puts me in mind of Lewis' Argument from Reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason
A thought that always stands out from Mere Christianity, that once you put yourself outside of reason (do not presuppose it) there is no way back in. This seems appropriate to a discussion of Bahnsen's apologetic.
Posted by: Daron | January 03, 2011 at 11:56 PM
Hi Brad,
Funny you should refer to Mr. Di Giacomo's article, as I just ran across C.L. Bolt's refutation of his TAG argument here http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=1580.
An excerpt:
"To summarize, the first premise of DiGiacomo’s TAG assumes for the sake of argument that God does not exist only to have its second premise (the transcendental premise)supported by appeal to the authority of Scripture which assumes that God does exist which is the very thing to be proven as stated in the conclusion. Additionally the deductive support offered for the premise lacks persuasive force and the argument as a whole is rendered superfluous since an appeal to the authority of Scripture may in like manner be made to prove the contention that God exists. Finally, the defense of the transcendental premise through inductive inference does not necessarily corroborate the veracity of that premise anymore than it would serve as justification for the bold claim of the transcendental premise."
Even with that being said, I do agree with what you said, "The beauty of it as the transendental argument defeats vain foolish reasoning of worldly wisdom. [The fool has said in his heart "there is no god".] " Amen to that.
Posted by: Daniel | January 04, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Lars, you said, "Presumably Bahnsen and Van Til also do not insist that arguments cannot contribute to knowledge unless these arguments contain all truth about the God.. "
One thing that you missed is not that what Van Til and Bahnsen insist is that such arguments cannot contribute to "knowledge," by rather they do insist that arguments from non-Christians cannot contribute to a "true knowledge of God." That is a distinction that I think you may have missed.
Posted by: Daniel | January 04, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Hi Brad,
When a moral relativist says there is no such thing as an absolute (universal) truth, they are making an absolute statement about truth, therefore, defeating their position. I was attempting to do the same thing to your "brute fact" statement.
I see a brute fact as something that is true or real outside of us and our experience, thus existent outside of the system of human worldviews. Typically, only post-modernist (Derrida) or relativist (Mill) philosophies deny the existence of objective reality. Historically, philosophers, including Christians, have accepted the fact that brute facts exist. Only in the last 100 years or so have we seen the widespread rejection of realism.
When asked for a 'brute fact' regarding worldviews, by doing so, conditioned the definition of 'brute fact' in a way that I do not. Yet, I think this is an important distinction.
Posted by: Deb W | January 04, 2011 at 10:59 AM
Brad, is that a reply to something I said? What is that?
Posted by: RonH | January 04, 2011 at 02:32 PM
I wont have time to reply with substance to all of the posts directed to me, but I want to let you know I saw them and will try to spend more time later til then,
Hi DebW, I think part of the challenge for someone to suggest that any item[fact] of knowledge can stand alone will have to account for knowledge apart from form or categories--that is if everything it intends to convey stands within itself and perceptions aren't needed--I think this definition works within yours also. In the strictest sense it is not self defeating to state that there are no brute facts. An interesting Christian alternative to Plato's accounting for knowledge by forms and categories may be found reading Augustines Logos Doctrine. I recommend it to all. If you want to know what you would be up against to make any fact intelligible, I couldn't say it better than Vincent Cheung does in his work called Presuppositional Confrontations. In the first section, there's a section called "The Precondition of Meaning" I recommend this to all also. It can be found here
Daniel, I'll have to only let you know that I checked out the url and I recognize that this commenter is someone who's been an antognist of Ron's for a while. Anyway, I have some immediate thoughts, but since I'm not really trained in formal logic, I dont have time to really read/understand what's actually being argued so I wont be able to comment. Thanks for the reference though.
Hi RonH, I was really just trying to be funny with my post to you, since over the last several years I've replied to your posts with that very same charge "the world according to RonH" The reason I thought it was funny is that you made claims and then backed it up with your personal experience.
Posted by: Brad B | January 04, 2011 at 09:04 PM
Thank you Brad for the references. I will be sure to check them out. This is a topic in which I've become increasingly interested.
Daron, Thank you very much for the Sproul talk on apolegtics. (Daniel, you would probably like it :)
Posted by: Deb W | January 05, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Brad,
Can we try again please?
You are justified in continuing to...
...because you've seen these activities work.Everyone has.
If counting didn't work, nobody would count.
If counting didn't work, nobody would be impressed in the least by any justification for counting - whatever the the source of that justification.
Remove any justification for counting other than that it works - including the one that Bahnsen has in mind - and nobody will even consider giving up counting.
NO justification for counting would be acceptable other than 'it works'.
NO justification for counting is necessary other than 'it works'.
Sorry if this a bit too long. I don't have any more time to shorten it.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 05, 2011 at 01:52 PM
Hi RonH, are you omniscient? You said:
"You are justified in continuing to...
count, reason, learn, communicate, engage in science, explain, seek purpose and order, etc.
...because you've seen these activities work."
Why do you try to put me in the same boat you are in as final authority of what is and isn't knowable?
Are you a relativist such that you and I can disagree yet both know some supposed truth that is irreconcilable? I really dont think so, but I have no choice but to consider it.
I or anyone may, as you say continue to count, reason, learn...but if it's not justified, it's done on borrowed capital, the Christian worldview being the bank.
I dont ground any knowledge in myself, I cannot trust sense perception--I can only know by rational inference from infallible revelation. Not one philosopher of note[in my search] has made knowledge as apprehendable as you are trying to make it. Most devolve into skepticism as they search for justification of any knowledge apart from God.
I want to recommend something for you, hopefully you'll get some entertainment out of it if it doesn't hit too close to home. It may take an hour to digest, but it's dialogue so it's reads pretty fast.
We'll discuss this more, I'm sure.
Posted by: Brad B | January 05, 2011 at 09:00 PM
Daniel, this is why it's important to keep in mind the distinction I set out earlier. Try to spell out what you mean by "true knowledge of God" in such a way that it can be distinguished from partial knowledge about God.
Posted by: Lars | January 05, 2011 at 09:07 PM
Brad,
It's still not about me or you.
There are some ideas about defining knowledge - JTB , for example - as an approach to epistemology.
This is all very interesting. Great stuff. But, the standard by which we must measure such theories is what? Experience.
If two guys in white shirts come to your door and one of them claims to know something by way of a burning in his bosom then you will point out to me one errors that folk have made by trusting a burning in their bosoms. When you do that you will be making the same point I'm making. We know from experience that a burnings in bosoms don't work.
I will read your suggestion.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 06, 2011 at 03:23 AM
Lars, I'm not sure what you keep missing.
VanTil and Bahnsen see "true knowledge of God" exclusively as the Biblical triune God. That is what Amy did way back in her original post, ie, distinguished partial knowledge about God as in fact possbile to be "true knowledge of God." Again, once and for all, Bahnsen and VanTil deny this.
Time to move on. Thanks and blessings in Christ.
Posted by: Daniel | January 06, 2011 at 02:54 PM
P.S. -- Deb and Daron,
Yes, I just finished the Sproul audio that Daron linked to. He said exactly what I wish I had said and so much more eloquently than I could ever say it. I did like it. Thnx a bunch.
Caio,
Posted by: Daniel | January 06, 2011 at 02:57 PM
Daniel, what you need to show is that your interpretation of the phrase "true knowledge of God" is in fact the correct one. There are of course many ways to interpret that phrase, and one ought always to strive to give the most charitable interpretation. What that means is to give an interpretation that makes the presuppositionalist position as strong as possible. Your favored interpretation seems to fails in this regard. It's the fallacy of the straw man.
Posted by: Lars | January 06, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Lars, I have already told you. It is not my interpretation. It is the view of Bahnsen and VanTil. And I have provided the quotes for you. They are the ones who state that true knowledge of God must be the triune God of the Bible only. Read them. Look them up, man. You haven't done an ounce of work here and only keep coming back and twisting stuff to try to make an argument that doesn't even exist.
Again, I told you that I DON'T agree with this view. This is not my "Favored interpretation!!!!)" as you call it.
Dude, we gotta drop it here, and move on. Bah bye. And blessings in Christ.
Posted by: Daniel | January 06, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Daniel, you are resting your claims on your own selective interpretation of "true knowledge of God." What you need to realize is that this phrase is open to a variety of interpretations, many of which will not fit your thesis about what Van Til and Bahnsen are saying. The particular interpretion you favor (please understand: this simply means your interpretation of what these presuppositionalists mean by "true knowledge of God") is not the most charitable one. It's for that reason that you are in danger of attacking a straw man.
Posted by: Lars | January 06, 2011 at 05:24 PM
Brad,
I've only reached the point 6 in the exchange between Derek and Vincent that you suggested.
It reminds me of my first comment on this post. "What is an event?"
Vincent wants to see Derek fail to explain learning in philosophical terms. Derek will fail at this because learning is neurological not philosophical. Amy's link asks Kalaam skeptics to explain cosmology (physics) in terms of philosophical 'events' and philosophical 'causation'.
You will find 'events' in some books about physics, but they are not the same events as those in Kalaam. You will not find learning described as fallacious or non-fallacious in a book about neurology.
I'm not sure how to classify this stuff. Category errors, maybe.
I am really not happy with Derek or Vincent so far and I'm not even 10% of the way through. Why should I keep going?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 06, 2011 at 05:40 PM
Hi RonH, unless I'm not getting your point, you seem to be equating learning with knowing . I dont doubt that experience gives us opportunities to learn, but I would never classify those things as true knowledge without justification. When I talk about justified knowledge, it wouldn't be the same as some subjective JTB, I'm using justified in a way to suggest that any proposition is justified if it rests on valid and sound conclusions derived by rational inference. These conclusions rest on ultimate propositions [self attesting propositions]. Under the [this]philosophical restricted sense of what justified truth is, every proposition is tested as to it's logical veracity. I know that Alvin Plantiga writes about this in his "Warrant and Proper Function" where he synthesizes what might be described as a subjective and objective justification for belief that some proposition is true. I've olny read comments on this book, but would like to get it and read it some time along with his "Warranted Christian Belief".
I hope you'll keep reading the exchange between Cheung and Samsone, because there are relevant topics discussed. Your appraisal of the discourse so far seems to be off base--even backwards. You will note that Cheung during the whole discourse is only asking for one thing, justify how you know something--prove your case in the philosophical sense. Derek doesn't because he cant with his worldview. Also, I know from Cheungs writings that he doesn't even believe that the brain does what you would think it does, how did you put it: "because learning is neurological" I dont think that Vincent Cheung would ever agree with that statement.
Posted by: Brad B | January 06, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Hi Daniel and DebW, you might find RC Sprouls series called "The Consequence of Ideas" interesting. It is an exploration of the quest for knowledge over the history of the key players from before Plato and Arisotle to the more modern philosophers and what they had to say about what resulted from cultures embracing these ideas. I recommend it becaue Sproul does his usually excellent job of explaining the process in each era--like Plato's shadows on the cave wall analogy. The quest for the perfect--ie pure being, not becoming.
Posted by: Brad B | January 06, 2011 at 10:59 PM
Lars,
I don't think Daniel is making up his interpretation. While VanTil does not deny that an unbeliever, by God's common grace, has a knowledge of God, he does assert that the unbeliever has suppressed it and therefore is not a viable consideration in his apologetics.
I already gave you one quote that supports this, but you also have this one as well:
"Transcendental argument: an argument that seeks to show the necessary conditions for the possibility of rational thought or meaningful discourse. VT believed this was the only kind of argument appropriate to a Christian apologetic, since the biblical God is the author of all meaning and rationality." Frame on VanTil.
Posted by: Deb W | January 07, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Deb,
Ignore Lars. He has not contributed to this thread in any meaningful or constructive way. Besides, you will most likely be only labeled as "dim-witted" or "uncharitable" and be mischaracterized.
We all just need to let him go and let him move on.
Posted by: Daniel | January 07, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Brad,
I just finished reading Cheung's booklet on presuppositions and I very much disagree with the majority of his assertions throughout, starting with his non-analogous illustrations from sports Also, I was not a fan of his exposition of Acts 17 either. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Cheung.
Will check out the Sproul link and the article on Augustine Logo's as well. Again, thanks for the resources.
Posted by: Deb W | January 07, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Hi Deb W, sorry you missed the point of the sports analogies. I say missed the point, because Cheung is not at all alone in recognizing the difficuly encountered in making sense of..well, sense perceptions. In fact, when you read the article on Augustines Logos doctrine, [btw, the title is "The Wisdom of the Reflected Light"], you'll see the author describe what compelled Plato to argue for pre-existence of the soul and even re-incarnation, it was specifically to answer the challenge of where does knowledge of forms and categories [which are necessary elements or rational thought] come from--they have to be accounted for. Sproul goes into this in his "Consequence of Ideas" series also.
When Cheung says this:
"If the mind is totally blank, so that it does not even possess categories such as time, space, and causation, intelligibility and interpretation are impossible. In fact, if your mind is a blank, without any knowledge that comes apart from observation, your world will be to you as a whirlwind of sensations with no way to organize them or interpret them. ,
he is in agreement with Sproul, Plato, and most others who've understood the concept.
I hope this concept is made plain to you, it's not novel.
P.S. I agree with Daniels last comment to you.
Posted by: Brad B | January 07, 2011 at 07:52 PM
This is helpful Deb W. You see, suppose we remind ourself of the distinction I mentioned earlier:
We added to this another distinction:
Doesn't it sound more like Van Til's point falls in the first category, in each case?
Compare this to Daniel's favored interpretation, when Daniel uncharitably claims that Van Til and Bahnsen are saying that Aristotelian arguments can't even provide partial knowledge about God.
Posted by: Lars | January 07, 2011 at 11:07 PM
Brad, thanks, but please don't assume that I missed the point of Cheung's sports analogy. I'll be glad to break it down for you. But just for starters, other than Cheung, who the heck is talking about a mind that is totally blank? I've studied philosophy and have followed Sproul for a long time. I seriously, seriously doubt that Sproul's epistemology is anywhere near Cheung's. Can respond in more detail later, but not able to at this time.
Posted by: Deb W | January 08, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Hi Deb W, sorry to be miscommunicating with you. I need ask for clarity on your system then. It seems that you are sure that there are brute facts, this would be facts that need no interpretation, they are so self evident that they cannot be misrepresented or denied. Yet for that to be the case, a mind would have to be blank or neutral for that to be possible. Sproul is not a presuppositionalist, so he will have differences with Cheung, but not on the "tabula rasa" issue, they both believe that in order for intelligibility to be possible, the mind has to have some referential forms and categories. Cheung is not arguing that the mind blank, quite the opposite.
So I am either misunderanding your system, or your system is incoherent on this point. The mind has to manage sensory input, and it cannot know a fact without having some referential analogy of it. Sproul says how can you know of a "chair" without some form of knowledge of "chairness" to compare it to and then classify it as such. This takes interpretation because the mind can be wrong about what is "chairness". No matter how brute the fact is, it still need to have an analogical concept in the mind of the person such that interpretation is inescapable.
Have a good Lords day.
Posted by: Brad B | January 08, 2011 at 07:43 PM
Once upon a time Daniel and I said:
One of the things I love about Sproul is that when he discusses a thinker he tries to put the ideas in context regarding what the writer was arguing against. Thus, if one theologian critiques Reason it is not a naked critique, but possibly an argument against the unconditional faith in Reason. Sproul seems very fair in this respect. But I do think he misses the boat a little on presuppositional apologetics. If you read the Bahnsen I linked earlier, or especially listen to his debates you will get a more rounded view of his view than Sproul offers (in admittedly short space).
This essay discusses Jonathan Edwards, whom Sproul et al are presented as viewing as a classical apologist but puts their views in a different light.
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/oliphint_edwards.html
Posted by: Daron | January 08, 2011 at 09:28 PM
Posted by: Daron | January 08, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Sorry, I meant to say "Van Til, from the link above".
Posted by: Daron | January 08, 2011 at 10:20 PM
Daron,
Yes, I'm sorry that I did not respond to your earlier point (re: I don't think we're that far apart).
Daron, I do understand that Van Til grants that unbelievers can have knowledge that is true as far as it goes, but my understanding is that (unlike classicists) the way he "hems" that knowledge in, is to disallow its validity as a foundation for apologetic argumentation. Thus, I think his and Bahnsen's Transcendental Argument for God is self-defeating and goes against grain of traditional apologetics. Personally, I have never used it. But then again, like Brad eluded to, I'm more of an evangelist than an atheist slayer. :)
Posted by: Daniel | January 09, 2011 at 12:04 PM
Little Miss Muffet sat on her tuffet,
Studying Hume for an exam.
Said she, 'I can't see; if ideas are me,
Just exactly where all of me am.'
Posted by: Daniel | January 09, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Hi Brad, Hope you also had an excellent Lord's day.
You say, "So I am either misunderanding your system, or your system is incoherent on this point. The mind has to manage sensory input, and it cannot know a fact without having some referential analogy of it."
Yes, You have misunderstood my system. I reject the view that you require, ie, empiricism. I reject that truth claims must only be filtered and interpreted through our senses. I hold to a rationalist view that there exists and ultimate reality which is plain and knowable to all who are human beings. The basis of this is that they were created in the image of God and not on their own finite senses.
You seem to define a brute fact from the human perspective, phenomenologically. I am defining a brute fact from God's perspective, ultimate reality or the absolute.
Kant posited that while such a reality did exist, it was impossible for us to know it because it is outside of our senses.
I reject that view.
Human beings are able to know the absolute apart from sense perception, because they are made inthe image of God.
That cannot save them and is not as important as the Gospel, but for me it's a huge issue because contemporary Christians have bought Kant's lie and have fallen into the post-modernist existential trap.
While that line of thinking shows up in Cheung (and I disagee with him when he goes there), I do like some of the other things I've read on his site that you referred to. Thanks,
Posted by: Deb W | January 10, 2011 at 08:44 AM
Consider this line of questioning by the KBG of the poet Brodsky:
JUDGE: And what is your profession?
BRODSKY: Poet. Poet and translator.
JUDGE: And who told you that you were a poet? Who assigned you that rank?
BRODSKY: No one. (Non-confrontationally.) Who assigned me to the human race?
JUDGE: And did you study for this?
BRODSKY: For what?
JUDGE: To become a poet? Did you try to attend a school where they train [poets] . . . where they teach . . .
BRODSKY: I don’t think it comes from education.
JUDGE: From what, then?
BRODSKY: I think it’s . . . (at a loss) . . . from God.
Me when I encounter Christians who miss this: At a loss.
Posted by: Deb W | January 10, 2011 at 08:48 AM
Hi Deb W. , thanks for clarifying. Although now I haved to ask, how do you come to know truth claims[?] by sensation, or by rational deduction from infallible revelation?
This has been interesting, thanks.
Posted by: Brad B | January 10, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Hi Brad, Again you are only offering possibilities conditioned by your post-modern/ perspectivalist point of view.
I believe that rational ability is innate for human beings made in the image of God and that infallible revelation is truth, not the other way around.
Posted by: Deb W | January 10, 2011 at 04:06 PM
I agree this has been interesting. (I might come across as asserting my view strongly, but it has been edifying for me. I've learned a lot. So, thank you!!)
Posted by: Deb W | January 10, 2011 at 04:16 PM
Hi Deb W, "Again you are only offering possibilities conditioned by your post-modern/ perspectivalist point of view"
I'm not sure that's me, maybe you can elaborate.
I dont deny rational ability at all in man, but I do affirm that it's broken due to the fall. The doctrine of total depravity teaches that all of man is damaged by the fall[body, mind, soul, emotions...]. As such no sensation can by itself be trusted to yeild truth.
Why would one thief on the cross see Jesus as the Son of God and the other not, they both witnessed the same events. Both had the same available sensory information to rationally deduce from. The answer is that one became born again--got[received] eyes to see and ears to hear--the other did not. One mans sensation yeilded truth the other mans sensation did not. This is the root of presuppositionalism--born again mankind reasons from a different starting point--God IS. Unregenerate reason from the starting point that says--"I will be as God". All rationally valid conclusions built upon each foundation in and of themselves may be sound, but they will obviously end up at different truth claims. One will give glory to God, the other will give glory to man. One is truth, the other is not. This is what sense perception yeilds. Apart from infallible revelation, even a born again one would stand on sand[his own sense perception], but thanks be to God we have the Rock, the Divine Logos made known by His special revelation.
P.S. freely assert strongly, I'm not one to easily get my feelings hurt. I look at it this way: "The wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy".
Posted by: Brad B | January 10, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Brad, I think we both just keep reasserting our own views against the other to no avail. I know that I will not change your mind to agree with me, but please do at least recognize what we are disagreeing about.
A few restatements of my position:
-- The rational mind of mankind is not based on sensory perception, but is based on the image of God that all of us have in our Creator (ie, we are therefore without excuse).
-- Since mankind knows by nature the eternal truth of God, the foundation that "God IS" *may* exist even in those who are not yet regenerate, born again Christians. Example from scripture: the Pharisees and the Athenians (Acts 27:24-28.
--I do affirm the doctrine of total depravity, but not utter depravity. Yes, because of the sin nature, neither Christians nor unbelievers can fully know and understand God. HOwever, we capable of knowing God. Both the Christian and the non-Christian rely on innate factors -- other than sensory perception to know that which they know about God. The Christian relies on both pneumological knowledge via the HOly Spirit and rational ability, while the non-Christian only has their rational capabilities. The non-Christian's understanding of God may be less full (more partial) but they are still capable of understanding God as Creator. History and scripture affirms this.
Let me offer a scenario: what about an elect person who has not yet been regenerate? Do you not think (as examples from scripture state) that that person can believe in the Creator God, prior to having heard/accepted the Gospel or having read the Bible? I believe emphatecally, yes! THey still need to hear the Gospel in order to be saved, but they may still very well have a foundation that "God Is" and reject the foundation that "I will be as God."
Finally, with respect to what I meant about the post-modern/perspectival view: I'll restate my point: "I believe that rational ability is innate for human beings made in the image of God and that infallible revelation is truth, not the other way around."
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Deb W | January 11, 2011 at 09:15 AM
Brad, I have an idea. Rather than going back and forth with various philosophical views about knowledge and so forth, it was recommended that I read Book One of Calvin's Institutes (Of the Knowledge of God the Creator) on this topic. Calvin is my favorite theologian, so I'm sure he will clarify this much better for me.
This has been an interesting engagement, but I have a desire to return to solid doctrine, rather than pontificating about theism. Thanks again!
Posted by: Deb W | January 11, 2011 at 03:18 PM
Hi Deb W, thanks for the exchange of views. I hope you'll take a minute to give me one more response. I read Acts 27, and dont see any pertinent info there regarding knowledge.
Here's what the NASB says, Act 27:24'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted you all those who are sailing with you.' Act 27:25 "Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for I believe God that it will turn out exactly as I have been told. Act 27:26 "But we must run aground on a certain island." Act 27:27 But when the fourteenth night came, as we were being driven about in the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors began to surmise that they were approaching some land. Act 27:28 They took soundings and found it to be twenty fathoms; and a little farther on they took another sounding and found it to be fifteen fathoms".
Maybe you can clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Now, if I am to understand what you have said, that the image of God gives man certain innate ability to understand, such that "brute facts" are just that. You read some of what Cheung wrote about this, but I'm wondering if you also caught the scripture reference regarding the voice of God the Father from Heaven. Here's the reference: Jhn 12:28"Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came out of heaven "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." Jhn 12:29 So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him."
Now, what could be more brute a fact than God's own voice? How could the image of God, being the root and foundation of knowledge in man not know God's voice AND still be considered reliable?
Posted by: Brad B | January 12, 2011 at 10:57 PM
Sorry, Acts 17 24-28 - typo. "24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"
If you read Calvin's Institutes, he does a great job explaining this. When the greek philosophers are able to say, "For in him we live and move and have our being. We are his offspring," they are affirming general revelation - that God exists.
By continuing to go back the Cheung, you keep ignoring the point I have made that reason and sensory perception are opposed to one another.
Where I think Calvin is helping me is to understand that even though all human beings have been given the ability to know that God exists, they do not acknowledge him by worshipping Him in gratitude and as a result turn even their affirmed knowledge that He exists into idol worship. Calvin is very helpful with this.
Posted by: Deb W | January 13, 2011 at 10:01 AM
Hi Deb W, thanks for the clarification, I kinda thought that this was what you meant to refer to. I hope you find good help with Calvin on this, I have a seriously hard time reading the Institutes, although refer to them by search at times. Same thing with reading Jonathan Edwards, they are too dang smart for me I guess.
I remember about 12 or so years ago, I was just getting in on the internet forums and was also at that time becoming very entrenched in Reformed theology. At the Ligonier site, they had some very busy forums and I asked a question that I dont think I got a good answer to, but I know what the answer is now and it relates to this topic. My question was "why was RC Sproul and Francis Schaeffer so opposed on their opinion of Thomas Acquinas"? Schaeffer boldly laid the blame on the feet of Acquinas for the modern ills described in his book "Escape From Reason". I had no idea of presuppositionalism at that time when I was reading several of Schaeffers books, but I now know why both of these men hold Acquinas in such different light, and it's the same difference we'd also hold I suspect.
I think we'll probably not reach any consensus on this, partly because of miscommunication[my not understanding exactly what you are arguing for]. Maybe in the future there will opportunity to refine the discussion. Thanks
Posted by: Brad B | January 13, 2011 at 08:44 PM
It has been great to have the opportunity to have this exchange. We may not have concensus, but I do think that I've come away with more of a respect for presuppositionalism. Thank you and All the best. Hope to see you later.
Posted by: Deb W | January 14, 2011 at 03:02 AM