I just wanted to comment specifically on John’s point about the influence of Van Til on thinkers like Plantinga. I think there is little difference between Van Til’s/Bahnsen’s transcendental argument and Plantinga’s conceptualist argument.
TAG basically works like this.
Prove A: God exists.
Assume ~A: God does not exist.
~A à B: If God does not exist, then laws of reason and morality are not objective.
~B: Laws of reason and morality are objective.
~~A: by modus tollens.
Therefore, A: by the law of negation, God exists.
Q.E.D.
Assuming the soundness of (~B), the controversial premise is (~A à B). What both Van Til and Plantinga would point out is that laws of reason and morality, if objective, are not extended in space--that is, they are immaterial and have a transcendental necessity about them.
Now, I always draw a blank when I hear people talking about laws of reason and morality simply existing in abstraction. It is rather indubitable that reason and morality are qualities of persons, and not merely abstractions that exist apart from a personal being. Thus, it would apparently make the most sense to conclude that the laws of reason and morality must have a perfect and transcendent personal being as their foundation, which sounds a lot like God.
This is not much different from C.S. Lewis’ moral argument, in which he offers the following analogy in response to the problem of evil. How can one know that a line is crooked without corresponding it to a straight one?
Good discussion, guys.
Woops, I meant to say (~A --> B), but the cut and paste from my word document wasn't quite precise.
I would say that morality is grounded in God but not the laws of reason. Ability to reason is from God, but not the laws of logic, which are simply intrinsic to existence.
God's omnipotence is limited by logic. He can't exist and not exist at the same time. He can't be omnipresent and not omnipresent simultaneously, or both created and eternal, etc. To use a classic garden variety illustration, God can't make a rock so big that He can't lift it because it is logically impossible (i.e., He can't be both omnipotent and lacking omnipotence).
Therefore, God Himself is subject to the laws of logic, which have a transcendental necessity, as you say.
Thanks for your thoughts, Dave.
" I would say that morality is grounded in God but not the laws of reason."
Assuming this is the case, would not the necessary conclusion to draw from this be that something impersonal is the foundation of reason? To be honest, I find the same problem with this that I find with the concept of morality existing outside of God--that reason and morality can be a property of an impersonal, unconscious being.
"Ability to reason is from God, but not the laws of logic, which are simply intrinsic to existence."
Could you further expound on this? It does not seem to follow logically (pun intended!) that if logic is intrinsic to existence, that it cannot be grounded in God.
"God's omnipotence is limited by logic."
I certainly agree. However, I would add that God's omnipotence is equally limited by the very moral statutes that are grounded in Him (i.e. God cannot be unjust). In other words, God's being limited by logic does not suggest that logic exists independently of Him. If it did, then it would seemingly follow that there must be a standard of logic that exists outside of that standard, and so on ad infinitum.
How can it be grounded in God if God is subject to it?
Morality is different because right and wrong are subjective judgments by their very nature; therefore they are personal, and grounded in God's nature.
God's not being unjust is not a limitation of His omnipotence, but rather, a function of His omnibenevolence.
Logic is simply the nature of things, and the relations of things to one another, which is why God Himself is subject to it.
by modus tollens.
What does this mean?
Q.E.D.
What does this mean?
~
= "non", right ?
Good discussion, but some of us don't know the symbols or Latin.
Otherwise, I think I followed it.
Ken Temple,
Modus tollens is a term used in classical logic. It means "mood that denies." Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod...i/
Modus_tollens
for a good summary.
QED is "quod erat demonstrandum" and means "which was to be proved," so when you say "if A then not 'not A' follows, QED," you are saying "You asked me to prove A, I showede you that its contradiction is impossible, therefore, (QED), I proved what you asked me to."
~ does equal "non."
All good questions for non-professionals like you and I.
Hi Dave,
"How can it be grounded in God if God is subject to it?"
The same way that our alphabet is subject to the letters A-Z. God cannot be illogical because it is contrary to His nature.
"Morality is different because right and wrong are subjective judgments by their very nature; therefore they are personal, and grounded in God's nature."
If I follow you, you're saying that in order for something to be personal, it must be subjective. I have my reservations about this, considering that moral obligations (rather than the actual choices) themselves are objective. The same may be said about reason. As humans, we possess the ability to be rational or irrational, just like we can be moral or immoral.
"God's not being unjust is not a limitation of His omnipotence, but rather, a function of His omnibenevolence."
To be honest, I do not see the distinction. Can God be unjust--that is, does God have the power to be unjust? I would answer no, because God is inherently good, which would again make it contrary to His nature to act unjustly.
"Logic is simply the nature of things, and the relations of things to one another, which is why God Himself is subject to it."
We might replace a few words with this: Morality is simply the nature of goodness, and the relations of good things to one another, which is why God Himself is subject to it.
It does not follow that if God is subject to something, that it must exist independently of something. God must act in accordance with his rational and moral nature; otherwise, He would not be God.
“The growth of unreason throughout the nineteenth century and what has passed of the twentieth is a natural sequel to Hume’s destruction of empiricism.”
~Bertrand Russell
Hello Dave,
It is a pleasure to be welcomed into friendly disagreement.
As I pointed out in response to your analysis of an old article by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, “Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.” Whatever other mistakes we may make, I hope we can all avoid attacking the good intentions of our brothers in Christ.
I look forward to better understanding your apologetic outlook while helping you better understand my perspective & the outlook of my fellow presuppositionalists. I think that the difference between us is, in some ways, probably much smaller than conventionally thought. In other ways, it is very large, but perhaps we can begin to bridge that gap.
In my understanding, the key difference between the archetypal Presuppositionalist & the Evidentialist counterpart is not any particular argument. Evidentialists often use arguments that attack the presuppositions of the unbeliever. As noted above, C.S. Lewis used an Argument from Moral Law of that type in Mere Christianity & an Argument from Reason of that type in Miracles. (Whether or not Lewis deserves to be called an evidentialist, most evidentialists claim him as one of their own.) Likewise, I personally use a version of the Argument from the Resurrection, usually considered the sine qua non of evidentialist apologetics. Presuppositionalist Thom Notaro has even written a short book on the use of evidence in Van Tillian apologetics.
What then is the difference? The real difference, I think, is the question of epistemological neutrality. When evidentialists like John Warwick Montgomery try to provide a defense of the faith on empiricist grounds — on the idea that the facts speak for themselves — they violate the old proverb, “Do not argue with a fool according to his folly lest you become like him.” Even unbelievers like Wittgenstein, Quine, Sellars, & Kuhn can see the failure of empiricism to overcome basic problems in the theory of knowledge. Why build your argument upon the sand of unbelief?
The presuppositionalist rejects even the possibility of epistemological neutrality. Instead, he seeks to expose the necessary failure of all unbelieving philosophies & world-views. This approach follows his understanding of another proverb, “Argue with a fool according to his folly.” By accepting arguendo the presuppositions of the unbeliever, he works to show that they lead to complete futility, undermining their own claims at the very outset of the conversation.
At the same time, the presuppositionalist offers the unbeliever the benefits which flow from acknowledging th
Sorry... Not used to this format. The previous post should end:
The presuppositionalist rejects even the possibility of epistemological neutrality. Instead, he seeks to expose the necessary failure of all unbelieving philosophies & world-views. This approach follows his understanding of another proverb, “Argue with a fool according to his folly.” By accepting arguendo the presuppositions of the unbeliever, he works to show that they lead to complete futility, undermining their own claims at the very outset of the conversation.
At the same time, the presuppositionalist offers the unbeliever the benefits which flow from acknowledging the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, & understanding. He points to the riches of knowledge that are to be found in Jesus Christ. As Augustine put it, “Without belief there is no understanding.”
If there is no objection, I would like to present a few selections from a conversation with some atheist friends to illustrate the form that this kind of argument should take.
Peace,
Three quick notes:
1. In my haste, I misquoted part of the proverb. I should say that the presuppositionalist tries to follow the proverb, “Argue with a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
2. I’m still getting used to this format, so I missed the bulk of Dave’s very polite reply. But I am glad that we have as much common ground as we do.
3. Sometimes presuppositionalists do spend too much time proclaiming & too little time developing lines of argumentation. I have seen more examples than I care to admit: Such cases make me cringe. But bad examples of presuppositionalism should not blind us to good examples of that approach.
Peace,
Hi John,
Feel free to argue / do as you wish. I was busy elsewhere today and so wasn't able to get to this.
If it is easier for you, you can send me an e-mail (mine's on the bottom of the sidebar), and I'll then post it and my reply on my site. Otherwise, I post the original piece with a link to the combox discussion.
This has an annoying word limit, so I always save every comment I make, and then if it didn't fit, I can just paste the remainder in a second comment.
Thank you Mike Burgess for explaining the Latin and symbols!
Let’s try some syllogism/logic with respect to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, (and the basic issue of disagreement) based on the Presuppositions that God exists, is perfect, sinless, infallible, and so His word is also perfect, and infallible.
A: Since God is perfect, He is both infallible and impeccable. (Without mistakes and without sin.)
B.Impeccability and infallibility go together, they cannot be separated, because infallibility is based on God’s being without sin and without lying or deception. Titus 1:2 “the God who cannot lie”. See also Hebrews 6:18
C. Therefore, only God and His word are infallible. His word is now written down for us, and is infallible, and impeccable.
________________________
A’ Humans are both sinful and fallible.
B ‘ Since Humans are fallible and sinful, the church on earth is both fallible and sinful.
C’ Therefore, the RCC cannot claim that it as a institution is infallible, yet also admit that it is sinful. It separates infallibility from impeccability. RCC admits itself is sinful and popes were sinful and they admit that some of them were very bad, and at the same time infallible, because infallibility and impeccability go together. Infallibility is based on God as a perfect and sinless being.
Since the RCC admits the church sins and popes sin, therefore there can be no separation of “yes, sinful in behavior”, but “infallible in dogmatic assertions when spoken ex cathedra”.
The argument that since God used humans to write Scripture, like Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul and Peter, and John; and they were sinful in their private life, then God can also guide the RCC and popes in infallible decisions of ex cathedra dogma, but still be sinful; does not follow, because in order for that to be true, those interpretations would have to have the same quality of God-breathed revelation and have merit to be written down and considered additional written infallible Scripture. But even RCC does not go that far.
God used humans to write Scripture.
And they were all sinful and not impeccable; indeed fallible in their private lives.
Yet they wrote infallible Scriptures,
Therefore, RCC says that God can also use sinful humans to guide the church in history in infallibility of dogmatic interpretations.
The problem with this is that the analogy breaks down because writing the Scriptures is a different issue than guiding the church in the right interpretation of those Scriptures.
The writings are infallible because they are God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 4:4
The quality of “canon” (criterion, standard, rule, principle) is on a document because it is God-breathed. (2 Timothy 3:16) The Holy Spirit guided the writers of Scripture to write what He wanted. (2 Peter 1:21)
It never says interpretations are God-breathed. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says that “no Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”. Or the prophet’s private “loosing”. That is it did not originate with the human thoughts of the prophet, for the Holy Spirit carried them along in what to speak and then write it down. He is talking about the source and origin of the prophecy of Scripture, not the interpretations of later generations or us today. The word “for” in verse 21 connects the thought and explains what he means. It is more sure for us who are reading it today, because it was written down, and it is more sure, because it did not come from human ingenuity or original thought, but from the Holy Spirit guiding the prophet.
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Since Peter is referring to his imminent death in his second and last letter in this context, see 2 Peter 1:12-19, and with 3:1, he says that his diligence in writing is so that they could be reminded of the truth and stir up their sincere minds and have something to refer to when he is gone. He says he writes this down, so that after I am gone, you will have something to keep going back to, and in this way, “we have the prophetic word made more sure” (2 Peter 1:19). Why is it more sure? Because it is written down and you, the church, have it have I am gone.
It is very interesting that Peter, if he was the “first pope” as the RCC claims; why then does he focus on the written Scriptures that they will have after he dies, and gives them confidence and assurance based on this, rather than some kind of apostolic succession? Peter, it seems to me, if he was the first “pope”, should have mentioned successors, popes, infallibility, guidance into the future on interpretations, etc. He does not do this at all. He only points them to the Scriptures. They are the “prophetic word made more sure” or “certain”, because they were written down.
Since Peter never mentions any of these things, and in fact calls himself “a fellow elder” (I Peter 5:1), then it follows that God never intended any of those ideas of apostolic succession, infallibility of leadership, or papal office, or “bishop of bishops”.
Since both the RCC and Protestants agree that Infallible Scripture stopped with the death of the apostles, (Jude 3, Hebrews 1:1-2, Rev. 22:18; see also John 17:8 and 16:12-13, 2 Peter 1:12-21), and
The promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit into all the truth was for the apostles. John 16:13
Since we agree that infallible Scripture stopped with the death of the apostles, then if follows that human interpretations of church leaders after the apostles would not have the quality of “infallibility”, because they are not revelation or God-breathed or have the quality to be written down as Scripture was.
So, it is up to us to keep focusing back on the text and struggle as to the author’s intended meaning at that time. Only then can we come close to the proper interpretation. That is essentially what Peter was exhorting his readers to do; to keep “stirring up their minds by remembrance” on the once for all written, Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.
oopps --
Why is it more sure? Because it is written down and you, the church, have it have I am gone.
Should have been:
Why is it more sure? Because it is written down and you, the church, have it when I am gone.
Ken, you work way too hard trying to war against the Bible. Infallibility is plainly taught in Acts 15:28-29.
This was a council that was led by the Holy Spirit and therefore infallible. The Church was absolutely bound to it's decisions. Part of Paul's missionary preaching was to proclaim the infallible decisions of the council (Acts 16:4).
You can play around with merely human philosophy and tradition and word games with "infallible" and "impeccable"; I go by the Word of God in Holy Scripture, thank you.
Hi Ken,
The disagreement we would have with your argument is the following premise.
"B ‘ Since Humans are fallible and sinful, the church on earth is both fallible and sinful."
The premise commits the fallacy of composition. The Church as a whole may be infallible, even though its individuals are sinful. To use an analogy, a mountain is made of an innumerable number of tiny atoms; however, as a whole, the mountain is very large. In other words, the whole may be different from its parts.
I think an additional problem is that if your argument is correct, it ends up proving too much. If the universal sinfulness of man means that he can never speak (or write) infallibly, then the writings of the New Testament could not have been written infallibly. What Biblical inerrantists like you and I hold is that God inspired the writers of the NT and safeguarded them from error. Catholics, on the other hand, simply extend that to Sacred Tradition.
Blessings
Ken,
The Church is not the enemy of Christ. On the contrary, the Church is Christ! And she has been invested with his very own authority. And such authority is necessary to help us safely journey back to our true home. Thus the Church's authority should be seen as a tremendous blessing and grace of God. Perhaps someday, by God's grace, you will come to see and appreciate this truth.
In the meantime, maybe these scriptures will be of some help:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13: 17)
“These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with ALL AUTHORITY. Do not let anyone despise you.” Titus 2:15
The word “authority” (Epitage) which St. Paul uses here is translated elsewhere as “commandment.” http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...003&
version=kjv
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, GOVERNMENTS, diversities of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 12:28
The word for “governments” here is the Greek Kubernesis, which is akin to the Latin gubernare, from which we get the familiar words govern and gubernatorial.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...941&
version=kjv
http://www.biblestudytools.net/C...ter=12&
verse=28
Govern - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/governs
Gubernatorial - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/
dicti...a=gubernatorial
So the Church does indeed have the right, the duty, and the authority to “teach, govern, and sanctify” all men. And this she does through the authority given to her by the God of all goodness and mercy and love.
One quick note. Luther said "holy Christendom has, in my judgment, no better teacher after the apostles than St. Augustine." LW 37:107,
http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
So let us then hear what this "better teacher" has to say about the Lords guidance of his Church:
"Nor can he be taken in [by heresy] who already knows what pertains to the Christian faith, which, being spread over the world, is called Catholic, and, under the Lord's guidance, is made secure against all the ungodly and sinners, secure even against her own careless children."
The Christian Combat, ch. 4, p. 320 http://www.archive.org/details/
f...hechur009935mbp
God's peace and blessing
Ken says:
A: Since God is perfect, He is both infallible and impeccable. (Without mistakes and without sin.)
B.Impeccability and infallibility go together, they cannot be separated, because infallibility is based on God’s being without sin and without lying or deception. Titus 1:2 “the God who cannot lie”. See also Hebrews 6:18
C. Therefore, only God and His word are infallible. His word is now written down for us, and is infallible, and impeccable.
B. is inadequately argued. A perfect being without omniscience is not guaranteed to be infallible (because his knowledge would be limited). For example: Prior to the Fall Adam was without sin, lying and deception, and yet he was not infallible.
C. Does not follow from A and B at all. "Only God"? Why? You have said nothing about any other beings and whether they might be perfect or not, so it does not follow to say that "only" God is infallible from what you have said. The infallibility of the Word of God does not follow from mere sinlessness, as I noted above, and your premises do not support any conclusions about the Word because you have not even mentioned it before your conclusion.
To include the idea that God's Word "is now written for us" in your conclusion suggests that it follows from the premises, but that is simply not the case; for the same reason no conclusions may be drawn about whether God's Word possesses the same attributes that you attribute to God.
In short, this entire argument simply does not work, and consequently anything else built upon it cannot work either.
Ken says:
A’ Humans are both sinful and fallible.
B ‘ Since Humans are fallible and sinful, the church on earth is both fallible and sinful.
C’ Therefore, the RCC cannot claim that it as a institution is infallible, yet also admit that it is sinful. It separates infallibility from impeccability. RCC admits itself is sinful and popes were sinful and they admit that some of them were very bad, and at the same time infallible, because infallibility and impeccability go together. Infallibility is based on God as a perfect and sinless being.
Since the RCC admits the church sins and popes sin, therefore there can be no separation of “yes, sinful in behavior”, but “infallible in dogmatic assertions when spoken ex cathedra”.
B' does not follow from A'. You are importing assumptions about the nature of the Church: namely, that it is completely natural, without any divine influence at all that might enable her to enjoy a charism of infallibility after some fashion or other; that union with Christ has no effects upon the Church at all. Further, it is a denial of the Nicene Creed, which says that the Church is holy. Lastly, it assumes that there is no possible means by which God might enable the Church to enjoy the exercise of an infallible Magisterium. In order to be successful, B' would have to address these issues (certainly the last two at the very least). Hence the rest of your argument fails to the extent that it depends upon this faulty premise.
Ken,
I obviously share your conviction that the Church is subject to the authority of Scripture rather than the other way around, but I am not quite sure that this thread is the best place to develop that particular argument.
Peace,
Dave writes:
In fact, one might argue that [presuppositionalism] must [abandon argumentation for mere proclamation], insofar as it holds that believer and non-believer hold so little in common that they can scarcely communicate with each other (and incorporating the effect of Total Depravity or the unregenerate state).
I cannot, of course, speak for all presuppositionalists, but the teachers who have influenced me have taken a different approach. They instead emphasis the common ground that the believer has with the unbeliever owing to the unbeliever’s pre-existing knowledge of God as spelled out in Romans 1.
True, unbelievers have suppressed the truth of God in their rebellion against God, as a result of which their foolish hearts are darkened, and (though thinking themselves wise) they have become fools. We are even told that their speculations — their theories & philosophies — have become futile. The unbeliever is thus unable to justify his knowledge-claims. Hence, the unbeliever’s world-view is ripe for destruction.
But the unbeliever still has a knowledge of God: so much that he is “without excuse” in the face of God’s wrath. The unbeliever secretly relies on the knowledge of God when using math, logic, science, language, moral claims, and so on. We have common ground, not neutral ground.
Dave advises:
Take courses on those subjects [logic, science, mathematics, & history] in some school. One doesn’t have to start with Christian presuppositions to learn any of those things.
And here is where we really disagree.
For the presuppositionalist, the fear of Lord is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge, & understanding. Unbelieving men are able to be very good scientists, logicians, mathematicians & historians only because they have an innate knowledge of God that they suppress & deny in self-deception.
Unbelieving world-views cannot justify knowledge claims: they are nothing more than “empty deception” & “futile speculations.”
Peace,
John, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say a man can be a good scientist because of knowledge that he *suppresses*. How would suppression of truth and self-deception help him in any way to be good at anything?
If I know how to drive a car but I suppress that knowledge, then the way that I would have to act is as though I *don't* know how to drive. But if I act like I don't know how to drive, there is no reason for an observer to think that I really do know how to drive.
That's not exactly a superb analogy, I admit, but the point is: if a man suppresses the knowledge that would enable him to be a good scientist, it would seem that what would happen is that he would be a rather poor scientist. On that basis it would seem that presuppositionalism does not adequately account for the fact that unbelievers can be really good at things, and can even live moral lives.
Whoops. I see you answered the question a couple posts above. But this "secretly relying" on knowledge of God... Are you saying that they are duplicitous? Or do you mean "unconsciously relying"?
A bit of both.
The unbeliever unconsciously relies on his knowledge of God, but he has already engaged in self-deception to supress that knowledge. He is like a man who lives in the penthouse of a 50 story building, while denying the first 49 floors. He could know an awful lot about the penthouse, and have a great view of the city, but could he explain how he came to have such a great view?
Peace,
Since the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7) and of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10; Psalm 111:10), those who deny their knowledge of God cannot give an intelligible account for the basis of their knowledge, just as I could not give an intelligible account of my birth if I denied the existence of my mother.
Paul even equates philosophy with “empty deception” when that philosophy is “according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” (Col 2:8,9) Their speculations “futile” — that is, their theories & philosophies are pointless, useless, ineffectual. (Romans 1:21)
Colossians 2:8-10 connects intellectual faithfulness to the deity & authority of Christ. Romans 1:18-23, in a dark reflection, connects the rejection of God’s authority with its replacement by idols and with hearts that are darkened, with futile speculations, and with men “professing to be wise” who become fools.
Peace,
‘It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume within a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity. The lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority…’
~Bertrand Russell
I wrote:
Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.
Dave replies:
This, of course, hinges on what one means by “prove.”
Oddly enough, no, I’m not sure it does. At any rate, I don’t think it is the real point of disagreement.
Dave continues:
I think there are relatively few things that one can absolutely prove. On the other hand, I believe in natural theology, which means that I think there are certain things that all men know intuitively or instinctively or with a properly formed intellect by virtue of logic, that Christians can then build upon in their apologetic.
For Bahnsen, Van Til, & Frame, the question is not whether we can prove anything with absolute certainty. For them, the question is whether unbelieving presuppositions permit one to rationally warrant any claim as even probably true. Their answer is, “No.”
Peace,
Dave,
Please confirm that you hav received the e-mail I sent.
Thanks,
I answered the one I have received thus far (see post currently at the top).
biweekly calculator loan mortgage biweekly calculator loan mortgage biweekly calculator loan mortgage. home mortgage mortgagemavericksonline refinance refinance home mortgage mortgagemavericksonline refinance refinance home mortgage mortgagemavericksonline refinance refinance.
Commenting by HaloScan
