Reformed Epistemology

[Iosias]

Sorry, missed it was about Reformed Epistemology as opposed to Reformed epistemologies. Oops!

This has a helpful assessment of RE on pp. 10-21.

 

[JM]

Thanks folks for trying, unsubscribed.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'll respond to this but then I am out, in my experience it is of little worth debating with presuppositionalists owing to the circularity problem.

I see precisely how "out" you were above...not so much. I find it of little worth debating liberals, especially dishonest ones that will not own up to their presuppositions...or assumptions.

I am unclear what this seeks to establish. Yes sense perception can lead to error, but that demonstrates that our conclusions are

20 of the Greatest Blunders in Science in the Last 20 Years | DiscoverMagazine.com http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/ History of the Philosophy of Science The point is, you are an evidentialist, evidentialism as an all-encompassing methodology is insufficient. You would probably charge at least me with being against Science or anti-Science, but that would hardly be the case. However general revelation can only go so far, without a means of bridging the gap between general revelation and special revelation. But this is only one little aspect of a bigger problem. I can respect the Christian evidentialist who makes it known from the outset that they have presuppositions, that they have a worldview, namely Christianity, and that their arguments come from a Christian worldview, not some generic theism. Further, contrary to what you suppose, Van Tillians are not against evidences, I can quote Van Til to prove it if you like, and others.

You mention philosophy, I am certainly no philosopher and I have much to learn, I generally chime with the phenomenological school represented by Heidegger, hence my being drawn to Tillich.

Everyone is a philosopher on some level, informal or formal, untrained, or trained. Perhaps you should look more into the philosophy of your method.

As I am sure you know, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Not at all, it is a classic example of the "mind/body" problem in philosophy. In fact, when René Descartes famously wrote "I think therefore I am" (in French) he came to the conclusion based on the same type of skepticism. He found he could doubt everything....except his mind with which the doubt came. If you notice the start point for Descartes is "I" (man), his method human reasoning, his ending point "I am" (man). This is pure human autonomy, where man is the authority from beginning to end. For Van Til, it is more like "I think therefore I AM". This is radically different from Descartes. For Van Til, the starting point is Christ, accounting for human reasoning and existence. In other words, human reasoning is dependent upon Christ. This is human theonomy, where man is under the authority of Christ. For more on this I suggest: Does Presuppositionalism Engage in Question-Begging? | Analogical Thoughts

The existence of other minds does not prove the existence of God.

You missed the whole point, "other minds" is a problem in philosophy, specifically secular philosophy rooted in relativism, rejecting objectivism. Making more sense?

Here comes the circularity! In reality, we can begin with the phenomenon of human existence and from this ascertain whether God exists, of course much depends upon one's definition of God.

I spent a couple of years in serious debate with atheists, agnostics, etc. and it is (partially) because I took their arguments and criticisms seriously, that I came to be a Van Tillian. I was not even a Calvinist at the time, and I debated as a rationalist/evidentialist. I thought perhaps someone could be persuaded by the evidence, perhaps I could give an irrefutable argument that would aid in leading someone to Christ, but that did not happen. As far as I know, everyone one of them stuck to their original presuppositions. I realize now, that part of the reason this is so, is because regeneration is monergistic, and because it is the work of God alone, according to God's purpose in election, and because natural man is unable to choose Christ, explains the ineffectiveness of appealing solely to man's intellect or senses, when they are dead in sin like the rest of the man. I have also come to realize the circularity in the authority of Christ (self-attesting, self-authenticating), in the self-authenticating Scripture, and the self-authenticating canon!

"1. Self-authentication. It is essential to remember that the Bible is self-authenticating since its books were breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, the books were canonical the moment they were written. It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true because of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council." J. Hampton Keathley III SOURCE

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include:

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts
Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.