Passing thoughts

I was watching a conversation between a Clarkian and a Classical apologist arguing with one another. The conversation turned to the Clarkian buffoonery of rejecting metaphysics. he admitted openly that he is an Idealist and the moderator agreed with that position appealing to Eastern Orthodox view of panentheism( with his appeal to the essence/energy distinction). It reminded me of when I was flirting with those ideas. Those are incompatible. If idealism is true, then physical death is an illusion, the Incarnation is an illusion, the Resurrection is an illusion, &c. If, moreover, God is timeless, and God is the source of … Continue reading Passing thoughts

Is Christianity possibly false?

The usual objection to the Christain transcendental argument is the notion that other worldviews are possibly true. There is an infinite set of worldviews according to them. That has force if we start with a view where possibilities are brute facts. The problem is that presupposes that Christianity is false. In Christianity, the facts of possibility are God’s facts. The Reformed view of Modality is thus: The finite mind cannot thus, if we are to reason theistically, be made the standard of what is possible and what is impossible. It is the divine mind that is determinative of the possible. We conclude … Continue reading Is Christianity possibly false?

Flowosopher

I recently was listening to Dr. Flowers on his podcast talk about the issue of Omniscience and Determinism. This is just another video where Leighton finds a popular Calvinist to refute. These Calvinist are usually the same group of guys( Piper, Sproul, Mohler, MacArthur). He considers these the heavyweights of Calvinism. He usually goes after those that aren’t that philosophically trained with his more philosophical objections. These men are theologians and not really experts on philosophical theology. Why doesn’t he respond to the works of Paul Manata, Dr. Greg Welty, Dr. James Anderson, Dr. Paul Helm, or Dr. John Frame? … Continue reading Flowosopher

Natural and Free Knowledge

God’s Knowledge: In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could … Continue reading Natural and Free Knowledge

Libertarian Fatalist

Over on BTWN, a woman challenged me on the issue of Libertarian Freewill vs Determinism. Here is that conversation: Linda Johnson, I think you have missed my point about how events are interrelated with one another. The point isn’t whether God can determine such events. The point is whether God can determine events in isolations from other events in a timeline. It is actually ironic that you have been espousing a sort of fatalism. You make end events irrelevant to the events in between that bring it about. This is because you are isolating events from their historical setting that … Continue reading Libertarian Fatalist

Determinism and Skepticism

It is sometimes stated that Determinism entails skepticism. That is presented by certain libertarians to undermine one’s confidence in Calvinism. It seems that they have a problem with accidental beliefs. Here was the response of Hays to Spencer Toy on this problem: Spencer Toy said: As William Lane Craig has stated, once a person embraces determinism of any sort a strange vertigo sets in. One very well may believe true things, but only because they’ve already been determined to believe those things just as much as their opponents have been determined to believe false things. In such a system, nothing can be … Continue reading Determinism and Skepticism

Ye are gods

I wasn’t going to comment on the Leighton Flowers free will debate but I didn’t expect him to say the things he did. Overall the debate was a train wreck; both sides were trying to preach rather than debate. I wanted, however, to comment on two things I noticed in the debate. First, Dr. Flowers said the following in his closing statements: We say people make determinations in the same mysterious way God chose to create “ex nihlio [sic]”: he created something from nothing. We can’t explain exactly how he does that; nobody can explain how God creates something from … Continue reading Ye are gods

“Start with”

Atheist use to present to me the problem of starting points. They use to argue that we must start with ourselves or we must start with logic. That is because if we start anywhere else we would enter incoherence. You would have Christianity without logic and you wouldn’t know Christianity was your starting point because you didn’t know that you exist. The Christian says that he starts with God. How could he start with God at the expense of your own existence and laws of logic? The issue with this criticisms is that they confuse what is meant by “start … Continue reading “Start with”