[...] Read full article here. [...]

[...] wanna-be … Here are two links with helpful information. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org…http://www.reclaimingthemind.org…Insert a dynamic date hereView All 0 CommentsCannot add comment at this [...]

Hodge,

Going back to the cave analogy, I would evaluate the evidence using reason and logic. What would be my assumptions? I would assume that my senses do not deceive me and that my reasoning capabilities are adequate to analyze the data. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that people are born with a presupposition about the whether something exists outside of the cave or not and they cannot listen to any argument that disconfirms that presupposition.

I appreciate your honesty in recognizing that consistent Calvinism does not allow one to have assurance that they are going to persevere. Most, I know, will not admit such.

While, I don’t think NOW that there was a genuine object for my faith when I believed, I did at the time and I believed that my faith was a supernatural gift. If you had asked me 20 years ago, I would have been just as adamant about the genuineness of my faith as you are today.

“You say that my faith was not genuine. How do you know that yours is genuine? Could it be that some day Hodge might turn from the faith?”

1. We both say your faith was not genuine. Faith in Christian theology is supernaturally given and perseveres. You don’t believe you were given a supernatural faith that perseveres, and I don’t believe you were given a supernatural faith that perseveres. We both agree on this, as I showed before.

2. There is nothing to say that I might not turn from faith. I don’t know the secret will of God and His decree. As Calvin could not answer this question, i.e., whether or not he would believe in the future, neither can I. I can only seek to pursue God with all of my mind, soul, and strength, and trust in His promises while I believe He gives me the desire and power to do so. Only with God are these things certain. I can only trust in what I know today.

“I could have a hunch as to who was right or wrong in advance but I could also let the evidence persuade me. I have often gone in to a situation believing something was one way and then found out it was really the other way.”

I think you’re confusing primary and secondary beliefs here. That’s why you have not yet answered my question: By what belief are you measuring other beliefs, and how is that measuring stick, if you don’t think it is a mere belief, absent of an ultimate belief? I’m not simply talking about bias in the sense that you may have a hunch as to what is true. I’m talking about what is permissible to consider and what belief may ultimately bring about a particular conclusion.
If the elders believe all that exists is inside the cave, then saying that there is something outside of it is a priori to be rejected. If the elders say there is nothing outside the cave because only what is inside the cave exists, they are presupposing their conclusion. If you simply say, “Well, I’m going to listen to both sides and evaluate which one has the best argument,” with what beliefs are you evaluating it? With philosophic naturalistic presupps that will ultimately bring you to conclude as the elders after a long drawn out discussion?

“I think my claim is clearly demonstrated by the examples of millions of people. ”

Doing what? I said people can change their beliefs in ultimate matters (i.e., the nature of reality), but it is a shift in belief, not a matter of evidence. I said evidence doesn’t change their beliefs in ultimate matters. In fact, they’re assuming a philosophical system by needing physical evidence in order to believe that a particular reality is true. It cannot be escaped.

Hodge,

Going back to the cave. I could have a hunch as to who was right or wrong in advance but I could also let the evidence persuade me. I have often gone in to a situation believing something was one way and then found out it was really the other way.

I know you don’t think one can change their belief about ultmate matters but I think they can and I think my claim is clearly demonstrated by the examples of millions of people.

As for fundamentalism, the term obviously has evolved. It carries much more baggage today than it did in Van Til’s day. When I call myself a former fundamentalist, I am using the term in the historical sense. BTW, I was a Calvinist and a presupp. when I was a Christian.

You say that my faith was not genuine. How do you know that yours is genuine? Could it be that some day Hodge might turn from the faith?

continued…

The difference is our definition of the term Christian, but we agree on the concepts. You, because you don’t believe God exists and there was ever a supernatural Christ with whom to have a relationship, and me, because I believe the Bible when it discusses the nature of the Christian’s conversion and perseverance.

“Third, I cannot go into all the evidence here that changed my mind. I do have a blog devoted to that subject and no, I don’t claim to be transcendent nor do I claim pure objectivity but I do think that one can imagine that another worldview is correct long enough to examine its arguments and its coherency and then compare that to one’s existing worldview.”

We just disagree here. I would suggest taking some intense Philosophy of Religion and Epistemology courses. I really think there is no disagreement on a theoretical level, but your problem is that you don’t seem to apply that theory in practice of your methodology of inquiry. I’ve been on your website, and the people you champion all seem to have the same problem, which is why I think we live in a scientific age with a very unscientific mindset. You may try to throw off your own worldview, but that to me is not possible. I’d like to see how that works out. I guarantee the former worldview remains in the analysis of the new worldview and whether it is internally consistent; but we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

“I think you are wrong in your attempt to psychoanalyze me.”

Ken, this is too predictable. I knew you would respond with this. My analysis is academic and observational. You ought to like that. I’m psychoanalyzing culture and belief. You are but one of all. It’s nothing personal.

“First, I would consider Van Til a fundamentalist along with all of the original founders of Westminster Seminary. I know they didn’t want to use the title but they were certainly separatists and they certainly agreed with the Fundamentalists on the core doctrines of Christianity.”

They also breath like fundamentalists too. Sharing certain characteristics with a group does not make you that group. Even though some of them would call themselves fundamentalists because of their defense of core orthodox doctrines, this is not what the term primarily means today.

“Second, I realize that your theology demands that you say I was never “truly” a Christian but I think here again you are prejudicing your conclusion in advance. Your presupposed theology will not allow you to interpret my experience any other way.”

Actually, we both agree on this conclusion. I’ll show you:

Hodge: You were never a Christian (i.e., someone regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God to supernaturally believe and be transformed into the image of Christ for all eternity), but were merely someone who naturally believed and became a part of a social group, believing through natural means, but having no real relationship with God, even though you were convinced naturally that you did.

Ken: I was a Christian (i.e., someone who naturally believed and became a part of a social group, believing through natural means, but having no real relationship with God, even though I was convinced naturally that I did), but was not regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God to supernaturally believe and be transformed into the image of Christ for all eternity.

The difference is in our definition of Christian,…

“What I think would be wrong to do is to presuppose in advance that either those who have heard the voice are correct or those who deny the voice are correct. If I do that, then I have prejudiced my conclusion. That, to me, is the error of Van Tillian presuppositionalism.”

The funny thing is that to me this is the vindication of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. You just described having no prejudice toward one view of the other; but your view of reality, i.e., whether all that exists is the cave itself, and hence, any suggestion of a person and world outside of it is absurd a priori. or whether reality is made up of both that which is inside and outside of the cave, a priori believing the possibility of the reports non-absurdity. I think we’ve established, Ken, what I said before. Your tipping of the hat to presupps is only theoretical. You do believe that people are objective, and those people are naturalistic empiricists. Hence, they need to evaluate the evidence of the report. With what are they evaluating it? By what measuring stick to ensure its possibility and validity? That’s my question.

Hodge,

I think you are wrong in your attempt to psychoanalyze me. First, I would consider Van Til a fundamentalist along with all of the original founders of Westminster Seminary. I know they didn’t want to use the title but they were certainly separatists and they certainly agreed with the Fundamentalists on the core doctrines of Christianity.

Second, I realize that your theology demands that you say I was never “truly” a Christian but I think here again you are prejudicing your conclusion in advance. Your presupposed theology will not allow you to interpret my experience any other way.

Third, I cannot go into all the evidence here that changed my mind. I do have a blog devoted to that subject and no, I don’t claim to be transcendent nor do I claim pure objectivity but I do think that one can imagine that another worldview is correct long enough to examine its arguments and its coherency and then compare that to one’s existing worldview.