#covenantal

The three pillars of the New Perspective on Paul are as follows according to Lee Irons who wrote a blog post for Logos on May 28th of 2019 (which appears to be no longer available). However, Thomas Schreiner wrote a powerful review of Irons’ dissertation on The Gospel Coalition’s website (click here for that). 1.) E.P. Sander’s revised view of Judaism as a non-legalistic pattern of religion…

Of all the academic issues that have surfaced of recent history, few have taken root as firmly as this one, in my humble estimation. I can also think of the controversy surrounding the literature of Genesis 1 as equally significant (although dating back further), but this New Perspective on Paul was huge when I first started my undergraduate degree in 2004. The seminarians were into this topic,…

State Church Traditions: we renounce “Christendom” so we can Converge the 3 streams of Christianity

Anti-State Church Traditions: yay, we finally won them over!

SCT: *snicker & rub hands together* we’ve seen this before with the (Ana)Baptists in England, 1646. https://t.co/pyCW7iJH6z

— Lamb’s Harbinger (@LambsHarbinger) June 6, 2020

The arguments led to the London Baptist Confession https://t…

Walter Brueggemann: ‘Sabbath as resistance / Saying NO to the culture of NOW’

Christians take Scripture to be the ultimate divine authority of all matters of faith and reason. Therefore, a Christian apologetic for God’s existence is only feasible if Scripturally commanded or non-contradictory to it. On examination, Scripture does advocate some notion of argument for God’s existence. Peter exhorts Christians to “never hesitate to give a reason for the hope that is in you” while Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill does seem apologetically relevant. However, biblical history shows that the existence of God is always presupposed rather than something argued for; “in the beginning God…”. Even Paul’s Areopagus appeal argues that the people contain some idea of an “unknown” God. Christians therefore should not argue for the existence of God but appeal to the God whom all men know.

            Christians should not argue that God can exist which places God as a possibility, based on the strength of the argument or evidence. In doing so, an unbeliever likewise is able to argue back against God’s existence, as though evidence could be both ways, and that he is capable of interpreting it and arguing the non-existence of God. That is, arguing for the existence of God appeals to the hearer’s judgment. How do we judge who is right or wrong based on two different subjective worldviews? Yet if Romans is correct, then our judgment is incapable of correct judgment without common grace, being darkened in its thoughts. Both non-believer and believer are using God’s reality to debate his existence.

            One ought to presuppose the existence of God and argue for the necessity of God; his certainty and the impossibility of the contrary. Scripture demands it ethically. Moreover, necessity entails existence. From the Christian view, if God does exist, has revealed himself as Lord over all, and places a sensus divinitatis in each individual human, then there is no arguing for God’s existence from a human foundation or start “from scratch”. To do so is to assume revelation is not clear enough both to the believer or the unbeliever; it denies that all know God. The true problem is that each individual’s thinking has been darkened and seeks to suppress the truth of God, to the point of denial of his existence. However, this denial is not a matter of argument or evidence but sin.

            A Christian should argue not just for the universality, necessity and certainty of God but also the whole of Christian theism as able to adequately provide a justification of all reality, ethics and knowledge. On the other hand, it is not just that Christianity is justifiable but that the contrary is unintelligible. It is the most concise philosophical position. Christianity must be demonstrated to be the only rational and true position because God’s creation and character can allow no other conception of reality or reality. It is more than irrational, it is metaphysically impossible and Scripturally false.

            Drawing from Kant, Christians should use the existence of God not as an argument but as a precondition for knowledge and reality. Since reality and knowledge metaphysically exists, God does. Unbelievers lack epistemological self-consciousness which means while many of their beliefs draw from a Christian worldview inevitably, they are unaware of it. When prompted they will suppress such truth yet will be unable to provide adequate justification for such beliefs without circular reasoning. A Christian should prompt unbelievers to be epistemologically self-conscious. As the unbeliever seeks to draw from God and yet suppress him ultimately results in an irrational-rational dialectic. The Christian should argue ad hominem exposing the unbeliever to the absurdity of his thinking based on his own assumptions and the only resolution in the Christian presupposition. The inability to interpret factual evidence correctly and justify it should be exposed and part of the way to repentance.

            Lastly, as the Fall shows that we are depraved epistemologically yet retain God’s image metaphysically, Christians should appeal to the metaphysical conscience and the person’s nature of being, the fact of his existence as due to God’s. They know God exists but have broken his law. The appeal must be to the depravity of humans and their inability to interpret right from wrong by suppressing God leading to their need for repentance and regeneration. Apologetics thus goes hand in hand with the gospel. Therefore, the argument for God’s existence is not knowledge of it, but rather an appeal to a person’s a priori and precondition for existence. However, care must be taken to appeal to the area of capacity (based on the situation) that needs God in order to be intelligible and justified. For Christians struggling with God’s existence, God’s existence can be reassured using fideist or evidential approaches due to the in-working of the Holy Spirit.