tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post6320355754991960472..comments2023-10-25T02:18:43.690-07:00Comments on Contend Earnestly: Apologetics to the Glory of GodSeth McBeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-2550247226236026102008-12-13T17:20:00.000-08:002008-12-13T17:20:00.000-08:00Great Book. You'll want to get his "Doctrine of t...Great Book. You'll want to get his "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" next.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-84365253028307856622008-12-10T14:55:00.000-08:002008-12-10T14:55:00.000-08:00As far as metaphysics, everything that Schaeffer, ...<I>As far as metaphysics, everything that Schaeffer, Frame, et al would say is that metaphysics is the study of being and ontology would then be a part of that corresponding study.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why they'd say that, Seth. Maybe you misunderstood?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answers.com/metaphysics" REL="nofollow">Metaphysics</A> is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature and ultimate structure and constitution of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answers.com/ontology" REL="nofollow">Ontology</A> is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.<BR/><BR/>There's obviously some overlap; ontology is metaphysics—but metaphysics is not just ontology.<BR/><BR/><I>I believe that as a believer I can rest on the notion that it is all for God's glory and be satisfied, but I believe that answer is found wanting by skeptics. So, although I would tell the skeptic my beliefs on the subject I would understand if they said that it was an insufficient answer for our finite minds.</I><BR/><BR/>Oddly, I haven't actually engaged skeptics on the problem of evil all that much. I think it's the most overrated objection to Christianity ever, to be honest. But I have butted heads a few times with the infamous John Loftus, whose atheist fiddle is fitted with just one string (the POE string), and he basically won't touch the Reformed answer because there is no way to mount a successful skeptical response. He just says that it's barbaric and that Reformed theology creates atheists because it's so horrible, and refuses to present any actual argumentation. So I think that although the Reformed answer isn't one that skeptics <EM>like</EM>, it is one which they cannot successfully refute or undermine or reject.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/god-and-goodness-a-reply-to-victor-reppert/" REL="nofollow">I've also argued the Reformed answer to the problem of evil against libertarian Christian philosopher Victor Reppert</A>, with the result that his objections effectively died the death of a thousand qualifications. So whether we're addressing atheist skeptics, or Christian skeptics, the Reformed answer is successful, and does constitute a sufficient answer. It just doesn't constitute an answer which many people <EM>like</EM> or want to agree with.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>BnonnDominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-30819182577092834802008-12-10T14:33:00.000-08:002008-12-10T14:33:00.000-08:00Hey Dom. As far as metaphysics, everything that Sc...Hey Dom. <BR/><BR/>As far as metaphysics, everything that Schaeffer, Frame, et al would say is that metaphysics is the study of being and ontology would then be a part of that corresponding study. <BR/><BR/>As far as the part on evil. You would probably agree with Jay Adams on this point. I would tend to agree with Frame on this as a general answer by saying "God's glory" although true, does not give the questioner the exact answer or the answer in its entirety. Frame continues to beg the question of "why?" where Adams would say that is like being a little kid who follows up every answer from their parent with a "why?" <BR/><BR/>I get where you are coming from, and ultimately where Adams is coming from. I believe that as a believer I can rest on the notion that it is all for God's glory and be satisfied, but I believe that answer is found wanting by skeptics. So, although I would tell the skeptic my beliefs on the subject I would understand if they said that it was an insufficient answer for our finite minds.Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-27201742013585544992008-12-10T14:02:00.000-08:002008-12-10T14:02:00.000-08:00Hey Seth. Thanks for the review. Frame has his fla...Hey Seth. Thanks for the review. Frame has his flaws, but I agree that he's a top apologist of our day.<BR/><BR/><I>He, like Schaeffer and many others, points to the metaphysical (the study of being), epistimology (the study of knowledge) and ethics.</I><BR/><BR/>Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality. The study of being is ontology (:<BR/><BR/><I>I do like his honest answer in the end to evil though. He simply says that we can give some explanation to evil, but we really don't know the entirety of the answer of why there is evil.</I><BR/><BR/>What does he mean by "know the entirety"? Is he referring to an exhaustive knowledge of God's plan, or to the answer in principle? If the former, that's a fairly trivial statement. Obviously we very seldom know why any particular evil occurs. But if the latter, I'd have to disagree. We know very well why there is evil in general. We can know the answer in entirety, because it is given us: for the glory of God. That's the entire answer. We don't know the details of the answer, necessarily (ie, how does this or that particular instance of evil glorify God); but we certainly know the answer, in principle, in its entirety.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>BnonnDominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.com