A Small Conversation with Paul M.

Election Cycle 2008 and the Christian

Bret 1

Natures proves it is the purpose or proper function for Mammals to kill their young. Nature tells us that this is normative. Similarly homosexuality is normative as it is clearly the purpose and proper function of nature.

Paul M.

Those aren’t arguments, Bret.

Say’s you Paul M.

I took your requirements for Natural law and put my previous statements in your Natural law arrangement demand. Your saying it is not an argument does not make it not an argument. Now, I’m sure that since it refutes your objection you would consider it not an argument but I’m glad to let the reader decide.

Bret 1

No straw man here Paul. Quite to the contrary what I see you doing is using a straw man to try and rescue natural law as being acceptable.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Sure it is Paul. It is an argument advancing the idea that you didn’t make an argument in your previous post but just an accusation. I took your argument about what Natural law is and I proceeded to show you that what I said could easily fit under your thinking of natural law.

Bret 1

No, but neither was God appealing to Natural law when he said that. The ant provides a proper lesson to those whose epistemic apparatus is working somewhat properly and whose presuppositions are what they ought to be.

Paul

How does the “ant” do that? How would the reasoning go?

That “ant” does that the same way that all the heavens declaring the glory of God does that Paul M. Or are you denying general revelation? Remember all reality points to God. The problem isn’t in the sender but in the receivers. The “ant” is a testimony of God’s reality to all who are not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Let me guess though Paul M. …. that’s not an argument.

Is unbelief not proper function rational?

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/rru.html

So Sudduth disagrees with Plantinga. I’m quite confident that somewhere out there, there is somebody who disagrees with Sudduth and has written a dissertation showing how Sudduth is allegedly wrong just as Sudduth as shown that that Plantinga is allegedly wrong. I didn’t read the whole thing. When I finish my Polanyi I’ll be sure to turn my attention to it. Thanks for the link though. I hear that Sudduth is a smart guy.

So many books … so little time. I’m sure you know the feeling.

Bret 1

However, allow someone to suppress the truth in unrighteousness about ants and the ant could as easily teach them that we should all live in houses made of cones of sand. Proper conclusions about ants will not be arrived at by people who hate God consistently. Telic conclusions are always affected by presuppositional beginning points.

Paul M.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Neither is that Paul M. I think they call that an assertion.

You’re arguing:

1. A
______

2. Therefore A.

And you’re arguing

1.) Not A

_______________

Therefore Not A

Ah, but the difference Paul M. … that with Scripture there is a written objective to appeal to. In Natural law each man interprets what is right in his own eyes.

Really, Bret? This is not an argument, again, Bret.

Oh Darn.

And neither is yours an argument Paul. Once again, I think it is called an assertion.

Bret 1

“When the heretic appeals to scripture wrongly to the law and to the testimony we must go.”

Paul M.

“So. The point is that anyone can cite anything they please, this doesn’t “make it so.” Your changing the goal posts doesn’t avoid the non-sequitur you made.”

I never said that anyone citing anything they please “makes it so.” Do you often put words in people’s mouth Paul M.? I’ve often found when one does that it makes it easier to win the discussion.

I said we go to the law and testimony. From that point let the appeal to Scripture unfold.

And please do provide for me my alleged “non-sequitur” and my “changing of the goal posts” that you asserted but did not argue for.

Bret 1

“However when the Natural law theorist interprets incorrectly … well, what objective standard do I appeal to in order to correct him? Right reason? Surely a Van Tillian wouldn’t go for that idea. Whose right reason?”

Paul M. responds

Typical Van Tillian, confuses questions with arguments.

LOL … Typical philosopher wannabee elitist who started with Van Til and now has “grown beyond” him…. confuses rhetorical questions for not being arguments.

By the way you didn’t answer the argument caught up in the rhetorical question. Clever move.

Paul M.

Should I respond, “whose interpretation of Scripture?” The heretics? Yours? Surely the “Van Tilian” hasn’t just been hoisted by his own petard, has he?

Whose asking questions now? Should I snort at you and say … “Typical elitist philosopher wannabee, confuses questions for arguments?

Still, unlike you, I’ll provide an answer. Maybe this will compel you to answer my earlier question.

The interpretation that most consistently aligns with all of Scripture and itself grows out of Scripture. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority found in a true interpretation of God’s Word, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

What are you arguing? Are you arguing that all there is, is interpretation? How po-mo of you. Or are you arguing that fallen man can start with fallen reason and interpret general revelation aright to the point of being able to construct God honoring cultures?

In terms of petard hoisting … well, you’ll have to explain more clearly, as opposed to asserting, that Van Til has been hoisted upon his own petard. I know that is a common accusation but I’d like to see you flesh it out all the same.

“Paul M>

Of course, what Scripture affirms is objective, same with natural law. but you’re confusing our interpretation with the thing-in-itself.

No, I’m not. I fully recognize that natural law is itself objective. I also fully recognize that the fallen man coming to natural law has an agenda that is informing him not to read the objective natural law aright. However, unlike with Scripture, when the fallen man interprets Natural law in a bent fashion, there is nothing I can check his bent interpretation against. There is no “law and testimony” to repair to in order to dispute with the kind of natural law interpretation that the Nazi’s appealed to, for example.

Now, should we take what sounds to be the implications of your positions then all we have is the interpretation since it seems to be the case that you have given us the Kantian problem of never being able to get to the “thing-in-itself, as located in the Noumenal realm.” But if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” then how could we even have an interpretation of the “thing-in-itself?” Indeed, if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” how do we know there is a “thing-in-itself” to get to in order to interpret wrongly?

Sorry…. more of those questions.

Paul M.

“You acted as if natural law means “go outside and look at nature” and you act as if simply quoting Van Til has some of sanctifying effects that works ex opere operato.

Says you. Who is Paul M. that I should be mindful of his assertions?

But let’s cut to the chase in all this Paul.

One man says: “God says that it is sin to murder.”

Another man says “Natural Law says it’s wrong to murder.”

2 Observations:

* I know God has authority over my life and I know that HE can cast me into Hell for transgressing HIS law. Natural Law cannot send me to hell because it has no power or authority. In fact, not even special revelation law can send me to Hell. Law has no authority. Only The law Giver does.

* Universals Laws, whether natural or special cannot be justified apart from an appeal to God’s special revelation. Paul, if you think thinks otherwise, demonstrate it! It looks to me that your making law, not the law giver, to be your final authority. In short, you’re deifying law.

Thanks to RD for offering the last section of this response.