tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post3198980199377776065..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: What is the Reason You Believe?Randy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-15109776040120531092013-11-24T23:50:39.605-05:002013-11-24T23:50:39.605-05:00Thanks :)
To your question about necessary and su...Thanks :)<br /><br />To your question about necessary and sufficient conditions, this article basically addresses whether arguments and evidence are needed with respect to rationality. My contention, along with reformed epistemology, is that arguments and evidence are not necessary conditions for rationality. This is because the believer can be rational even in the absence of such arguments/evidence. Now, are arguments/evidences sufficient for rationality? Surely they are, but they're redundant.<br /><br />Now, you ask, how do we reconcile the presence of arguments/evidence with the idea of regeneration by the Holy Spirit? Well, regeneration occurs in salvation as a logically-oriented response to our conversion to Christ in repentance and faith. So, WLC is right to say arguments don't save; the Spirit convicts, the person responds in faith, and the Spirit regenerates. But suppose that a person has intellectual obstacles in his way? Or suppose that the means the Spirit uses to convict the person of the truth of Christianity is, at least in part, arguments and evidence? So while arguments/evidence are not salvific, they can serve some purposes as tools. I hope that makes sense.<br /><br />PS--WLC would not say that arguments/evidence are contrary to the Spirit's work in salvation! He just agrees that arguments are not necessary for salvation and that they do not save. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-49615012628071072532013-11-24T11:09:56.447-05:002013-11-24T11:09:56.447-05:00I've always defended Christianity against thes...I've always defended Christianity against these sort of objections the sort of way you do in your post (except I don't use Plnatinga's reformed epistemology since I don't fully understand it enough to explain it to others!), but doesn't it then sound contrary to the idea of regeneration by the holy spirit? That ultimately, it is not the arguments that converts the person, but the holy spirit.<br /><br />I hear these things from many theologians and even evidentialist apologists like WLC himself! how do you reconcile the two? <br /><br />I'm thinking along the lines of necessary and sufficient causation perhaps... Decnoreply@blogger.com