Calvin and Thomas
agnosticism, apologetic method, atheism, Calvinist, classical, clbolt, common objections, Covenantal Apologetics, evidence, evidentialism, John Calvin, method, presup, Presuppositional Apologetics, presuppositionalism, revelation, Scripture, TAG, Theology, Thomas Aquinas, Thomist, traditional, worldview
– John Calvin, Institutes, Book 1 Chapter 1
A comment from Watty reads, “The jump to asserting Christianity is correct is immensely larger than the jump asserting the existence of any God.”
The “jump”? The jump from what? Watty is immensely confused. But he is new to the site, so it is to be expected.
We are not Thomists here. We do not argue from some ultimate interpretive principle outside of our worldview to the existence of a generic god discoverable through unaided fallen human reasoning.
We are Calvinists here. We argue from the ultimate interpretive principle inside of our worldview to the foolishness of unaided fallen human reasoning.
The Christian God in particular is our ultimate interpretive principle. He is the absolute authority who has revealed Himself to us. We evaluate evidence in virtue of our Christian presuppositions. We do not argue to God. We begin our argument with Him.
You will object that there is something unconscionable about us presupposing the existence of God. I reply that it is no more unconscionable than your presupposing the opposite.
You will respond that the reason you do not believe in God is because there is no evidence for His existence. I reply that when you make the aforementioned claim, you merely assume your position for the sake of arguing for your position.
Your ultimate interpretive principle requires you to believe that there is no evidence for God. Our ultimate interpretive principle requires us to believe that the evidence for God is abundant and plain.
When you complain that the “jump” to God is too far, you take out the Thomists, and leave us standing.
When you complain that the evidence is not extraordinary, you opine according to your own presuppositions, and leave us alone.
The way you present your objections is a bit like coming down hard on someone for driving on the left hand side of the road without taking into account that he’s in England.