Peripatetic 9 – Fristianity Style Counters

Some people think Fristianity is a “Silver Bullet” objection to Covenantal Apologetics. Are they correct?


27 Comments

Peter O

RK I agree that Fristianity as a conceivable worldview isn’t possible because it isn’t actual or stipulated as actual.

But what about the other worldview postulated by Byron called the Boise Bible

In that worldview it seemed as though he was suggesting that could be actual. In other words a real prophet comes speaks a Quadrinity that is very similar to CT but has a Four Person Godhead and this prophet writes down this revelation. Also claiming this is the True God since beginning and everyone knows him.

Matthias McMahon

I hope RK doesn’t mind my replying to you here, but I would say it doesn’t make a difference whether or not a worldview is stipulated as being inactual or actual. The very fact that it’s stipulated, period, speaks of the conjectural nature of the worldview. Granted, this doesn’t touch on the particular facts the worldview may entail, but it doesn’t need to.

I’m curious though, where does Byron offer this worldview?

Peter O

In his early stages of Fristianity it was originally Boise Bible prophet but morphed to its current version. It is early in the Van Til List but don’t have time track it down.

There is a difference though if its actual or stipulated because if you have two worldviews that can account for Knowledge how do you decide between the two. His “where are you standing”is now answered I am standing on my Boise Bible so that critique is what he is trying to get around. So that’s why I asked how you would respond to the Boise bible. How would you respond?

Matthias McMahon

If the Boise Bible worldview is stipulated upon the Christian worldview by its very nature and conception, then we cannot pretend that it is a standalone worldview and ignore the stipulation, at least not without stepping off of Christianity. If we’re standing on Christianity, there is no need to treat BB as “actual” even if it presents itself as being “actual.” This is partly why I was curious where this view comes from, because I want to see whether this is a belief people actually hold, or if it is in fact merely a hypothetical worldview stipulated upon Christian Theism, not that it would make a huge difference either way.

The difficulty of “deciding between the two” is not a difficulty Christians are faced with. I don’t think I’m way off in saying that. Holding that there are “two [contrary, or otherwise not equivalent] worldviews that account for knowledge” is not something a Christian can do, because our use of “account” carries the ideas of both “consistency” and “sufficiency.” Were I attempting to demonstrate this to the unbeliever, I’d draw out the consistencies via typical internal critique. Without letting go of my own ground. Does that make sense?

Matthias

B.C. Askins

“If we’re standing on Christianity, there is no need to treat BB as “actual” even if it presents itself as being “actual.””
Why not?

“Were I attempting to demonstrate this to the unbeliever, I’d draw out the (in?)consistencies via typical internal critique. Without letting go of my own ground.”
What are the internal inconsistencies of Fristianity/BB? I’ve still not seen anyone accomplish this reductio…

RazorsKiss

Why not? We’ve brought this out at least a half-dozen times to my knowledge. First, because nobody knows what it is. Second, because nobody can know what it is. Third, because it can’t be “equal” to Christianity for reasons 1, 2, and because it has no actual content from which to ever consider it actual. Fourth, because those who advance it say it’s not actual. If someone wanted to advance it as actual, I’d say “show me the money” – as we have done previously.

Maybe you haven’t seen anyone “accomplish” a reductio of Fristianity because it’s not actually composed of anything, and nobody knows what it is? What are you, specifically, supposed to “reduce”? It’s the argumentative equal of “uh huh”! Why anyone takes this seriously *as* an argument, I really don’t know 🙂 The inconsistency is found in the fact that it doesn’t exist, can’t be known, isn’t known, and has no referent to anything. So now you’ve seen it – and it’s pretty absurd.

Matthias McMahon

Oh, hey RazorsKiss 🙂

Matthias McMahon

Hey Ben,

This may be a case of my sounding more confident in writing than I would were I to read it aloud, as I feel at this point I’ve bitten off a bit more than I can chew. But I’ll give it my best shot.

The reason I don’t consider any non-Christianity worldview to be “actual” is that I’m standing on Christianity, which entails – if it doesn’t state outright – that only Christianity is true. (I don’t think I’m mistaken in saying this, but while we don’t reason from evidence to God, neither do we reason from the apparent non-contradiction of a worldview to God.) Therefore it is the only actual, and therefore only possible, worldview. Incidentally, I don’t find “conceivable” to entail “possible.” It makes little difference whether it is either a Christian offering this worldview as merely a hypothetical or a non-Christian offering his own worldview, since it was formulated (like FSM) to mirror Christianity in particular, and so is predicated rather blatantly upon Christianity.

The inconsistencies I would attempt to draw out, now that I think about it, would have mainly to do with its origin. Since it attempts to mirror Christianity, it would be nigh impossible to draw out a contradiction from within without reference to its origin (as that would be similar to finding inconsistency within Christianity itself). I can’t recall who, but someone a while ago likened it to Islam, in that it recognizes the Christian Scriptures as vital, and yet the Quran contradicts them in places. That comparison fails at a certain point because Fristianity may not teach as a matter of doctrine that the Christian Scriptures are a source of Fristian doctrine, and so perhaps it’s not quite an internal critique. Fristianity/BB holds to a Quadrinity, while simultaneously attempting to mirror the Christian Scriptures which teach a triune God. I suppose I would have to point, once again, to the hypothetical nature of Fristianity’s conception and origin.

Not too long ago there was a conversation on the site where someone attempted to offer a mirror-type objection like this, but the only thing he changed was God’s name to “Steve.” The only appropriate response I could come up with was to tell him to stop calling God names 🙂

This may be a little more response than you were looking for. It’s a little more than I thought I would give, partly because this is really my first attempt to articulate my position on this. Hopefully this has been more helpful than not.

Regards,
Matthias

B.C. Askins

I know we’re both thoroughly familiar with VanTil’s method, but so as to bring this to the forefront of the discussion for all parties (and *not* to be patronizing to you), his Pr 26:4-5 “two-step apologetic method” is applied by [1] demonstrating the coherence of the Christian worldview in a particular instance, and [2] reducing a token (i.e. atheism, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) of the typical anti-Christian worldview to absurdity, often via retortion.

The Fristianity objection is calculated to consider the assertion of the Trinity as the resolution of the “one-and-many problem,” in consideration of the strong modal claim in Greg Bahnsen’s formulation of a transcendental argument (i.e. “God is the *necessary* precondition for X” where X is some moral, metaphysical or epistemic given.).

So step [1] with respect to Fristianity would require presenting reasons why a trinitarian worldview is coherent – with particular reference to distinguishing it from quadrinitarianism (i.e. the aforementioned reasons must be available to the trinitarian in a way which is not available to the quadrinitarian). I haven’t seen anyone do this and I can’t think of any way to do it myself (or I would just present that for consideration).

Step [2] would mean running a reductio on quadrinitarianism. Contrary to your assertions, it does exist (as a postulate), it can be known and is known (it’s content is historical Christian orthodoxy + a mysterious fourth member of the classical Trinity, jocularly dubbed “Fred”), and its referent is the postulate outlined above. It’s not absurd. Your reductio is merely criticizing a postulate for being a postulate – which is no criticism at all. Like Step [1] above, I haven’t seen anyone present a reductio and I can’t think of any way to do it myself.

Which is a significant reason why I “attenuate” my VanTilianism and have dropped Bahnsen’s strong modal claims from my apologetic. 😉

RazorsKiss

The problem with it being a postulate – as I’ve mentioned many times before – is that it is NOT LIKE Christianity – which is it’s claim – to be *like Christianity in every respect, save for a fourth person in the godhead*. It is not revelatory however, and cannot be found anywhere in revelation. This is why I repeatedly point out that TAG is not enough – “it’s the theology, stupid”, etc. There is no *actual* content – there is no revelation. It is postulated “what if there were” – but there is not such a thing, in actuality. This is what I’ve talked about several times, and referred to – it’s also in the podcast that is contained in the post you’re commenting on, as well. Saying “well, it’s postulated *that* what if there are 4 members in the godhead” is all well and good – but the question remains – where’s the beef? You’re either arguing from Christianity, which has a revealed 3-person Godhead, or you’re arguing from not-Christianity, which has a not-3-person, not-revealed whatever it is they substitute for the Triune God of Scripture – at which point I ask for your beef 🙂 My reductio is criticizing it for promising more than it delivers – a “god just like that of Scripture” – but it has no Scripture, no revelation, and nothing even resembling the God we know from Scripture and from general revelation. It exists as a postulate – that’s great; so what – and makes the claim that it is “just like Christianity, except with an additional person” – where do you have this revealed? This is part and parcel of *Van Til* – if not of what passes for Van Til with pop presup. Only in pop presup *could* this even taken to be a serious objection. It’s a bare postulate, and nothing more. It lacks any reference or any possibility of reference to theology, because it is non-revelatory by it’s very definition. As such, it is not “just like” Christianity, and cannot ever be – because it is not revelatory. Note that what I always say is that I presuppose the Triune God *of Scripture*. A bare postulate cannot be “of Scripture” – and even with the “Boise Bible,” is only a postulated bible, not the real McCoy. It’s a paper tiger that imo only appeals to philosophy, and ignores theology altogether. So, given that I have run step 1 and step 2, showed that it can’t be what it claims to be – I think I did indeed meet the qualifications – and don’t need to do much else. Don’t you think?

Peter Ochoa

To add something on to what RK Is saying which I have discussed before with CH in channel.

B.C. Askins what you are suggesting I would argue has a great difficulty. First like the podcast said ifs not actual then you are actually standing on CT which causes internal contradiction.

So you must say its actual. If its actual it cant be what you are saying because Historical CT the canon is closed. So you can’t just actually add one member to CT revelation. It would require more revelation to CT but canon is closed so internal contradiction.

Therefore Byron mentioned that Boise Bible which was modern day prophet which may have been/become a fristianity type prophet with actual revelation.

Also Mathias McMahon, you said CT is the only actual therefore only possible worldview. This is an external critique. That is exactly what BB is arguing that CT isn’t the only one there is another actual.

God bless
Peter

Matthias McMahon

Peter, I should have asked this to begin with, but what is being meant by “actual”?

Also, (to anyone) what exactly is Fristianity? Is it Christianity + more revelation, as in, does it take Christianity for granted like Islam purports to? Or is it offered ground-up non-Christianity, engineered to mirror Christianity in every way but one? Since origins of the worldview are just as much parts of the worldview itself as the individual beliefs the worldview entails, I really can’t find any reason to regard it on its own, especially when it intentionally mimics Christianity, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster does.

Genuine question: are we required to follow through with a thorough critique even if the foundation is found lacking?

RazorsKiss, this may be a subject for a future Point of Contact. Real-time discussion would be pretty helpful here. Perhaps we might invite a couple “outsiders” for a “friendly” discussion 🙂 Also, I “like” to use quotes.

Matthias

B.C. Askins

“…Don’t you think?”

I don’t. 🙂

As I outlined above, you must deal with the postulate *as it is postulated,* not as “actual” (to use your terms). Every time you’ve predicated something regarding the Fristianity postulate in your comment above you’ve simply asserted a contradiction of the postulate as such (i.e. “it is NOT like Christianity,” “it is not revelatory,” etc.). But that’s not a defense of trinitarianism against quadrinitarianism (Step [1]) or a reductio of quadrinitarianism (Step [2]). It’s simply contra-assertion.

Beyond that, you’re rejecting the Fristianity objection on procedural, rather than theological or philosophical grounds. You’re asserting that a hypothetical worldview is “out of bounds.” But I think your line of reasoning proves too much. You’re rejecting postulates in general, rather than the postulated Fristianity objection in particular. Your point could be summarized: “Postulated worldviews don’t count because they aren’t actual worldviews.” But why reject postulations and hypotheticals and other abstractions as such? Such a move presents immense problems for reasoning. One example would be that conditionals (“if/then”) are postulates. Postulates are disallowed, so says you; but why should anybody accept that *postulate*?

“It exists as a postulate – that’s great; so what – and makes the claim that it is “just like Christianity, except with an additional person” – where do you have this revealed?”

Let’s postulate that it’s in the forthcoming textual apparatus of the NA-29 of Matthew 28:19: τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [καὶ τοῦ φρεδ]. Hotly contested recent discovery of a lost, but undeniably strong, manuscript tradition. Many expect it to be incorporated into the main body of the NA-30 and UBS-6 (you can’t make these sorts of changes overnight). 🙂

Bottom line: I’d love to see some VanTilian deal with the Fristianity objection directly. I’ll readily admit that I’ve been unable to formulate a response to it (while maintaining the strong modal claims of Bahnsen). But I’ll also assert that my friends here at Choosing Hats haven’t been able to do it thus far either.

However, I also don’t think much is lost, apologetically, by granting that the Fristianity objection has teeth. I think it’s only sharpened (and broadened) my understanding of apologetics. But now I’m just wandering into irrelevant autobiography…

RazorsKiss

No, I’m not rejecting it on procedural grounds. I’m objecting to it on the grounds that it is not what it claims to be – ie: “just like Christianity, except with one additional person” – it isn’t – because there is no *revelation* with one additional person – and on *theological* grounds – it’s not *possible* that there be more than one true God. I think I’ve shared on the blog before how much I detest ceding the grounds of “possibility” on non-Christian standards, yes? Given what I assert concerning possibility – that God determines it, per Scripture, since God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass – given what I assert concerning how we know who God is – God tells us – because, after all – The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved – can a “postulated” worldview be possibly true? No. Keep in mind – we’re contrasting whole *worldviews* transcendentally here, not – just neat, nifty little philosophical arguments divorced from the nature of things, or from God and His revelation. To postulate Fristianity is to be standing on ~CT. By standing on ~CT, you have no revelation, no basis to be making the postulation. Your wisdom and knowledge is not found in Christ, you are not showing the fool his folly – you *are* the fool, and are being like him. This is a theological issue. I don’t cede “possibility” – you know that already. So Fristianity is not a “possible” world view a priori, to me. It might be conceivable, but the mind of man is darkened, he is a manufacturer of idols, and he conceives of wickedness constantly. It is postulated as equal to Christianity – which means Frist, Fred, Steve, or whatever you want to call this idol, is claiming equality with God. Per God, in Isaiah, let Frist, Fred, or Steve tell us what is to come, what has come to pass, and what it means. Let us then tremble together.

So, let Frist be exposited from Scripture – because, after all – The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture. Then, let Frist meet the test of God for a true “rival,” per Scripture. “”Present your case,” the LORD says. “Bring forward your strong arguments,” The King of Jacob says. Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former events, declare what they were, That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.” – So, let’s hear from Frist – what does he have to say?

You can say I haven’t dealt with it “directly” – but “directly” means making someone be consistent. Is Fristianity a real worldview? Then present some revelation. Is it not? Then where are you standing when you say that? On Fristianity, or Christianity? Christianity says that God is alone, and there is no other – that He Himself ordains all things whatsoever that comes to pass – which means that He ordains possibility in the created order. On Fristianity? It’s just a postulate – how can it “explain” anything when it isn’t anything but somebody’s “what if”? How can a non-revelatory “what if” explain anything at all, let alone all things whatsoever? What else you seem to be overlooking is that I’m dealing with the Creator/creature distinction in this, as well – God Himself tells us that the only means provided to us for knowing Him truly is by His Word. Fristianity is parasitic, as most objections are. It has nothing of itself – all it can do is say “me too!” So what? The issue with postulates is that they, supposedly, theoretically provide for an alternative. For who? A theoretical person living in that theoretical world? Great, then I freely grant that theoretical Bill can trust in theoretical Frist, provided that theoretical Frist reveals himself to theoretical Bill in the theoretical way Fristianity outlines itself. The problem is, Frist *doesn’t*, and *hasn’t* – so of what value is it? What if I come up with an Islam – call it ChrIslam – that is not unitarian, but trinitarian, has a non-lying prophet, worships Christ as Messiah, embraced the Christians as brothers, and actually matches the Christian Scriptures across the board in the Boise Quran? Does this prove anything? It’s just a postulate, after all. We can think of any number of absolutely wild and crazy bits of nonsense. That doesn’t mean they have any relationship to what is actually true – or that it has any argumentative force as a defeater. This is why I press possibility the way I do. It’s integral to Van Til’s apologetic. It’s simply not *possible* that Fristianity is true. Whether you can conceive of it is just as irrelevant as my conception of ChrIslam. It’s not true. Playing brain games doesn’t advance anything – and it’s certainly not what Van Til taught. Attenuate if you wish – but I think you’d have to grant that I’m being consistent with Van Til by refusing to grant the idea of possibility the way I do.

B.C. Askins

“It’s simply not *possible* that Fristianity is true.”

Please *demonstrate* this in a succinct argument.

RazorsKiss

The Triune God of Scripture ordains all things whatsoever that come to pass – and has told us so directly. The “god” of Fristianity has not done so, and has not told us so; therefore, the only possible preconditions for intelligibility are supplied by the Triune God of Scripture.

Or another way;

All things whatsoever that come to pass presuppose their specific ordination by the Triune God of Scripture. All things whatsoever come to pass; Thus, their specific ordination by the Triune God of Scripture is the only possibility.

B.C. Askins

Thank you.

You don’t see these arguments as question-begging against Fristianity?

By which I mean, how does one distinguish that from this:

The Quadrune God of Scripture ordains all things whatsoever that come to pass – and has told us so directly. The “god” of Christianity has not done so, and has not told us so; therefore, the only possible preconditions for intelligibility are supplied by the Quadrune God of Scripture.

or

All things whatsoever that come to pass presuppose their specific ordination by the Quadrune God of Scripture. All things whatsoever come to pass; Thus, their specific ordination by the Quadrune God of Scripture is the only possibility.

RazorsKiss

Show me what Scriptures teach Fristianity, Ben. Like I said earlier – as long as it’s relegated to the theoretical, fine – that’s great. It only applies to the theoretical “world” which has their theoretical “scripture”, too. I suppose, in some dreamworld where there is the Great God Frist, that’d be hunky dory. But that’s not the world we’re in. Once it impinges on actuality – show me the Scriptures that teach it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Additionally, just note that the Triune God of Scripture *has* done so – so you can’t “turn it around”. That’s the point.

RazorsKiss

What that amounts to, Ben, is forcing your own hand, and folding on a bluff. Fristianity doesn’t make those claims – but I would point out that it *does* lend itself to falsifiability by postulating that there *can be* another true God. You’ve gone a step further than Fristianity does and claimed that Fristianity *falsifies* Christianity – by revelation. At which point I’d ask you – “says who?” The Triune God *has* spoken, and we *do* know what He has said. So you can’t just “turn it around” without spiking your own guns. That’s the problem with Fristianity. Any attack it makes is subject to God’s exclusivity and specific revelation – and denials of those two elements are the only recourse it has. Do that, and you remove any claim it might have to be “in the same way as Christianity.” Darned if you do, darned if you don’t.

B.C. Askins

“Show me what Scriptures teach Fristianity, Ben.”

As I said above, we can say that it’s in the forthcoming textual apparatus of the NA-29 of Matthew 28:19: τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [καὶ τοῦ φρεδ] (i.e. “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost [and Fred]”). It’s contested, of course, but the variant comes from an undeniably strong manuscript tradition. Many expect it to be incorporated into the main body of the standard Greek NT in the near future.

Other hypotheticals could be multiplied. Use your imagination.

What that amounts to, Josh, is forcing your own hand, and folding on a bluff. Christianity may or may not make those claims – but I would point out that it *does* lend itself to falsifiability by postulating that there *can be* another true God. You’ve claimed that Christianity *falsifies* Fristianity – by revelation. At which point I’d ask you – “says who?” The Quadrune God *has* spoken, and we *do* know what He has said. So you can’t just “turn it around” without spiking your own guns. That’s the problem with Christianity. Any attack it makes is subject to God’s exclusivity and specific revelation – and denials of those two elements are the only recourse it has. Do that, and you remove any claim it might have to be “in the same way as Fristianity.” Darned if you do, darned if you don’t.

…Remember that this is not just a difference of semantics (i.e. “Stop calling God names”). It is a difference of theology: trinitarian vs. quadrinitarian.

Also, I’m not mocking your argumentation, I’m simply attempting to illustrate to you that your arguments have not yet managed to distinguish themselves from arguments available to a Fristian. As I said early in the discussion, regarding Step [1], “reasons must be available to the trinitarian in a way which is not available to the quadrinitarian.”

I understand that it’s hypothetical, it’s parasitic, it’s a “mirroring” objection, it’s a pseudo-Christian cult, it’s frustrating, etc. But none of those things demonstrate it is *impossible*.

RazorsKiss

But the problem is, Ben, is that it is parasitic *on Christianity*. By denying Christianity, it denies it’s own existence. It defeats itself. A reflection cannot exist without the thing it reflects. There is no “equality” in view. It’s parasitic, because the one thing actually exists – the other is just said to exist, in reflection of the other. You can’t turn it around cleanly. You can say the words, but it doesn’t work. First, because the Triune God *has spoken*. Show me where the Quadrune “god” has? It isn’t in the NA29 anymore than it is in the Boise Bible. It’s not as simplistic as you’re portraying. It’s not nearly as simplistic. In order for it to be a “mirror” in the way you’re saying it is, it would have to be true that Christianity is equally “parasitic” on Fristianity. Yet, even Fristianity claims it is parasitic on Christianity. Christianity makes no such claims about itself – yet Fristianity makes those claims in reverse. So how can you blithely turn these around with a straight face? I notice what you didn’t deal with was the content of the sentences. Replacing the words only made it more and more evident that it’s a parasitic, non-stand-alone system – and that denying the original only deletes the copy. It’s impossible because it *denies the original it’s copied from*. It’s like a KJVOnlyist trying to deny the existence of the autographs on the basis of an English translation of the manuscripts copied from the autographs, at various removes. It’s prima facie absurd. What you’re doing is demonstrating exactly what I said previously. Whenever you try to “do the job” with Fristianity, you show that it doesn’t have the horsepower. Replacing words as if it is a valid retortion doesn’t make them a valid retortion. It only focuses in on the inconsistencies and the inadequacies of Fristianity as a true “rival”. It shows that if it denies the original, then the copy ‘fades away’ like Marty’s picture in Back to the Future. The preconditions for it’s intelligibility are based in the truthfulness of Christianity. Ironically, to postulate itself, Fristianity has to deny Christianity. This is only seen if you don’t take it as a “philosophical point of interest” – but as an entire worldview set against an entire worldview. The very act of “copying” introduces a denial of the original, because the original is definitionally exclusivistic. On the other hand, the objection itself is based on the *reflection* of Christianity – but as a reflection, can you deny the truthfulness of that which you reflect? I think it’s to the point where you’re just saying the same thing over and over – and so am I 🙂 The difference is in the overall methodology, imo. Is it explictly grounded in “a Christian totality picture” against a “non-Christian totality picture”, or in “TAG” as a bare philosophical argument? I’m talking the former – you seem to be talking the latter. Fristianity doesn’t really dent either one, if you take TAG to be merely an example of the former; which I’m not sure you do, or ever did.

B.C. Askins

Let me see if I can clear away a bit of clutter here, particularly regarding this whole “where are you standing” issue which tends to re-emerge in this discussion.

If I present a particular argument, say an Islamic argument against the Trinity, for discussion with my fellow apologists then I am “standing on” Islam *for the sake of argument*. I’m not converting to Islam.

So also with the Fristianity objection.

Maybe you respond to my presentation of the Islamic argument by saying, “Christianity is the only possibly true worldview, that is a non-Christian argument, therefore that argument can’t possibly be true.” I could agree with you in principle, but I’ll still point out, “Bro, that’s a lame argument.”

So also with the Fristianity objection. I’m “standing on” Fristianity *for the sake of argument*.

RazorsKiss

But that’s not what I’m saying, Ben. I’d also submit to you that you know that’s not what I’m saying to you. As a Christian, you know that God is the one true God, yes? So, if you make it “for the sake of argument” – then Fristianity has to accord with the entirety of Christianity *except* for one additional person, right? Does Fristianity demonstrate this? It’s interesting that you want *me* to demonstrate, in the one comment – but it’s okay for Fristianity NOT to demonstrate, in the objection. Why is this? Does Fristianity demonstrate? Can it demonstrate? What is it demonstrating *from*? What do we demonstrate from? Revelation? If so, where is it? If not, it’s no longer in accord with Christianity “on all but X”, is it? The difference lies in where I’m starting, I think. I’m taking ALL of CT – and saying “Fristianity claims to be the ‘equal’ of Christianity, right? So, where is the revelatory scope, power, and ‘reach’ into the real world that Christianity evinces?” It’s not there. It can never be there. It’s just a thought experiment. Thought experiments go as far as your thoughts do – and that’s where they stop. How does this ‘thought experiment’ provide the preconditions for intelligibility of all things whatsoever *without being revealed by the Scriptures*? That is why this is a theological discussion, not merely a philosophical one. As long as it stays in the realm of philosophy, but no further – it’s not really dealing with CT, or with presup, as it was formulated initially. Certainly not with how *I* formulate it.

Peter Ochoa

Actual just basically means In reality not stipulated but revelation in reality being produced

Fristianity comes in many different versions. It seems to me only actual fristianity remains a question. Such as the Boise Bible, that worldview has of course never been spelled out which is a problem. RK seems to be saying without an actual revelation to critique there is nothing there. Of course that’s the sticking point since some suggest it doesn’t absolutely refute it though.

Putting some flesh on the Boise Bible it would seem to be saying something like the Quadrinity with a modern day Boise prophet. Answering most objections with CT type answers and accounting for Knowledge with CT like foundations. But just being a different God with X numbers in the Godhead

God Bless
Peter

Matthias McMahon

Hey Peter, sorry it took so long to reply.

I think that still brings us back to the fact that it was stipulated. We can’t stipulate something in this particular context, and then ignore the fact of its stipulation, because otherwise we’re granting it more credence than it deserves. At the moment, I don’t think I can internally critique a worldview that only exists as a thought experiment. We critique worldviews, after all, not thought experiments. To allow that such a flimsy foundation for a worldview could be valid doesn’t effectively preclude contradictory truths.

For a worldview to be true, it must also be the only possible worldview. It must argue from the impossibility of the contrary. Until Fristianity has robust attestation (or at least as robust as Christianity, which it mimics), I don’t see how it is to be regarded seriously.

All this of course, with an implicit “but I may be incorrect.”

Matthias

RazorsKiss

By the by – I’m logging off for the night. No more comments are coming through today – not because I “can’t handle the truth” – but because I have other things to do in my limited time at home. Ben, I appreciate the conversation, and it did a good job of highlighting for our readers some things I don’t think I’d put in print on the site before, but that I had shared in the chat channel and the podcast we’re commenting on. I think you are wrong, obviously, but your questions let me do a rather thorough job in highlighting the issues in a great bit of detail. Thanks again.

[BLOCKED BY STBV] Presuppositional Apologetics Interview (objections to the method) with Resequitur | True Forms

[…] https://choosinghats.org/2013/03/peripatetic-9-fristianity-style-counters/ […]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (66.135.48.192) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (66.155.9.238) and so is spam.


Leave a Comment