Re: Call me a fideist

On 5/26/05, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
> Glenn,
>
> I really do think you have your apologetics backwards.
>
> Although I would probably label myself a presuppositionalist, even
> the most traditional evidentialist apologetics (think Josh McDowell
> or John Stott here) take the following route that you are calling
> fideist.

I am an Old Princeton evidentialist and I believe according to Glenn's
criteria that I would be a fideist, also, The presuppositional concept of
confirming evidence -- what I call the "back of the book" approach -- is
also important here. As long as you don't start and finish at exactly the
same place, the reasoning is not circular.

What I find most dismaying about Glenn's approach is the intangibility of
the resurrection because it is not repeatable. I respect the courage of
theoretical falsifiability of Christianity. The Apostle Paul did that but
the topic WAS the resurrection. The apostles staked Christianity's
reputation on it being tangible, but Glenn's definition of tangible is too
restrictive. His repeatability criteria would also make historical science
not real science.
Received on Thu May 26 13:05:56 2005