Plantinga is correct as far as he goes, and perhaps I should say to the extent that I understand him -- the Christian has no obligation, neither morally nor rationally, to get permission from the anti-Christian to believe that the transcendant Creator-God exists and that God raised Jesus from the dead as validation of his claim to be God-with-us.
That is, after all, what 'atheology' boils down to: the assertion by certain pretend-atheists that we Christians don't have the right to be Christians unless *they* approve of the reasons we may state for why we believe.
On the other hand, when the Christian seeks to convert the non-Christian to the saving faith in Christ, he has a moral and rational obligation to present a case as to *why* the non-Christain should believe, rather than merely assert that "thus-and-such is the truth."
1 comment:
Plantinga is correct as far as he goes, and perhaps I should say to the extent that I understand him -- the Christian has no obligation, neither morally nor rationally, to get permission from the anti-Christian to believe that the transcendant Creator-God exists and that God raised Jesus from the dead as validation of his claim to be God-with-us.
That is, after all, what 'atheology' boils down to: the assertion by certain pretend-atheists that we Christians don't have the right to be Christians unless *they* approve of the reasons we may state for why we believe.
On the other hand, when the Christian seeks to convert the non-Christian to the saving faith in Christ, he has a moral and rational obligation to present a case as to *why* the non-Christain should believe, rather than merely assert that "thus-and-such is the truth."
Post a Comment