Quote:
|
A rational approach to unbelief is irrational given that the source of regeneration and belief is faith which is inherently non-rational.
|
This is TRUE, as only fighting against the Arminian position, which is irrational.
The Arminian holds that Faith precedes regeneration. Yet they stumble within their theology, as to how they have the ability, all the sudden, without regeneration.
He is stating that:
You cannot have a rational approach to unbelief, because the results (regeneration and belief) of the opposite (faith) is not-rational. So I hear him stating that because faith is irrational, so unbelief is also irrational.
So faith is irrational only within the Arminian system because it is said to be neutrally subjective, and can or cannot be used by the individual. Faith then considers it's object as being presented to them as just an option. Faith or unbelief is then just result of the irrational but emotional choice of the heart.
We, on the other hand, know Saving Faith to be of Knowledge, Assent, and Rest. These elements of Faith comprise a rational approach to both our definition of Faith, and of Unbelief. The one in unbelief is that way because of what he rationally cannot know, reason, or understand, the objective facts are foolishness to him. Yet that man in faith, has faith, as a result of being renewed to life, and has been given proper objective knowledge of Christ. I always go back to the whole chapter 2 of 1 Corinthians. I also like to use from the WCF the chapter on Saving Faith, or from the WLC Q&A # 72, What is Justifying Faith. In these he should be able to see that there are pleanty of rational things that the mind would have to reason about positively.
You may want to back him up and let him know that he is basically attacking a straw man, because you would agree that a Faith that precedes regeneration is irrational. Let him start over again, and back up to define man in an estate of sin, and what does man in sin know, or can know.
I hope that made sense??
