Hello Gentlemen,
I am going to jump in here. Hungus, I think Paul Manata was spot on. Allow me to explain. You stated that your friend’s argument against classical apologetic method was…
Quote:
|
A rational approach to unbelief is irrational given that the source of regeneration and belief is faith which is inherently non-rational.
|
Given the context, your friend understands classical apologetics to be “a rational approach,” and that in some sense this is flawed because “the source of regeneration and belief is faith which is inherently non-rational.” So, what is the argument you friend is really making? The conclusion to whatever argument he is making is this:
Conclusion: Classical apologetics is irrational.
One of the premises for your friend’s argument is…
Premise 1: The source of regeneration and belief is faith.
Another premise is…
Premise 2: Faith is irrational.
Paul Manata has already pointed out that premises 1 and 2 do not lead to the conclusion. He also has pointed out that both premises 1 and 2 are problematic. Now, in order for this argument to really go through, we need to add the following premise.
Premise 3: Classical apologetics is the source of regeneration and belief.
If classical apologetics is the source of regeneration and belief (premise 3), and if the source of regeneration and belief is faith (premise 1), and if faith is irrational (premise 2), then classical apologetics is irrational (conclusion). However, Paul has already pointed out that premise 3 is problematic. In other words, the argument your friend is making does not even get off the ground. Not one of his necessary premises is true. Hungus, I think you would do well to reconsider what Paul said.
Sincerely,
Brian