Hi, it was meant to be a one time response to your last response to me. But you can write your response and I'm sure it will better help me understand your position as I head into your Clarity book I just ordered.

From where I'm standing it looks as if there's some irreconcilable differences. I hold that men are inexcusable because they have knowledge in the Romans 1 sense. So your project seems irrelevant for me on that score.

I have massive doubts about the ability to demonstrate the Christian God's existence, with epistemic certainty. About silver bullet apologetics. You may claim you're not doing that, but that's definitely how it comes across.

I find that your complaints about how others "beg the question" and "assume their position" applies equally to you and your view of "reason" (as the three basic laws of thought). There's alternative logics that deny the universality of the LNC, or 'free logic' (i.e., one that is not committed to logical bivalence), etc. Most arguments against the dialetheist assume the falsity of paraconsistent logic and the truth of explosion. IOW, they beg the question. Of course they may be wrong, just like those other religions who "have a holy book too" can be wrong. But, when you appeal to classical logics I could say, "But others have their own holy book [read: laws of logic] too."

And I just can't see how ought implies can is a viable alternative for a compatibilist.

I think your claims about the fall and how if Eve could have just reasoned better, applied "a is not ~a" to the situation, she could have withstood Satan. Your advice about what one needs to withstand temptation seems to fly in the face of the repeat of the protological temptation in Jesus' encounter with Satan in the wilderness: "It is written, man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Jehovah." Adam and Eve needed to trust in the word of the Lord.

I think the fact of theological paradox puts a dent into the bumper of some of your claims about how we handle challenges to the rationality of Christianity.

I think you didn't focus enough on defeater-deflectors, and I think that answers some of your complaints against Plantinga and Van Til et al.

I can't affirm doxastic voluntarism.

I can't see affirming internalism or JTB.

Etc.

Overall, it seems there's too much to overcome, too much to compromise, too much at odds with those of the Reformation I tend to follow, for your book to commend itself to me. But I would love to read your response to my thoughts as it will help me to better understand you and to sharpen any possible responses I might have, down the road...

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix