__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

Honestly, it is mostly a selfish motivation. When I was in high school I just had a strong desire to learn, and apologetics was one of the things that piqued my interest. Now I have a pretty much insatiable desire to understand the Bible. My desire to study apologetics and philosophy isn't as strong, but it's up there. I just want to be able to defend the faith when I talk to family members who aren't saved, alongside knowing Christian truths of course and I hope that God will use that. Another reason is that logic and debate is interesting to me and I want to be a rock of truth amidst people who don't want to think their way through deciding their beliefs, but just pick and choose whatever feels good.

Now the second reason is because I want to know enough about the subject so that when my kids ask me how we can know Christianity is true, and can give them a solid answer. And I want it to be some part of our homeschool curriculum. There's a podcast by a Christian named Randall Niles who ever since he was twelve asked his parents questions about how we know there is a God, etc and they always said "well, you just have to have faith," and nothing more. He ended up becoming an atheist, and only after a several year search of the truth as an adult he ended up converting to Christianity. Now that has been in my mind ever since and I really don't want to make that mistake with my kids.

-----Added 10/24/2009 at 11:02:45 EST-----

Oh, SolaSaint, if my avatar is worrying you about my grounding in the faith, don't let it. It's just a joke.

__________________
Megan Meisberger
River Hills Community Church - EFCA (yes... same as charliejunfan)
Janesville, WI

Wife of matt.meisberger

<---- Naming my first son after him. My husband was saved while reading Religious Affections.

I'm going to give you some really strange advice on starting off on apologetics. Start with a good book on discrete mathematics, ignore evidentialists and only read presuppositional apologists (Van Til and company) but only after you have a good foundation for mathematical reasoning. If you are looking for lifelong study, this would be the ideal course of study. The reason I say this is that if you attempt to go the evidentialist route, they are all based on circular reasoning that has presuppositions, but they just don't know where their presuppositions start.

There is no good and logical necessity apart from the axioms of a system that give a foundation. The WCF states:
Our confession states that our persuasion of the scripture is from the inward working of the holy spirit ... even if we have all those reasons to find it worthy of our trust, it is an axiomatic position; we accept it without any proof because of the Spirit working within us. In other words, even our acceptance of the Bible is presuppositional (to the extent that the assurance of the truth of it is not, and cannot be, because of outward evidence).

What Kant did was take the logical underpinnings of classical apologetics out from under the house. He did so through logic and reason, and did so well. What he (and no one else can) do is take out the underpinnings of presuppositional apologetics. The presuppositional start is Romans 1:18-21 with a non-believer. I do not attempt to convince someone of the truth of what they already know. What I do is show them the inconsistency of their own system (they borrow from the starting point of the existence of God) and tear down their house of cards. (While it is possible to be logically consistent with not believing in God, it requires being a psychopath/sociopath in order to maintain that consistency, and while there are those that have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness that far, declaring the truth is what we are required to do, not convert souls.)

As to your reasoning, you cannot, by any means of wisdom or skill in parenting (or lack thereof), change whose names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. If God blesses you with children, their faith is founded on God's election, not your effectiveness in parenting. Just as God's election is a great comfort and incentive to evangelize those whom we meet, it is also a great comfort and incentive to parent the best we know how trusting God to provide the result. Our trust is that he has promised to be our God, and the God of our children. More we cannot do other than raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Your desire to defend the faith needs to be tempered with a knowledge that no matter how effective you are at logical explanation, you cannot possibly control the outcome. Suppressing the truth that God has made plain to mankind is a moral issue, not a knowledge or reasoning issue. God has shown everyone what is needed to know that he is, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. It is only through unrighteousness that people suppress that truth. We are not better than God at convincing people of the Lord's existence ... yet evidentialists would seem to imply that if they could just argue a little better, know a little more, reason a little more clearly, people would see their need and repent. Repentance unto life is a saving grace that is given by God and is completely out of our control; we are to obey and trust the result to God who is in control.

Keep your enthusiasm to defend the faith ... it is possible that God will use you as an instrument in his hand to bring someone to faith whose name is written. But remember, it isn't based on your ability. Even at this point, you are capable of defending the faith to the extent that God demands of you at this point. Our study is more for our own edification than for our ability to win others to Christ (in ourselves, we have no ability to win others to Christ, and if the Holy Spirit is working, those whom we testify to will be won to the faith). Study to show yourself approved (to yourself!).

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

Brian,

I appreciate your sentiments, but I am concerned that you are overlooking the ordained means by which the elect are brought into the kingdom. No doubt, Some of those means are indeed through the efforts of proper apologetic "preaching" of the Good News. I don't think anyone who has a proper understanding of apologetics assumes that they can reason a person into the kingdom without the efficacious workings of the Holy Spirit upon the elect. We are commanded to give a defense of that which we believe, which is basically a call to the offensive tactics of apologetics.

AMR

__________________
Patrick
Member, PCA
Chandler, AZ
ReformedTheologyInstitute.com

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

Well, there are several ways to go with Clark, because the late John Robbins published some of Clark's works individually, and some as compilations. So, I'll give you both (collections in parenthesis), in case you want to begin with more than one thing at a time.

General philosophy/apologetics:
1. A Christian View of Men and Things
2. Three Types of Religious Philosophy (republished as part of Christian Philosophy)
3. Religion, Reason, and Revelation (republished as part of Christian Philosophy)
4. An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (republished as part of Christian Philosophy)

Authority of Scripture/textual criticism/language:
1. God's Hammer: The Bible and its Critics
2. Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism (republished as part of Commentaries on Paul's Epistles)
3. Lord God of Truth
4. Language and Theology (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)
5. In Defense of Theology

A Christian view of History:
1. Historiography: Secular and Religious

A Christian view of Science/psychology/empiricism:
1. Philosophy of Science and Belief in God (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)
2. Behaviorism and Christianity (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)
3. William James and John Dewey (republished as part of Modern Philosophy)

Clark's defense of his own position:
1. Clark Speaks from the Grave
2. The Philosophy of Gordon Clark, edited by Ronald Nash

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting a more complete list :-D

__________________
Joshua Butcher
PCA
College Station, TX

I am long winded, but I think I did answer this with what I consider the best methodology for apologetics.

Any system of logic must start from the axiomatic truths that are taken without proof. Our system of logic starts with God has revealed (why do you think the WCF starts with "Of the Holy Scripture" instead of God?) While we can know some things about God from general revelation (Rom 1 says so) we can have no ordinary knowledge of salvation without God revealing himself to us (and even general revelation has what God has revealed of himself and no more).

From that basic presupposition, we begin. The best method of apologetics from that point is to show that any other system that is not psychopathic or sociopathic borrows from the world view that has the God of the Bible as creator and sustainer of the universe.

The presuppositional apologist knows that the person that denies God or Christ has inconsistencies in what they believe (at least not the serial killer among us) and so pointing them out will either cause them pause and rethink (if they are elect) or infuriate them because they are being shown to reject God because of their moral defect (rejecting God, when they know God exists).

Simeon Magus could not be converted by the apostles; our later day Simeons will not be converted by us. The people that will come to Christ are those whom he has called. We are the instruments that God has chosen to use, but we must know that we cannot affect salvation for the lost, it is God that saves.

And from that basic presupposition, you lose your audience.

With all due respect, I have never heard an apologist prove (or even attempt to prove) the necessary connection between the God of scriptures and these truths. I have heard Bahnsen and others claim that things such as logic and language presuppose God, but I've never seen the presupposition shown--just asserted. We can possibly argue that the axiom of scripture leads to these things, but how do you demonstrate that these things necessarily presuppose the truth of the Scriptures.

All that critiquing another worldview does is to prove the skill and insight of the critic--it does nothing to advance his own worldview. A critique may valid regardless of the coherence/correspondence to reality of the critic's worldview. What the presuppositionalist assumes is that he himself has perfect theology--which he does not.

This is why I would recommend a healthy dose of both presuppositionalism and common sense apologetics--each one has things to offer.

__________________
Philip
Potomac Hills Presbyterian Church (PCA) Leesburg, VA
Attending Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lookout Mountain, GA
Student Covenant College

The Importance of Being Orthodox

That may be true for the reprobate, but for the elect, I do not think so.


While I understand you have not heard someone witnessing the truth of the gospel in such a fashion directly, but might I ask how often have you heard anyone witness in any fashion? And even more salient, how many people have you heard?

In one sense, the only thing required of us is to be able to defend the faith, and also to proclaim the gospel. Proclaiming the gospel is much easier in that it requires little more than "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Defending the faith can be done without words by a Godly life (and without a Godly life, it is impossible to defend). Words in defense of the gospel can be a sword used to incapacitate those that would try to shut the doors to hell again the message of Jesus, or answering the questions of someone that might be elect, but as yet not professing.

My point is we have a distinct advantage in proclaiming the gospel. Those to whom we proclaim it already know God (Rom 1) and his invisible attributes. We proclaim what they know, and call them to turn from where they are to the glorious grace of our Lord.

We like these:

__________________
Shalom,
jessi
PCA
Steelers fan exiled to Virginia


“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”
Martin Luther

LOL! Pictures of Joyce M., Joel O. and Oprah. Yep! All three need help with apologetics, not to mention theology!

__________________
Carol
Plant City, Florida


That I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.
Philippians 3:8,9

http://gettingoffthenicenesstreadmill.blogspot.com/

Megan,

You may find helpful to spend some time studying the Westminster Standards, including their Scripture proofs using The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes by GI Williamson.http://www.cepbookstore.com/p-284-th...ession-of.aspx

While you will not have great basis for engaging an atheist, it will help much with just about anyone who says they believe in God.

Much engagement, I have found is with nominal Christians- who very often do not know Scripture well or how it fits together.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Here I think we agree. However, this is apologetics of the heart, not the head.

Megan,

A lot depends on your background in philosophy. Many of the books suggested can make your head spin worse than Linda Blair in the original Exorcist movie.

I would echo the words of those who recommended an entry point like Pratt or Sproul. We all have our preferences (presuppositional, classical, or evidential apologetics). But, it is important for you to get comfortable with the flatlands of the vocabulary before you try climbing the mountains of the philosophy.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Apologetics (if you're including polemics) is a huge field, and you have to define what you want to do. The first point is always to have the content of your faith rendered clear and explicit to your own mind, and the reasons for it succinctly apprehended. As such, then, starting with philosophical disputes and apologetic manuals is probably not the best idea.
You'd want to be sure first of all that you had the content of Scripture pretty well down - in other words, if someone says "the Bible says" you know right away whether that's true or not. And then you'd want to make sure that you had in your mind a good summary of the principal parts of what the Bible teaches - the Confession or the Larger Catechism would work for that. Along with that would come a firmly developing grasp on interpretive methods, so that you know how to approach an unfamiliar text. This point, like epistemology, is one where there are enormous differences of opinion, and lot of trash has been written (though there are some good books on hermeneutics and some fine literary criticism). Perhaps with interpretation, as with epistemology, your best bet will be to read Scripture and the Confession with those points in mind. So you would ask, "How does Paul know that he knows this?" "How does Peter get from this text to this conclusion?" "What rule of interpretation led the Westminster Assembly to include this text in proof of this point?" "What epistemology does the exposition of the 10 Commandments require?" And so forth: this should help enable you to answer previously un-heard of questions.
Another large part of knowing how to answer those questions, I think, is going to come in by the foundations of Scriptural and Confessional thinking becoming explicit in your mind. In other words, there are always things that are sort of taken for granted, and are consequently "unspoken"; learning how to "speak" those things gives you a more thorough grasp of your own system, and learning the skill of seeing what is "unspoken" and stating it makes you more able to critique other systems.

With those two skills (of interpretation and seeing what is assumed in what is said) in hand, and the knowledge of Scripture's content and teaching clearly present to your mind (on all four of which, of course, you are going to have to be working constantly), you are ready to tackle any given variety of false teaching. But I would encourage you not to tackle false teaching for no reason. E.g., if you know no Hindus, there is not a lot of reason to explore Hindu views in much depth. But if you have a family member who is a JW, and whom you see routinely, understanding their misinterpretations, and perhaps even more importantly, the ways that their false system enslaves and afflicts its adherents, becomes an attainment of real value. I don't think there's any value to fighting apologetic ghosts - bringing up wrong ideas that aren't live options for anyone you're in contact with. Picking fights for no reason seems to me like an excellent way to puff yourself up with pride, and ultimately fall into the snare of delusion.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean. She wanted to know what to read, in as far as apologetics/epistemological issues are concerned, and I suggested she look for some philosophically sophisticated arguments/works, regardless of the theology of the writers. That seems reasonable to me.

If you want to learn theology, then you read good theology. If you want to learn philosophy, then you read good philosophy.

And if you think an argument presupposes some bad theology, then either drop it or try to alter it. Easy as that.

I don't know what this means either. Who said anything about salvation by works? I simply said that the theology of the writers she'll read, if she wants to read some philosophy, would be irrelevant.

I disagree theologically with both William Alston and Alvin Plantinga, for example, but I should not disregard their works in philosophy of religion just because of that. They may not be great theologians but they are great philosophers, and when I read philosophy, I'm looking for that--namely, philosophy, and not theology.

Not really. If you can show the best explanation of the historical data regarding the origin of Christianity and Jesus' death, etc., is that God rose him from the dead, then who cares about bothering with complex and impractical proofs like the Leibnizian cosmological argument from the PSR? Besides, the evidence for the resurrection is more compelling than the more complicated proofs anyway.

I agree with you; no one will believe in Jesus by way of philosophy. Only the Holy Spirit can bring a person to faith. But this was my point: if she wants to learn apologetics and defense of the faith, she ought to learn the good stuff from top of the line philosophers.

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

Alright, but then why send newbies to those who specialize in presupposing bad theology?

You said if a person was "a heretic of heretics" it was alright to go study under them? Salvation by works is pretty common viewpoint and should not be outside the scope of a super heretic. I believe bad theology presupposes bad philosophy and vice versa.

I would say that I disagree with them when they do bad philosophy. I am not sure why you completely separate philosophy from theology?

Who said proofs for God's existence have to be mindblowingly complicated? I did not. Next, if God does not exist, then He cannot resurrect Jesus can He?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

A philosopher can have bad theology and still have some good arguments. Plantinga believes some strange things about hell, namely, he doesn't think that it is such that whoever goes there has no possibility of release whatsoever. That's bad theology, I think. But it is utterly irrelevant to his arguments (for an example or two) for belief in the existence of God as being properly basic and proper function as being the best account of knowledge. His bad theology is not relevant and doesn't come up.

So my point is this: when dealing with some philosophical arguments, the bad theology of the philosophers does not "touch" or "ruin" the arguments thereby.

I said it was okay to study an argument that is quite good (and leads to a reasonably orthodox conclusion), even if the author is a heretic. Let's say some philosopher, Bob Smith, is a universalist. Let's say he comes up with an unbelievably convincing ontological argument, or whatever. Should we completely disregard his argument, and all the apologetical potential that it has, just because he's a wacko on a few issues? Surely not. We can disagree theologically and be in philosophical agreement with others.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I'd disagree with them when they do bad philosophy, too.

Philosophy is separated from theology (for the most part) because a lot of philosophical issues are theologically irrelevant.

The proofs are complex, however. Discussion regarding the PSR, for example, is complex. Discussion regarding whether or not the universe had a beginning in time (and whether this entails its needing a cause) is complex. Daniel Dennett admits as much in this here lecture given by William Lane Craig: click here

I don't think that I have to prove that God exists in order to give good reasons to suppose that he rose Jesus from the dead. The fact of the matter is that naturalistic explanations of the data (the empty tomb, public burial, resurrection appearances, the disciple's new belief in resurrection despite every reason for not holding to such belief) are wholly implausible and not worth believing. If someone comes to realize that, even if I have not given him any reason to suppose God exists, I think it would still pack a punch. Furthermore, you could use the argument from the resurrection as an indirect proof of God: if Jesus is resurrected, then the best explanation of that is that God did it.

Hey guys,

Can we move the discussion of presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism to another thread?

I don't think it's really supporting the thread's original purpose, which was to give some good resources for studying apologetics. You could state your side of the case, and then refer to another thread where that is the express purpose of the thread. But I must admit it's a little confusing trying to read through the thread with the presup vs. evidential debate going on in the background.

Brian,

While a background in number theory is a great idea for many applications(including apologetics), I don't know that it's absolutely necessary. Certainly, you should at least know propositional logic and the various forms of argument and logical fallacies. However, I think you can learn it just as easily(and perhaps more so for some people, since it's not as abstract) in the context of studying presuppositional apologetics.

Off-topic: I'm taking a discrete mathematics course and loving it.

Oh, and don't ignore either side. Both sides have excellent points, but if you want to be a well-rounded apologist, you should be familiar with both.

__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio

Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:

Well I don't think the discussion is so much presup vs evidentialist, but rather I was just clarifying what I meant in light of some of Hermonta's comments.

-----Added 10/25/2009 at 07:14:10 EST-----

Here's a better example of what I mean, CT: NT Wright is not orthodox in his theology, yet who would suggest we not use his resources on the reliability of the gospels and so on for our apologetics?

If we can use the unorthodox on issues of scriptural scholarship, why not use the unorthodox on issues of philosophy?

Honestly I believe that the Roman Catholics have great apologists and should be the place to start. They really haven't changed much since the council of trent so it is good to study the foundational arguments for Christianity from the Roman Catholic perspective and then move into the Reformed arguments against Roman ecclesiology, soteriology, sacramentology, hagiology, and hagiological intercessory prayer. How can someone really be reformed if they don't understand what they are reforming from?

I also believe it is important to remember we didn't break with the Western Church we reformed it. Thus, we still share the same foundations of tradition, developed theology, and apologetics. We simply disagree on matters of authority and thus have opposing views in some areas.

I recommend that you start with Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed. This is a great intrduction to theology and is foundational for all christian apologetics:

Amazon.com: Aquinas's Shorter Summa: Saint Thomas's Own Concise Version of His Summa Theologica (9781928832430): St. Thomas Aquinas: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (9780830817740): Peter Kreeft, Ronald K. Tacelli: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: Institutes of the Christian Religion (9781598561685): John Calvin, Henry Beveridge: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine (R. C. Sproul Library) (R. C. Sproul Library) (9781596380103): R. C. Sproul, Keith Mathison: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (9780875528274): David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times (9780801064357): Kim Riddlebarger: Books

Amazon

__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas

Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon

If you are interested in the abortion issue, then here is a book that I would recommend that defends the pro-life position. The author of the book was an evangelical Protestant, but later on became a Roman Catholic.

Amazon.com: Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (9781581347319): Vern Sheridan Poythress: Books

Amazon

Amazon.com: Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective (9780830815807): Del Ratzsch: Books

Amazon

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

You are going to love what it does for your understanding of apologetics ... guaranteed!

While not knowing the abstract reasoning doesn't mean that it is impossible to work through apologetics, it certainly means that a person won't be as well grounded in the thought processes needed to understand them.

One of my favorite mental exercises is going through a classical apologist's arguments and finding the axioms that they so stridently affirm are not there. The only people that don't have axioms are those that don't use logic. Sadly, there are more and more people that are post-modern, anti-logical that it makes *any* kind of apologetics difficult. Of course for them, I declare the word, then let it do its work.

-----Added 10/25/2009 at 10:07:13 EST-----

Paul was reformed before the reformation started. You are reformed if you are orthodox in your beliefs -- the reformation was a return to true orthodox Christian doctrine, and those that hold to true orthodox Christian doctrine are reformed.

Certainly. But there has been a LOT of water under the bridge since Paul. We need to make sure we know why we are who we are today.

It is good to know what went wrong with the mainstream church (RC) in order to know what to avoid. But keeping in touch with the orthodox does not *require* knowing what is false. A person can hold to the truth without ever knowing what gnostic dualism, Arminianism, Arianism, Docetism, modalism, Monophysitism, or any number of other heresies state or how they got started. I'm not saying that it isn't good to know the errors of the past. (Election assures that those that do not study history cannot all be doomed ... if they are elect, they are saved.)

True, but if one wants to be a good apologist or study apologetics one must know these things.

I have determined I'd rather be the father of 10 believers than the most intelligent, able, and wittiest apologist. Bahnsen was a genius, and I am convinced he meant what someone relayed above.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think the church owes a great debt to the heretics, because they force the Church to define herself and refocus on scripture. The Church would be poorer without the Nicene Creed, the Institutes, the WCF, and Christianity and Liberalism.

You don't need to know what the gnostic heresies involved in order to know that they are false; all that is required is the knowledge that Christianity is true. By operation of disjunction, if Christianity is true, then all other faiths or theologies are false.

For example, I know nothing of Buddhism, but I know that it's false because I know Christianity is true.

Right. God has a good purpose for everything, even heresies.

I disagree. If there were no heretics, there would be no need for those things. If there were no need for those things, it would be because the Church was comprised of faithful believers who confirmed the Word of God. Such a situation would be perfect.

We are sorrier for the heretics. While they cause us to clarify our doctrine, there would be no need to clarify but for them.

If we were really poorer for it, then they would not exist.

1 Cor. 11:18-19

18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

You're confusing the fact that God uses heretics to established His good purposes with heretics having some sort of positive effect on the church. The positive effect comes from God, not the heretic. The heretic has only a negative effect.

Um no, you are the one confused. God's sovereignty extends to the existence of heretics. God has a purpose for heretics. One part of that purpose is to bring about a deepening of the knowledge of His Church. The way you write, it is as if God looks down and sees heretics and then thinks, "Hey I need to make the best of it."

CT

You're presuming to know the way I write and you're reading into it more than is necessarily required.

God purposes heretics to effect His plan. That doesn't mean the church owes a debt to the heretics. The heretic is bad. The good that necessarily flows from their existence comes from God not from the heretic as you seem to be implying by arguing that they're "good for us".

Clarification can only happen when one has a deeper understanding of what is true. Even if one does not investigate what heretics say, one benefits by having confessional statements that were born in the fire of answering heretics.

CT

Confessional statements are not effective because they were born in the fire of heresy, they are effective because they coherently communicate a system of doctrine based on God's Word. You don't need a heresy to respond to for that. See generally the Westminster Confession of Faith.

You're presuming that only under the plague of heresy can the Church formulate and convey orthodox doctrine. This is clearly erroneous.

Is it better to obey than to sacrifice? Yes, because if you obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice. From this, I conclude it's better to be free of heretics, because without them, we would have no need for endless doctrinal re-clarification.

I perceive it would be better to be free of evil all together yet God permits it for his good purpose. Why is this so, seems to have been the question of the last few millenia as we quickly learn from studying the details of what has transpired in the life of the Church.

I haven't been advancing anything other that what's contained in this simple sentence.

They are effective because they communicate the system of doctrine based on God's Word.

I never said you need a new heresy to get a coherent orthodox system. My claim is that heresy promotes a deeper coherent system.

The Apostles Creed is coherent. It is, however, not as deep as Westminster.

As I was saying above one purpose of heretics and heresies is to force the church to go deeper. Another purpose is to pull away the pretenders.

Again clarification is not just some academic event. There is a point/purpose to it.

At the end of the day, what do you think 1 Cor. 11:19 is saying?

CT

I would be just repeating myself at this point, and this includes what I think Corinthians says on the issue. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that verse.