Noetic Effects Of Sin Research Articles

Knowledge and the Fall in American Neo-Calvinism: Toward a Van Til–Plantinga Synthesis

Abstract Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga represent two strands of American Protestant philosophical thought influenced by Dutch neo-Calvinism. This paper compares and synthetizes their models of knowledge in non-Christians given the noetic effects of sin and non-Christian worldview commitments. The paper argues that Van Til’s distinction between the partial realization of the antithesis in practice and its absolute nature in principle correlates with Plantinga’s insistence on prima facie–warranted common-sense beliefs and their ultimate defeasibility given certain metaphysical commitments. Van Til endorsed more radical claims than Plantinga on epistemic defeat in non-Christian worldviews, the status of the sensus divinitatis, and conceptual accuracy in knowledge of the world. Finally, an approach to the use of evidence in apologetics is developed based on the proposed synthesis. This approach seeks to make more room for evidence than is generally recognized in Van Tilianism, while remaining consistent with the founder’s principles.

Solidarity in the Fall: An Essay on Self-Deception

This Article Aims To Explore The Notion And The Dynamics Of Self-deception As A Part Of What We Understand As The Noetic Effects Of Sin. Firstly, We Start With A Theological Analysis Of The Consciousness Because Of The Supratemporal Nature Of The Human Heart. Secondly, Through This Analysis, We Can See The Roots Of Self-deception In The Presupposition That The Ego Is Transparent To Itself. Thirdly, One Element Of The Dynamic Of Self-deception Is The Cognitive Parallax That Shows The Distance Between Theory And Reality. Fourthly, Self-deception Can Be Formalized In Theoretical Systems And Create A Legitimizing Discourse To Support Given Positions. Finally, We Try To Redeem Self-deception Through The Revelation That Enlightens The Human Mind. KEYWORDS: Self-deception, noetic effects of sin, Augustine, Herman Dooyeweerd, epistemology, the self, modern philosophy, sensus divinitatis, consciousness, revelation

Theological Critiques of Natural Theology: A reply to Andrew Moore

Summary In leading academic publications, Oxford theologian Andrew Moore has systematically developed new objections to natural theology based on Karl Barth’s methodological arguments, historical considerations as well as theological considerations related to Scriptural passages such as Romans 1:18 ff, the noetic effects of sin, whether natural theology leads to the God who has revealed himself in Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, and attitudes such as humility and self-denial. I demonstrate the inadequacy of his methodological and historical arguments and show that the numerous Scriptural passages cited by Moore do not really support his objections, and that Moore neglects other passages (e. g. Acts 14:15–17, 17:22–31) which contradict his arguments. I defend the value of natural theology as the first of a two-step approach which (1) shows that there is a Creator God (2) shows that this God has revealed himself in Christ.

The noetic effects of sin: a dispositional framework

One of the well-known theses of Alvin Plantinga’s epistemology of religious belief is his claim about the noetic effects of sin. But Plantinga does not clearly spell out how sin functions to undermine or weaken the believer’s natural knowledge of God. In this paper, I want to suggest a dispositional gloss on his account of religious epistemology that properly identifies the epistemic role of sin and other factors that may undermine knowledge of God. It will be further argued that the dispositional framework provides us with a principled basis for deriving some of the main contours of Plantinga’s general epistemology.

A Response to John Frame’s Presuppositional Approach to Faith and Reason

AbstractPresuppositionalism is popular among certain groups of Reformed Christians today, and John Frame is one of its leading proponents. In contrast with the Evidential Approach concerning faith and reason, which affirms experiences and reason as starting points, Presuppositionalists assume the truth of scripture as starting point in their assessment of the truth-claims of Christianity. They appeal to Christians by emphasizing the authority of scripture, by criticizing autonomous human reason, and by highlighting the noetic effects of sin. I address these considerations, show that Frame’s approach is self-defeating and unacceptably circular, and answer his objections to the Evidential Approach.

Reformation Humanism: Reading the Classics in the New Theology

ABSTRACTScholarly discussions on what constitutes Christian humanism in the Renaissance and Reformation periods have typically concentrated on its manifestations before 1536, when Erasmus died. In this period, the old arguments for the reading of the Classics once set out by Basil and Augustine still predominated. Calvin’s teaching on the Fall and the noetic effects of sin, however, provided another basis for the incorporation of pagan thought into Christian learning. Christians who followed Calvin benefited from his precise and comprehensive theological position on the place of worldly knowledge in God’s original creation as a means for justifying their study of the Classics.

The Discourse of Faith and Learning

THE INTEGRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH with human learning was addressed by the earliest Christian apologists and continues to be an important question for the church up to the present day. Such lengthy conversations are complicated by variations in nomenclature, attitudes, and theological assumptions. This paper attempts to clarify portions of this historical discussions by focusing on how a given thinker weighs and balances four interrelated doctrinal issues: the unity of truth, the two sources of knowledge, the noetic effects of sin, and goodness of creation. It is suggested that thinkers commonly adopt one of five “integrative” postures: butcher, baker, candlestick maker, philosopher, or prophet. Lessons are drawn from this history and applied to some of the issues that face the academy today.

Reformed and evolutionary epistemology and the noetic effects of sin

Despite their divergent metaphysical assumptions, Reformed and evolutionary epistemologists have converged on the notion of proper basicality. Where Reformed epistemologists appeal to God, who has designed the mind in such a way that it successfully aims at the truth, evolutionary epistemologists appeal to natural selection as a mechanism that favors truth-preserving cognitive capacities. This paper investigates whether Reformed and evolutionary epistemological accounts of theistic belief are compatible. We will argue that their chief incompatibility lies in the noetic effects of sin and what may be termed the noetic effects of evolution, systematic tendencies wherein human cognitive faculties go awry. We propose a reconceptualization of the noetic effects of sin to mitigate this tension.

Should Christians do Natural Theology?

AbstractNatural theology is enjoying something of a resurgence at present but this article seeks to question its place in Christian philosophy and theology. Antecedent natural theology accepts that it is necessary for Christian beliefs to be rationally warranted. Romans 1:18ff. is often cited in favour of natural theology. However, examination of this text shows that Paul argues here on the basis of a prior revelation. Not only does he not endorse natural theology but what he does say implies that arguments for a God's existence are not likely to lead to the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Such arguments are in any case tainted by the noetic effects of sin. It is therefore not clear that these arguments lead to the God of Christian belief who calls us to simple discipleship. Consequent natural theology holds that Christians are under an epistemological obligation to their surrounding culture to show that they are reflectively rational. But the arguments put up for this by Michael Sudduth ignore theological arguments which should bear on Christian epistemology. Apart from God's self-revelation we find ourselves sceptics, and natural theology is unable to overcome this. Historical research has shown the damaging effects that arguing from nature has had on Christian theology. So, for both theological and historical reasons, Christians need not accept the epistemological obligations imposed on them by unbelievers which lead them to do natural theology.

Questions About the Perception of “Christian Truth”: On the Affective Effects of Sin

AbstractThis article engages David Bentley Hart's critique of coercive “demonstration” in apologetics in favor of Gospel proclamation in the mode of “persuasion.” More specifically, I evaluate Hart's articulation of persuasion as a discourse that is primarily aesthetic and traffics primarily in beauty. After expressing an appreciation for Hart's critique of the traditional apologetics of demonstration, I suggest that Hart's own proposal still has elements of an “apologetic”—a kind of natural “aesthetic” theology, but a natural theology nonetheless. I conclude by extrapolating the Reformed critique of natural theology (based on the “noetic effects of sin”) to include a critique of Hart's aesthetic quasi‐natural theology by providing an account of the “affective” effects of sin.

Over de noëtische gevolgen van de zonde Een filosofische beschouwing

Many expressions in the bible suggest that sin has noetic effects. Through sin, it is said, our minds have been clouded, our understandings darkened; through sin we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The aim of this paper is to make sense of these suggestions. The first section introduces some relevant epistemological distinctions and clarifies the relations between knowing, thinking, and truth. The second section gives a rough overview of the empirical evidence various Calvinists (Calvin, Kuyper, Greijdanus and Dooyeweerd) adduced for the thesis that sin has noetic effects. The next two sections discuss the question whether someone who believes that this thesis is true, should therefore become a sceptic. It is argued he should not. The final section summarizes some questions concerning the noetic effects of sin that deserve careful consideration.

John Calvin, the sensus divinitatis, and the noetic effects of sin

Dans la premiere partie, l'A. s'interesse a la position de Calvin face au sensus divinitatis. Il montre ce que Calvin entendait comme l'etat originel du sensus divinitatis. Dans une troisieme phase, il degage les effets du peche sur le sensus. La conclusion de Calvin est nette: une personne peut croire en Dieu sans avoir aucune raison de le faire. Ceci est caracteristique de l'epistemologie reformee. Calvin fournit des raisons pour lesquelles des femmes et des hommes croient en Dieu. Ce sont des raisons qui derivent du sensus divinitatis et de l'environnement dans lequel il fonctionne