Some people find it strange that God should meticulously provide for His creation in terms of His presence, oversight, and power in every aspect of the creation. Yet Scripture teaches that God is at every moment and in every place both preserving and governing the universe.

Our objections to the providence of God often stem from the fact that – quite unlike God -  we are both wicked and finite. We are careless about some aspects of the creation because we are evil, and we neglect others because in our finitude we are incapable of tending to them all .

Meticulous providence would be untrue if God were disinterested in even the smallest aspect of His creation, but He is not, for in addition to the omni-attributes alluded to above, God is also perfectly good and loving. More than that, He is infinite.

Covenantal apologists are often mocked in virtue of their alleged recourse to repeatedly claiming “Goddidit” as an answer to all challenges in the apologetic context.

The mockers are mostly wrong, but partially right.

Complaints about “Goddidit” usually stem primarily from the rejection of the frank acceptance of authority inherent to the apologist’s presuppositional program. In this the mockers are wrong.

Meanwhile, complaints which focus not upon the authority involved in “Goddidit” but its content are valid objections, for the Christian worldview consists of much more than a trite, reductionistic, sound byte solution to some problem that faces another worldview.

Just as in preaching the Gospel we want to ensure that we preach the whole thing, so also in defending that Gospel we want to confidently present the Christian worldview as a whole unit or system in the fullness of its richness and depth.

Striving to do so sets us on the path to personal sanctification and a God-honoring, truthful, persuasive apologetic.

10,000 posts -

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/10000-triablogue-posts.html

(And many of them are on presuppositional apologetics. Check them out!)

If you were to buy into atheist propaganda on the Internet you would have no choice but to conclude that Christians are some of the most ignorant, irrational, dishonest, deluded idiots on the planet. In short if you are a Christian, then you are stupid. You can substitute whatever other derogatory term you would like in the place of stupid. The point is that something is seriously wrong with the idiots who believe these nonsensical fairy tales, etc. etc. You have heard it all before. You get the point.

Of course I do not really need the atheists to tell me that there are plenty of Christians who are ignorant, irrational, dishonest, and deluded. I have spent my entire life around Christians. I am a Christian. It is safe to say that I know Christians better than the vast majority of atheists do. If I were pressed on it I would have to admit that I have met some rather stupid Christians.

But atheists want to say much more than that there just happen to be stupid Christians. They want to say that there is something inherent to Christianity itself, or to Christians themselves, which renders every encounter with a Christian a futile one. They really mean to say what was mentioned above; if you are a Christian then you are stupid.

This is where the atheist runs into a significant problem. It is not the case that every Christian is stupid. It is probably not the case that even most Christians are stupid. In fact history is littered with examples of extremely intelligent people who believed in God, the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the like. We have Christians to thank for many of our modern scientific and technological moorings. We have Christians to thank for many of our modern cultural and moral advancements. Even today there are churchgoing believers who are practicing doctors, lawyers, engineers, and scientists. They are professors, teachers, clergy, and authors. These are the Christians in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood oh! These are the Christians in your neighborhood; the Christians that you meet each day.

So the atheist claim to inherent Christian stupidity is stupid. It does not match the empirical data. Atheists often make rather sweeping claims about the absurdity of theistic conceptions, the absurdity of believing them, the absurdity of miracles or believing in them and the like. Many of these claims also entail that Christians are stupid. Given what I have stated above, these claims are untenable. That is a problem for your average online atheist predator.

Atheists almost have to believe that Christians are stupid. But Christians are not stupid.

Christians are not stuck with this sort of problem. Atheists are not stupid. We can fully acknowledge the contributions of atheists and even thank God for them. Christians have an explanation for the stupidity of Christians and atheists alike. It is foolishness, folly, sin. Christians also have an explanation for the contributions of atheists. It is formal agreement, borrowed capital, common grace.

Atheists are not stupid because atheists are not. That is, while anyone (Christian or atheist) is subject to practical atheism – living as though God is not there – no one can live as an atheist in principle. Anti-theism presupposes theism.

The defense of the gospel – the discipline known as apologetics – has fallen on hard times in our generation. Most Christians think of it as a philosophical exercise rather than (as Paul saw it) a vital application of biblical doctrine…[B]iblical apologetics is an exegetical, theological, and pastoral duty…[A] proper defense of the Christian faith is not to be done with persuasive words of human wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:4) but by proclaiming the truth of the Word of God itself, which is “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12)…This approach has been labeled “presuppositional apologetics,” because it attacks worldly wisdom at the level of fundamental presuppositions. It challenges the notion that human reason is in any way more authoritative or more reliable than God’s Word. It repudiates the assumption that fallen creatures have any right to question or pass judgment on God’s actions, His decrees, or His commandments. It rejects any assertion that common ground exists between belief and unbelief, light and darkness, righteousness and sin, or Christ and Belial (2 Corinthians 6:14-15).

From John MacArthur’s Foreword to Biblical Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ by Clifford B. McManis. (Xlibris Corporation, 2012), 11-12, ellipses mine.

“I’m so tired of Christians judging other Christians for practicing homosexuality, just let them do what they want”, says Lucy, a professing Christian, who jut heard some of her other Christian friends talking about homosexuality in a negative overtone. Describing it as an “abomination” (Lev 18:22), “degrading” (Rom 1:26)  and “indecent” (Rom 1:27). “I hate when they speak about it like that!” whispers Lucy to another friend standing by.  Perhaps Lucy should remove the log out of her own eye before complaining about  the speck from her friends’ eye.

Great observation from Steve Hays – http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/amazing-trinity.html

Fred responded to my post here – http://www.choosinghats.com/2012/05/why-dr-jason-lisle-of-answers-in-genesis-does-not-understand-presuppositional-apologetics/

Chris writes,
I agree that any Christian denomination (or even theological position, which is what the question was actually about, not what Lisle goes on to talk about in addressing denominations) can use the presuppositional approach, but the question, and Lisle’s response, are about whether this may be done consistently. Lisle ecumenically affirms. I strongly disagree.

I always have to chuckle at the arrogance of YRR apologists who insist their “brand” of presuppositionalism is the “only consistent” way to do apologetics. Typically, that means, one has to embrace covenant theology, and in the case of Demar and his ilk, a preterist to boot. That’s baloney. I know you like to think of yourself as the orthodox defender of pure presuppositionalism, but as a thoroughly non-CTer and one who thinks preterism is borderline heretical, I am a staunch Calvinist and a presuppositionalists who has always been consistent. I’m sure I’ll have a bunch of your commenters attempt to tell me otherwise, but oh well.

I would agree with you with regards to Arminianism. What scripture teaches on the nature of God, the nature of man, and God’s regenerating work, is foundational for how we engage the unbeliever. I know Lisle, and have spoke with him briefly about this issue. (And fact, I’ll pass along this article to him via email). Though you may think his answer is to soft, he is basically correct. This is how the prophets and apostles defended the faith. Any Christian who takes the Bible seriously as God’s revelation will see this. In fact, I’ve heard Dr. Michael Brown argue presuppositionally with hostile callers, and we all know where he stands.

“I always have to chuckle at the arrogance of YRR apologists who insist their ‘brand’ of presuppositionalism is the ‘only consistent’ way to do apologetics.”

Fred assumes that I know what “YRR” is and apparently counts me as being amongst their fold. Some of my friends can testify to the fact that I did not even know the origin of the word “YRR” until about a month ago, and I am still not knowledgeable about what it entails. From what little I do know, it seems that the term is used by some to label others they disagree with on this or that issue in order to rather mockingly dismiss anything they have to say. That is not only a rather unthinking way to engage with other Christians, it is a despicable way to do so.

Fred believes it is arrogant to trumpet a particular ‘brand’ of presuppositionalism as the ‘only consistent’ way to do apologetics. I do not know Fred, but before now my understanding would have been that he considers the text of Scripture to be clear on a whole host of theological and apologetic topics. Apparently I was mistaken. Fred takes the text of Scripture to be indeterminate with respect to apologetic method. I can find no other way to make sense of his statement. For him there can be no such thing as a biblical apologetic. Even if he backpedaled to claim that there are multiple apologetic methods consistent with Scripture he would still have to concede that there are others which are not, and the same objection he raises against “the arrogance of YRR apologists” would continue to apply to his own position.

Fred embraces presuppositional pluralism. His comment about the arrogance of those who think that methodological consistency does not and cannot apply across mutually exclusive positions is perfectly analogous to the guilt trip religious pluralists love to spring on their opponents. Let me be clear that I am not saying that Fred is a religious pluralist. I don’t even know Fred. But what I can say is that his charge of arrogance applies equally as well to anyone who adheres to a position for even allegedly exhibiting consistency over against positions which do not. In his haste to accuse others of being arrogant when they claim that there really is a link between Scripture and consistent apologetic method he has allowed postmodern piety to win the day. His dogmatic complaints thus end in self-refutation.

Fred looks to be rather ignorant of presuppositional apologetics. The supposed claim of “YRR apologists” is one that has been shared by many others throughout history. Fred’s apparent ignorance of what the older presuppositionalists said and why they said it is the very thing I expressed concern over in the post Fred is commenting on. He acts as though the “YRR” crowd is the first to make the claim that he attributes to them. Or perhaps he thinks Cornelius Van Til was YRR. Or perhaps his complaint applies to more than just “YRR apologists.” But then why inject that term into the discussion at all? Perhaps, again, to justify the overly dismissive attitude Fred takes with respect to the claims in question. He is poisoning the well.

“Typically, that means, one has to embrace covenant theology, and in the case of Demar and his ilk, a preterist to boot. That’s baloney.”

Fred’s concern is a misplaced one since I did not make either of these claims in the post he was commenting on.

“I know you like to think of yourself as the orthodox defender of pure presuppositionalism,”

Can Fred read minds? How does he know what I think about myself? Where did he get this from what I wrote in my post? Dare I say that I sense a tinge of arrogance in what Fred has to say in his comment?

“but as a thoroughly non-CTer and one who thinks preterism is borderline heretical, I am a staunch Calvinist and a presuppositionalists [sic] who has always been consistent.”

That’s nice, but who is it that Fred is arguing against? Did I ever say that those who adhere to something other than covenant theology and/or preterism cannot be consistent in using presuppositional apologetics? No. Not only did I make no such claim in the post Fred is commenting on, but to my knowledge I have never made that claim in anything I have written.

Not only that, but Fred’s statement that, “I know you like to think of yourself as the orthodox defender of pure presuppositionalism, but as a thoroughly non-CTer and one who thinks preterism is borderline heretical, I am a staunch Calvinist and a presuppositionalists [sic] who has always been consistent” assumes that Fred knows what I hold regarding covenant theology and preterism. To my knowledge, he does not. Fred is being presumptuous, and that may indicate more than the mere tinge of aforementioned arrogance. (As an aside, I do not know what Fred means by “borderline heretical” unless it is just another way of saying “orthodox,” but I could care less about Fred’s vendetta against Gary Demar and/or preterism.)

“I would agree with you with regards to Arminianism. What scripture teaches on the nature of God, the nature of man, and God’s regenerating work, is foundational for how we engage the unbeliever.”

Amazingly, Fred changes his tune mid-comment. If I listen to Fred’s complaints in the first part of his comment then I should start dismissing him as an arrogant YRR right here. But I am generally not inclined to dismiss someone’s words without argument as Fred did from the beginning of his comment. Rather, I will note again how horribly inconsistent it is for Fred to acknowledge his “chuckle” at allegedly arrogant people for doing the very thing he admits that he does a few lines later. Not only does he not actually provide any reason or argument for accepting the things that he says (sometimes contrary to what I wrote in my post), but he thoroughly undermines his own assertions.

“I know Lisle, and have spoke [sic] with him briefly about this issue. (And fact, I’ll pass along this article to him via email). Though you may think his answer is to [sic] soft, he is basically correct.”

Note, again, that Fred merely assumes and asserts the opposite of what I argued for via my previous post and links. I wrote an entire post about why Lisle is not only not “basically correct,” but fundamentally mistaken. I provided a list of links to older posts that explain why. Fred’s response is, “he is basically correct.” Ipse dixit. Is this supposed to be persuasive? I am thankful for Fred sending the post along to Dr. Lisle, and I hope that he will give it more thought than what Fred apparently has. Lisle denies what every significant representative of the presuppositional method of apologetics has historically affirmed. Even Fred stands opposed to Lisle in claiming that there is a theological link between, say, Calvinism and presuppositionalism.

“This is how the prophets and apostles defended the faith. Any Christian who takes the Bible seriously as God’s revelation will see this.”

I agree, and made that fact evident my previous post.

“In fact, I’ve heard Dr. Michael Brown argue presuppositionally with hostile callers, and we all know where he stands.”

I’ve heard the self-proclaimed Pelagian Jesse Morrell use presuppositional arguments too, but that does not mean he does so consistently. That was the point of my previous post. It was not to say that someone must be a preterist to be a presuppositionalist. If someone wants to make that argument, then so be it. That was not my argument. Rather, I was pointing out the error in Lisle’s reply to one of his readers. He divorces crucial theological and philosophical positions from apologetic methodology and ecumenically explains away the history of presuppositional apologetics through sociological considerations.

Fred seems to be an intelligent and well-meaning man, but his comment on my post appears to have stemmed more from his seeing “preterism” and having a Dispyconniption than it did from having critically thought about what I wrote.

In a recent post I mentioned that, “I have heard a fair amount about a book by a Dr. Lisle but have not had the opportunity to read it” while referring to presuppositionalist strains in Answers in Genesis material. Someone commented here to affirm that, “Dr. Jason Lisle (astrophycisist) does indeed hold to a Van Tillian, ‘presuppositional’ apologetic method.”

Today I read a post by Lisle wherein he addresses a reader’s questions about presuppositional apologetics. Unfortunately I find his answer to be completely out of line with the method. I quote the relevant portion of his post below and then respond to it. The first paragraph of the quote is the reader’s question and the rest is Lisle’s answer.

3. I have also found intriguing that many presuppositionalists embrace Calvinism, and also eschatological Preterism (Bahnsen, Gentry). Classical apologists, on the other hand, tend to be more moderate calvinists, and usually dispensationalists (Geisler, MacDowell [sic]). Do you think there is a theological or philosophical link between Presuppositionalism, Calvinism, and Preterism? Do they have to be all part of the same “package” to be consistent? Or you think they can be separated and still be consistent within each one? To the names above, there are of course exceptions, such as Sproul and MacArthur… I am just trying to make sense of the Church’s behavior, since it not as unified as it was meant to be in the beginning!

I believe the presuppositional approach can be used by any legitimate, non-heretical Christian denomination. Furthermore, I believe it should be used by all Christians because it is how the Bible itself tells us how to do apologetics (e.g., Proverbs 26:4–5). It is interesting that some denominations seem to be more inclined to use the method. It may be that they feel more comfortable using a technique that was refined so cogently by people sympathetic to their specific denominational views (such as Bahnsen and VanTil).

But let me point out that the method itself (in its most basic form) is not based on any modern denomination or modern individual. Rather, it dates back to biblical times. Jesus and the apostle Paul used the presuppositional approach masterfully in their respective earthly ministries. They dealt with the Christian worldview as a whole and never accepted the pagan standards of the day (“don’t answer”), while showing the self-refuting nature of such standards (“answer”). Paul’s apologetic to the Greeks in Acts 17:18–34 is a great example of this.

We at Answers in Genesis are comprised of Christians from many different denominations. We have friendly disagreements on things such as Calvinism-Arminianism, eschatology, and so on. Yet we, as a ministry, are presuppositional. We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the most effective and biblical way to defend the faith.

Jason Lisle. Feedback: Testing Worldviews, the Bible, and Doctrine. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/04/feedback-testing-worldviews-bible-doctrine. June 4, 2010. US: AiG. Accessed May 12, 2012. Italics mine.

____________

“I believe the presuppositional approach can be used by any legitimate, non-heretical Christian denomination.”

The reader’s question was not about denominations. It was about theological positions such as Calvinism, Preterism, and Dispensationalism. Moreover, the reader asked about theological or philosophical links between presuppositionalism and the two former theological positions. The reader is thinking along the right lines in suspecting and asking about such links and the need for a theological “package” to be consistent in the use of presuppositional methodology. I am not sure what Lisle means by a “legitimate” Christian denomination or its relationship to “non-heretical,” nor is it immediately clear what denominations Lisle thinks fit these categories. I agree that any Christian denomination (or even theological position, which is what the question was actually about, not what Lisle goes on to talk about in addressing denominations) can use the presuppositional approach, but the question, and Lisle’s response, are about whether this may be done consistently. Lisle ecumenically affirms. I strongly disagree.

“Furthermore, I believe it should be used by all Christians because it is how the Bible itself tells us how to do apologetics (e.g., Proverbs 26:4–5).”

While I wholeheartedly agree with this statement it does not answer the reader’s question.

“It is interesting that some denominations seem to be more inclined to use the method. It may be that they feel more comfortable using a technique that was refined so cogently by people sympathetic to their specific denominational views (such as Bahnsen and VanTil).”

This is perhaps the most troubling part of Lisle’s response. The word “interesting” has been labeled one of the vaguest words in the English language, and it fits that description here. Lisle continues to skirt the reader’s questions both by his use of the aforementioned word and by his continued talk of “denominations” which have little if anything to do with the actual question about the theologies (not denominations!) of Calvinism, Preterism, and Dispensationalism. (Surely he knows the difference?) In any event, Lisle implicitly answers his reader’s questions here in the negative. The reader’s questions were, again, about theological and philosophical connections between Calvinism, Preterism, and Dispensationalism and apologetic methodology. Lisle’s answer dismisses the link between particular theological positions and presuppositionalism as “interesting” and rather than offering anything of theological or philosophical substance provides instead a possible sociological explanation of the apparent connection! A speculative sociological response evidencing ignorance of apologetic methodology replaces a thoroughgoing theological explanation of presuppositional apologetics like that offered in the very writers in question (Van Til and Bahnsen). Given the insightfulness of the reader’s questions I suspect that he was not satisfied with the reply he received from Lisle.

“But let me point out that the method itself (in its most basic form) is not based on any modern denomination or modern individual. Rather, it dates back to biblical times. Jesus and the apostle Paul used the presuppositional approach masterfully in their respective earthly ministries. They dealt with the Christian worldview as a whole and never accepted the pagan standards of the day (‘don’t answer’), while showing the self-refuting nature of such standards (‘answer’). Paul’s apologetic to the Greeks in Acts 17:18–34 is a great example of this.”

When presuppositional apologetics are divorced from theological considerations they fail to be presuppositional apologetics. Sadly, as presuppositional apologetics become more widely written about and used on the Internet and elsewhere they also become further removed from their Scriptural roots. Some have noticed this problem and insist on going back to the Bible to resolve the difficulty. Great! But that is not necessarily the best solution. There are many others who have gone before us in developing the method of apologetics in question. There are, for example, Augustine, Tertullian, Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, and Oliphint who have spent their lives studying the text of Scripture to pass on a biblical apologetic that stands by the Christian worldview as a whole and defends it over against error and unbelief of all varieties. In their praiseworthy zeal to return to the text of Scripture to develop a biblical apologetic many modern day presuppositionalists have forgotten to consult with those who pointed them in that direction. In this particular instance Lisle is either ignorant of much of the presuppositional/covenantal method of apologetics or else he is suppressing some of its central tenets for ecumenical reasons.

“We at Answers in Genesis are comprised of Christians from many different denominations. We have friendly disagreements on things such as Calvinism-Arminianism, eschatology, and so on. Yet we, as a ministry, are presuppositional. We agree that presuppositional apologetics is the most effective and biblical way to defend the faith.”

Show me an Arminian who embraces presuppositional apologetics and I will show you an Arminian who understands the method as well as he understands soteriology. I do not find it at all encouraging that Lisle considers Arminian theology either “legitimate” or “non-heretical” as he must if he is consistent with his initial comments quoted above. Nor do I find it encouraging that Answers in Genesis seemingly places an agreement upon presuppositional apologetics as more important than an agreement upon soteriology and other matters that Calvinism and Arminianism touch upon. All of this flies in the face of true presuppositional, biblical, covenantal apologetics. And this is why – even though I have not read his book – I can say that Dr. Jason Lisle, unfortunately, has some very serious misunderstandings of presuppositional apologetic methodology.

See the following links to understand why:

http://www.choosinghats.com/2008/10/god-is-the-potter/

http://www.choosinghats.com/2012/02/theology-determines-apologetic-van-til/

http://www.choosinghats.com/2011/07/van-til-systematic-theology/

http://www.choosinghats.com/2010/02/theology-drives-apologetic/

http://www.choosinghats.com/2010/07/is-presuppositionalism-new/

“The swashbuckling confidence of writers such as Pinnock and Wenham – a confidence not unfairly reprobated by Carson as ‘intemperate’ – is only rarely to be found.” – Colin Sedgwick

Part of this apparent “swashbuckling” is, frankly, the use of such terms as “traditionalist”. While in your typical evangelical circles, there will be hardly any eyebrows raised over the use of that term, in Reformed circles, it’s tantamount to being accused of Romanism. Why? Because of the “three-legged stool” of Roman authority. Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (or the Church, or Papal authority). Essentially, this title seems to convey that we are putting tradition above, or at least equal to, Scripture. At varying places, either the “leg” of Roman tradition or magisterial declarations are, in fact, put over Scripture; that’s sort of the point of most of the Protestant objections to Romanism! Yet, interminably (especially after a 3 hour stretch of listening to 3 conditionalists speak on the subject of Hell) we hear them calling us “traditionalists”. I really shouldn’t even have to say this – but as a Reformed guy, this really tends to get my dander up, in short order.

As someone Reformed, we believe anything we believe on the basis of Sola Scriptura. If, like a good Protestant, they’d like to admit that the proper use of “tradition” in Scripture is “that which was taught by the apostles, and is recorded for us in Scripture”, sure, I’d love to be called a traditionalist. Mostly, because that would mean they admit I’m right. However, they quite obviously don’t intend to concede the debate to us. Thus, the pejorative term “traditionalist”. I don’t believe in the doctrine of Hell as put forth in the Scripture, recorded in our confessions, and that I teach my children in their catechism, because of tradition. Not unless they’re willing to admit that this is what is taught in the Scriptures, at least. In that sense, sure! 2 Thessalonians 3:6 tells us of the proper sense of “tradition” – “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” The tradition there is “paradosis” – the “giving over of instruction.” Likewise, we see a similar instruction given in 1 Cor 11:2 – “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” In both cases, it is tradition given over to them by the apostles – the same who wrote the Scripture we’re examining. Scripturally, properly held tradition is Biblical, and is passed along by Biblical teachers, from God’s Word.

Scripture also tells us of the tradition which is not proper; In Matthew 15:3 – “And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” Here, we see Christ rebuking the Pharisees who are rebuking Him out of their tradition. In Col 2:8 – “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Paul is warning against captivity to deception, in accordance with the traditions of whom? Of men. To be quite honest with you, it rather chaps my hide to hear them glibly throwing out “traditionalist” as they wax eloquently on about something Scripture expressly forbids – and advancing a sort of traditionalism of their own – because I’m not going to admit that they’re getting what they teach out of Scripture. Why do I say that it’s traditionalism? It’s not very hard to figure out.

What were the principal theological distinctives of the Sadducees? For one, the denial of the resurrection of the dead. Sure, they denied the whole enchilada – not just the eternal punishment of the dead (in any meaningful sense – I have yet to see any meaningful sense of “punishment” and “eternal” in concert given by any conditionalist proponent) – but why not blame the Sadducees for the “tradition” of the conditionalists, at least partially, since we get accused of holding to tradition in lieu of Scripture? I mean, we get blamed for getting our belief in the “natural immortality of the soul” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from Platonic idealism, so why not? For that matter, why don’t we blame their position (and the physicalists along with them, for good measure!) on the Epicureans? If we get stuck with Plato’s idealism, we may as well stick them with Epicurean materialism, and call it a raw deal all around!

In short – I don’t really think that the conditionalists got their stuff from Epicurus. Actually, I highly doubt that that there’s been an especially large amount of study into Epicurus (or historical philosophy, on the whole, frankly) on the part of those who make these sorts of claims, given the reactions I was hearing to (gasp!) the use of syllogisms. But if we’re going to play the silly blame game, Epicurus looks mighty tempting to use. So, just think it over. If conditionalists are going to lay down a term like “traditionalist,” there are consequences to doing so – such as leaving themselves open to charges of ad hominem, retortion using the same line of argument towards their own position, or, not least, the fact that they (in the upcoming debate, at least) are the one making the positive case, and should be making that case, not engaging in drive-by, unsubstantiated assertions by way of the terminology employed to address their opponents. It’s purely pejorative, unhelpfully so, and just serves to make their job harder. Some folks might be willing to accept the term. I’m not one of them.