Books

Reason and Worldviews

Reason and Worldviews

After the challenges of the Enlightenment from philosophers such as David Hume, contemporary philosophers of religion tend to think that proof is not possible and that at best humans have arguments for the probability or plausibility of belief in God. But, Christianity maintains that humans should know God. This book explores attempts to respond to the Enlightenment challenges by thinkers at Princeton Theological like Benjamin Warfield. It considers Warfield’s view of reason and knowledge of

bbwar

Benjamin B. Warfield and Right Reason

Benjamin B. Warfield and Right Reason offers a study of Princeton Theologian Benjamin B. Warfield’s view of apologetics and the role of reason in religious belief. In order to understand Warfield’s view of “right reason,” the book explores the intellectual development of Princeton Theological Seminary, Warfield’s debate with Abraham Kuyper over the need for apologetics, and the manner in which Cornelius VanTil attempted to adopt the best from both Warfield and Kuyper. The first chapter

The Clarity of God's Existence

The Clarity of God’s Existence

The Clarity of God’s Existence examines the need for theistic proofs within historic Christianity, and the challenges to these since the Enlightenment. Historically (and scripturally), Christianity has maintained that unbelief is inexcusable. If failing to know God is a sin, the implication is that humans can and should know God. Humans should know God because his eternal power and divine nature are clearly revealed in the things that are made. And yet, Anderson argues, more

natural-moral-law

The Natural Moral Law: The Good after Modernity

The Natural Moral Law argues that the good can be known and that therefore the moral law, which serves as a basis for human choice, can be understood. Proceeding historically through ancient, modern, and postmodern thinkers, Owen Anderson studies beliefs about the good and how it is known, and how such beliefs shape claims about the moral law. The focal challenge is whether the skepticism of postmodern thinkers can be answered in a way that