Page 81 - A Study of Theological Responses to Alvin Plantinga’s Aquinas/Calvin Model of Warranted Christian Belief - Kees van Kralingen
P. 81
Theological Responses to Plantinga’s A/C Model – Kevin Diller
of the A/C model, Diller states: “On Barth’s account there is no avenue to the know
of God that begins with generic theism or originates from an innate human capacity.” 5
for Diller’s conclusion about the compatibility between Barth and Plantinga.
Plantinga’s model. Diller notices that “While Plantinga is obliged to show that his general on his view generating impetus for all our knowledge is a design of the triune God.” the word ‘obliged ’ I would prefer to say that design by God is not necessary in Plantinga’s Diller is right, however, to point to Plantinga’s view that it is This points to God’s initiative rather
Looking at the matter from Barth’s perspective, Diller observes that Barth does not reception As Diller says: “Any aspect of the created order may serve as the locus of divine revealing, but not its source.” God’s revelation in Christ is not beamed out randomly into the
As a next step, Diller notes that Plantinga’s model entails that the warrant of Barth, Plantinga also rejects natural theology in the sense that “human arguments are neither necessary nor sufficient for theistic belief.”
Barth’s concern is that this approach would assume that knowledge of God can be by human beings without God’s revelation. It would also pretend to start from a
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma, 125 (emphasis Diller); he refers also to Plantinga’s
WCB
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
79
