You responded with...To an unsaved person these words sound like gibberish. The words without spirit behind them, do not convey any revelation. Our foundations are not found in naturalism, right? Since every argument from apologetics but one is sourced in naturalism, I really don't always see the use of it.....The only spiritual reality is an experience, but to make sure we don't have a false experience we check the Scripture. It's like our lodestone, our north star. Every born again believer is not some brain that heard and processed data, it's a spirit that's come alive in another dimension. You just can't "convince" or "inform" someone into a new birth.
Could you explain this for me. I've read some Lewis and some Kierkegaard, but not enough to figure out how you made the above inference.So, it would be safe to say you would gravitate more to Kierkegaard than C.S. Lewis?
Thanks,
Peter
edit: I just did some online searches and see now that Lewis didn't like the doctrine of Total Depravity. Since Adam and Eve sinned with the nature God gave them when he created them, I have to wonder if they had had children prior to eating the fruit, how long would it have taken their children to sin? I'm really wondering if the bias or tendency to sin is a result of nature and nurture, but not the result of a supernatural act that occurred when two people tasted a forbidden fruit. (The one verse that still puzzles me is Gen 3:7. This verse does make it seem as though there might have been an instant supernatural change that occurred.)