Apologetics to the Glory of God

Month: January 2010

  • Cultic Presups

    As if often noted by Dr. White on his program, The Dividing Line, there are certain presuppositions that show up again and again in cults. The most obvious one is that of Unitarianism.

    These presuppositions can be illustrated quite clearly in an excerpt from Dr. White’s “The Forgotten Trinity.”

    So we can see that rather than denying the deity of Christ, John 14:28 implies it, for the position into which the Son was going is a position fit only for deity, not for mere creatures. This is brought out plainly in the words of Jesus in John 17 and His

    …

  • The Possibility of Middle Knowledge

    I’m going to include the transcript of a discussion I had (along with several others) with a Middle Knowledge proponent that frequents AOMin’s chat channel. The reason I do so is in order to give an example of how the argument I advanced recently functions in an actual discussion.

    The discussion was fairly wide-ranging, but I think demonstrates the ability of a consistent return to the nature of God as the foundation of a reply to the assertions advanced by proponents of MK and other similar philosophical systems, over against the Biblical conception of God’s nature and the modal collapse …

  • Science Is Not That Simple

    Science is often thought of as involving facts that are directly given to unprejudiced observers through their senses, facts that precede and are independent of theory, and facts that provide a firm basis for scientific knowledge. A.F. Chalmers argues against these widely accepted ideas. 

    It is widely believed that facts concerning the world around us come to us directly through the senses.  This would lead us to believe that observing the world around us and recording what is seen or otherwise experienced through the senses is all there is to observation.  In this way it is thought, what is seen …

  • A Weird “Proof”

    Someone sent me a link to the following argument.

    1.(1) If Calvinism is true, there is no free will
    2.(2) The logical problem of evil is defeated only by Plantinga’s Free Will Defense
    3.(3) Plantinga’s Free Will Defense requires that there exist free will
    4.(4) If Calvinism is true, the logical problem of evil is not defeated
    5.(5) If the logical problem of evil is not defeated, God does not exist
    6.(6) If Calvinism is true, God does not exist
    7.(7) God does exist
    8.(8) Calvinism is false
    9.(9) Human beings have free will

    Lots of problems here.

    1. This …

  • Serving the Creature

    “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” Romans 1.25

    Al Mohler comments on the “new religion” of thinking green here.…

  • Proving the Bible

    Jamin Hubner at Real Apologetics has written another very fine article which may be found here.…

  • Absurdity In Atheism And Incredulity Concerning Inquiry

    It can often be entertaining (though ultimately it is really and truly sad) to observe unbelievers flinching at the utter absurdity of their own worldview when they are asked direct questions about even their most basic beliefs. For example, while being grilled on such topics as morality Dan Barker has been known to appeal to the audience and imply that his opponent is too dumb to know right from wrong as he did in his debate with Doug Wilson. Or, recall Barker’s debate with Paul Manata where he responds to Manata’s questions by saying, “You’re not serious about that” to …

  • A Further Example of the Importance of Divine Simplicity

    My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.”

    CMP: No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post.

    Jugulum: I actually agree w/him on “wrath”. Wrath isn’t an attr. because God’s wouldn’t be wrathful if he hadn’t created. God was/is/will-be eternally holy/righteous, which includes the trait, “I will be wrathful toward sin”. You might call that a “attr. of wrath”, but I think that was the distinction CMP was making. Similarly, God wasn’t eternally merciful, apart from a sinful creation. Mercy

    …

  • Is 2+2=4 just ink on paper?

    Anna:

    There is truth outside of Scripture sure, but most of it can’t be proven. There are only those things which can be scientifically proven. (1) It must be physical (touchable visible), (2) able to be observed, and (3) able to be repeated. If anything does not include these three things then we don’t know whether it is true.
    We believe the Bible because it is God’s word-and everything God says is true because God is righteous, although we have no proof that there is a God – we have faith. So archeology is our only proof of the Bible.…

  • Some of Nocterro’s Presuppositions

    Someone commenting on the site by the name Nocterro recently posted the following:

    I just have one final point to make regarding presuppositions.

    Presuppose: To believe or suppose in advance. (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition).

    You said earlier in this discussion: “You presuppose autonomy in that you reject the Lordship of Christ and the interpretation of the resurrection provided by Scripture which states that it was a supernatural event and assume that a naturalistic interpretation is possible for any given evidence.”

    This is wrong. In fact, you could say that I started with similar presuppositions to the ones that you

    …