Irrationality is not a Response

I encountered a rather unfortunate blog post today. Upon examining it, and the posts it links to, I think it would be helpful to respond to, albeit briefly.

First, just to get it out of the way – why on earth would you use such appalling language when dealing, at least putatively, with Christian doctrine? (Let alone any other time.) It is, quite simply, outrageous on any level.

Second, while I’m sure Jon Stewart (and his devoted fans) are quite convinced that he is the epitome of the witty bon mot – he quite typically fails, rather spectacularly, in …

Read more

Love is Love and Other Tautologies

Love is love, right? That’s the tagline for the modern movement which seeks to redefine what, precisely, love is. There are a multitude of problems with this idea, of course, but let’s take one specific instance.

It begins, predictably, with “love has no gender.” It proceeds to “love has no race.” Next, “love has no disability.” Next up is “love has no age.” We’ll get back to that in a minute. Next up is “love has no religion.” It ends with “love has no labels.”

There’s a problem with this progression, though. The video is subtitled “Love has no Labels” …

Read more

The Covenantal Apologetic: Principles to Practice

It cannot be sufficiently stressed that the covenantal apologetic is first and foremost a Reformed apologetic.  Consistently, a practitioner will be Confessional, therefore Covenantal and Calvinistic.  These are sometimes called the “3 Cs.”  This is not being stressed for a subjectivistic “purity’s” sake, nor for controversialism’s sake.  It is being stressed for the sake of consistency.  First and foremost in Reformed theology is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.  From Scripture, we also have revealed the doctrine of God, and all of the other doctrines we believe and hold to.  Consistent with these doctrines, we preach, and we …

Read more

Jeremiah 31 and Newness

Most Covenantal discussions revolve around what, precisely, is new about the New Covenant.  Much ink has been spilled, and literary armies have marched forth to battle on the strength of this one word.  A newer entrant to the lists has their own opinion on the matter, and believes that the newness consists in a complete distinction from the old.  As one adherent of New Covenant Theology stated to me in conversation, the difference lies in “newness” and “not like”.  In a sense, this is true. What we bring to bear on these words, presuppositionally, will determine what we think they …

Read more

Second Timothy 2 and Unbelief

I recently encountered a comment on 2Tim which asserted that this passage precludes “protracted arguments with unbelievers.” The verse cited as proof of this was 2 Timothy 2:14. Unfortunately, there was no argument accompanying this statement. The additional statement was made that “We have zero evidence that Jesus and the apostles spent protracted time dealing with unbelievers.” I’d like to deal with these comments to follow.

Firstly, let’s look at the passage. Obviously, 2 Timothy is written to Timothy, a young pastor at Ephesus, and protege of Paul. The entire middle section of the second chapter concerns practical instructions for …

Read more

Standing our Ground: But Not Because of Tradition

While it might be politic to cite the opinion of someone whose idea of things is, at least superficially, similar to our own, that doesn’t negate the requirement to examine that opinion with an eye toward the presuppositional commitments of the one expressing it.  When we, as Reformed believers, committed to Sola Scriptura, look at a subject like the current push for “gay marriage” – what sort of things are we taking for granted when we take that look?  I refer, of course, to the columnist Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who recently wrote an article entitled “Why so many Christians won’t

Read more

On Proper Analysis – Scott Terry and VanTillianFire

The author, Aaron Dale, at the blog “Van Tillian Fire,” has written a critique of my much-critiqued “Dear Sye” post.  For reasons unbeknownst to me, he neglected to read the post of the following day, “The Shattered Stained Glass Window”, as well as the post “A Necessary Distinction.”   Why is this important, you ask?  It is important because these were written several months ago – and written specifically to provide specifics about issues I left unstated, or merely referred to in general terms in the initial post.  Why did I leave them unstated? I left them …

Read more

The Inveterate Incoherency of Race

Here is the problem, at root.  We talk about race – but what do we mean when we say that?  If that question sounds familiar, it should!  Before we can address the issue, we need to define the issue.  So first, what is meant by race, but secondly, from whence do we get it? Thirdly, is our discussion of it consistent with the rest of our doctrine?  You typically already know the answer to this once you’ve answered the first two questions – but it is good to answer it clearly, so that you face it clearly.

As already mentioned, …

Read more

Francois Tremblay as Philosophical Flat-Earther

Classical foundationalism is dead. But that does not stop foolish atheists like Francois Tremblay from continuing to promote such an outdated epistemological starting point. Francois Tremblay is an atheist who complains about, “Chris Bolt, who wrote a rant against the principle that, ‘It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’” He writes, “I find this fascinating because this principle is so obvious and so straightforward that the idea of someone arguing against it seems strange at best.”

Right, so it’s an “obvious” and “so straightforward” principle. It’s “strange” that someone would argue against it. …

Read more