• Home
  • /Posts Tagged ' apologetic method '
  • /Page 2

Archives

William Lane Craig, Evidentialism, & Inerrancy

William Lane Craig answers the question of whether there were guards at Christ’s tomb in an appalling (to any Bible believer) manner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b8UMb7NlxkU

TurretinFan’s rebuttal to Craig’s answer:

Rebuttal to Craig’s Denial of the Historicity of the Guard Account

It is disappointing, though unsurprising, to see that when one has abandoned a presuppositional commitment to the truth of Scripture, and to the God of the Bible, that one unavoidably falls further and further into the trap of editing the Gospel to make it more palatable to the ears of unbelievers.

We pray that Craig will turn from his sinful tampering …

Read more →

 

Dr Scott Oliphint Fields Questions on Unbelievable?

That’s right, it was an inquisition! Ok, not quite that bad. Dr. Oliphint was on Unbelievable? to talk about Presuppositional/Covenantal Apologetics. He ended up having to spend the entire time defending it from Kurt Jaros who clearly doesn’t understand the Theological underpinnings of the method, or their implications. However, because of this, there are some very good explanations that Dr. Oliphint gives that I think are very helpful. One that stands out in my mind is confusion between the fact that non believers are irrational yet we can also reason with them. Listen carefully for these great answers Dr. Oliphint …

Read more →

 

Unintelligent Design?

Allow me, for a moment, to explain some of my initial thoughts concerning what denial of God’s existence entails with respect to Design. If you hold that there is no God, and that there is no Design to the universe, there are a few things that follow. If there is no Designer, and if there is no Design, then there are no “designers” and there are no individual “designs.” None, at all, anywhere. I will now proceed to explain the same thing in probably too many ways and in probably too many words.

There is only cause and effect. “Intention” …

Read more →

 

On God’s “Evil” Actions

Probably one of the most common objections to Christianity that we hear is one that relates to the Problem of Evil. While the problem of evil asks, “How can an Omnipotent, Good God exist with evil in the world,” this particular one asks, “How can God be ‘good’ if he has done all these evil things?” Men will object to Christianity saying that God has done evil things. And from this they conclude God either doesn’t exist, or if he does exist he is not worth believing.

We answer the former problem by demonstrating from the Bible that the …

Read more →

 

Problems With Authority in Classical and Evidentialist Apologetics

To the extent that attempts are made in order to distinguish between the “evidentialist” and “classical” schools of apologetics, in an effort to salvage the “classical” method, these distinctions nevertheless fail to dodge the criticisms leveled at evidentialism by Van Tilian presuppositionalists. It shouldn’t strike us as very coincidental that the problem presuppositionalists have with the classical/evidentialist methods primarily concerns the presuppositions of these methods. Furthermore, that practitioners of either the classical or evidentialist methods borrow aspects from presuppositionalism (which I would argue is inevitable as long as the practitioner is at least to some extent devoted to sola scriptura

Read more →

 

When Contra Munda isn’t All About You

Back in the third century of the church, as I’m sure some of our readers are aware, there was a bishop named Athanasius – his tenacious defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition to the swiftly growing heresy of Arianism gave rise to the statement “Athanasius contra mundum” – Athanasius against the world. In a sense, this wasn’t quite true – there were other defenders of the Trinity around, but none so prolific, and none who were targeted nearly so heavily as Athanasius, who was ejected from his church five times, and was only vindicated after his death. …

Read more →

 

Verificationism And Christianity

One of the many problems atheists have with Christianity involves the issue of Verificationism. They may say, “I can’t believe Christianity because it can’t be verified,” and some might include, “…scientifically.” Some may even say, “It’s not true unless it can be verified.” Greg Bahnsen has a chapter in Always Ready entitled, “The Problem of Religious Language,” wherein he deals with both Verificationism and Falsificationism. The summary of the problem is that any religious utterance cannot be considered “meaningful” unless it can be checked against real-world data. Any talk of God, for instance, must correspond to something observable in the …

Read more →

 

Addressing a Common Evidentialist Retort

My brother-in-law went to school with an atheist who excelled in virtually every subject he studied. This particular atheist was a sharp thinker. He was also firm in his atheistic convictions. But he liked to drink. A lot. One night he had a bit too much. By the end of the night he was weeping and crying out about how there has to be a God. Plenty of his friends witnessed the event. They brought it up later. His response was to grumpily tell them not to talk about it.

My old Sunday School teacher had a friend who came …

Read more →

 

The Creator/Creature Distinction and Objections

In our last post we looked at the centrality of the Creator/creature distinction to Christian theology, and to our apologetic. With this post, I’d like to look at the importance of it in regards to objections offered and our response to them. These objections can come in a variety of forms – the so-called problem of evil, the supposed “evil god” objections, objections to Scriptural tenets, or what have you. At bottom, however, I’d advance the theory that they all boil down to a denial of God’s transcendence. Why do I say this?

At bottom, every objection that is offered …

Read more →

 

The Centrality of the Creator/creature distinction

As we spoke about in the last post, there seems to be a strangely persistent notion that emphasizing an actual distinction between the thought of God and man is a mistake. I’d like to add that there is a similar notion, despite lip-service to the concept, that emphasizing the transcendence of God in any sense is likewise considered to be a mistake of some kind. In my experience, this often stems from the fact that men are simply uncomfortable with God being absolutely other – and as such, not to be confused with anything they would be familiar with. While …

Read more →