Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: Impossibility of the Contrary

  • When Possibility is Impossible: Answering a Rawlsian Ruse with Radical Retortion

    In 1971 John Rawls wrote his famous A Theory of Justice in which he presented what is known as ‘The Original Position.’ The OP is a hypothetical state of affairs in which an individual operates from behind a ‘Veil of Ignorance’ in order to establish principles of justice for society apart from considerations of ethnicity, class, gender, and the like. This thought experiment stems from the radical autonomy present in Immanuel Kant’s work.

    Enough about Rawls. Cornelius Van Til was a Christian apologist who likewise drew from Kant’s work, taking the transcendental method developed by Kant (and many others before …

  • Transcendental Meditation

    http://www.reformation21.org/articles/transcendental-meditation.php…

  • My Opponent’s Position, as Stated

    (22:14)First, I fully hold to the orthodox essentials of the faith and other important doctrines; I believe in the Trinity, the deity and virgin birth of Christ, the total depravity of man and salvation by grace through faith alone; Sola Scriptura, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. I’m not a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a member of any other questionable denomination.

    Second, I have no emotional or philosophical problem whatsoever with eternal conscious torment; everlasting suffering has never seemed to me to be incompatible with the love and justice of God, nor does it today.

    …

  • Some Thoughts About the Impossibility of the Contrary

    Introduction

    The “Transcendental Argument for God” (TAG) is typically understood as resting upon the “Impossibility of the Contrary.” We may be in a better position apologetically if we think about the Impossibility of the Contrary (IoC) in terms of three aspects of the IoC. These three aspects of the IoC are definition, dogma, and demonstration.

    Definition

    What is the IoC?

    “Impossibility” refers to the impossibility of predication upon the presuppositions of some position. We might also take the impossibility in view to refer to the impossibility of the truth of some position, the impossibility of the rationality

    …

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black VII

    “But how can anyone know anything about the ‘Beyond’?” asks Mr. Black.
    “Well, of course,” replies Mr. Grey, “if you want absolute certainty, such as one gets in geometry, Christianity does not offer it. We offer you only ‘rational probability.’ ‘Christianity,’ as I said in effect a moment ago when I spoke of the death of Christ, ‘is founded on historical facts, which, by their very nature, cannot be demonstrated with geometric certainty. All judgments of historical particulars are at the mercy of the complexity of the time-space universe. . . . If the scientist cannot rise above rational probability

    …

  • Dr. Oliphint And The Clark/Van Til Controversy. But Wait, There's More!

    Reformed Forum had Dr. Oliphint on to speak on the Clark/Van Til controversy which I found helpful as an introduction to the issues at hand. This seems like a good discussion to start out your perusal of this controversy if you are so inclined. However the more interesting part of this discussion for me were the following locations:

    • Minute 37 God and Logic – What is the relation? What about paradox?
    • Minute 43 Transcendental Arguments and the Impossibility of the Contrary (as a methodological approach) used in non-Christian Theism.

    In the time after minute 43 the answer Dr. Oliphint gives …

  • Sola Scriptura Debate

    Sorry for the long wait. The audio for the debate can be found here. A transcript (courteously provided by Mr. Marcum) can be found here.

    The full thesis: Sola Scriptura is an essential Christian doctrine, and necessary for instruction in faith and practice

    Debaters: Dan Marcum, myself

    Moderator: BK…

  • Apologetics and the Arminian

    The purpose of this post is to address a response to the above presentation, wherein presuppositional apologetics seems to be misunderstood by the author. The author’s response can be found here, but I will address most of the post, if not all, in the following article.

    James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. (link) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject.

    If you watched the above video (or heard …