Apologetics to the Glory of God

Year: 2011

  • Three Very Different Philosophers: Necessity of Epistemic Circularity

    “But don’t the doctrines of the imago dei (the image of God), and the purpose of human creation already presuppose that we can have substantive knowledge of God? They seem clearly to do this, and if so, then they cannot be appealed to in a noncircular argument for this theological optimism as a conclusion.

    First, it must be pointed out that the possibility of any kind of basic knowledge cannot be demonstrated by means of noncircular, nonquestion-begging arguments, by arguments that do not in any way already presume to some extent that to which they intend to lend some support.

  • Van Til’s Argument Part II

    In our last post, we dealt with the claims made over at The Gospel Coalition Blog that Van Til did not make an argument while setting forth his methodology. “Roberto G” made that claim, and we dealt with that sufficiently for the time being. Now, we will deal with Doug Perry’s assertion that Van Til’s “legacy” has “given us the school [of] circular reasoning held by most presuppositionalists”. His sentence is rather garbled, and none too clear, but it seems to be saying that transcendental argumentation is circular, as far as I can tell. Now, even if this isn’t precisely …

  • A Silent Contributor

    At the risk of alienating our readers and losing my high paying position here at the site (for those callow atheists who claim cash flow is the true ambition of the apologist – that was a joke), I want to write something a bit less related to apologetics and a bit more personal. It should be noted, however, that what I reveal below applies in the case of this site every bit as much as it does anywhere else.

    Lord willing I will graduate from seminary today with a Master of Divinity degree completed this past summer. There are many, …

  • Van Til’s Argument Part I

    In the comment section of Justin Taylor’s post, we have already seen perhaps the most common claims made by opponents of the covenantal apologetic. By “Roberto G”, we have the claim that Van Til didn’t make an argument; and by Doug Perry, we have the claim that the argument is circular. To head off any claims that I misunderstand what they have to say, let me quote the two gentlemen in question on the specified topics, and then I’ll deal with their comments as a whole in later posts, as I’ve decided to make this a short series, to …

  • Tawhid vs. Trinity

    Tony Costa vs. Habib Ali – June 11, 2009


    Also, there is this post: Trinity vs. Tawheed

    As well as this debate:

    Samuel Green vs. Abdullah Kunde


    Islam v Christianity Debate: Tawheed vs Trinity by NahdaProductions

  • The Most Important Christian Thinker Since Calvin?

    Justin Taylor over at the Gospel Coalition has a great post today about Van Til and his contributions to the Church. Check it out.

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/12/07/the-most-important-christian-thinker-since-calvin/

  • Since I was speaking of the Philosophy of Science

    .. on Twitter earlier this evening;

    Reformed Forum: The Philosophy of Science

    Enjoy.…

  • Extremely helpful introduction to LDS Doctrine

    Mormonism 101 – by Dr. James White

    I recommend it highly, as I do his published works on Mormonism – “Is the Mormon my Brother?” and “Letters to a Mormon Elder“.

    Also, as a bonus – here is his teaching on the LDS doctrine of “Eternal Law of Progression,” also a vitally important issue with the LDS.

  • Further evidence of the importance of Divine Simplicity

    “I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions. . . . Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman”

    – Joseph F. Smith, (Church News, 19 Sept.1936, p.2)

    There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for

  • Which sect is right – according to Joseph Smith

    18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

    19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage