Author: C. L. Bolt
-
A "Serious Problem" with "An Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics"
Lyndon Unger has a “SERIOUS problem” with my Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics. He expresses his concerns in the comments here. I asked him a series of questions that he has not answered, so I will go ahead and give a few of my thoughts in response to his comments. His comments are below, followed by my questions, followed by some explanation of why I asked what I did.
_____
…Why does Bolt attach Covenant theology to his system of apologetics?
I’m confused as this sure sounds like he’s riding a hobby horse from one field to another and
-
"Getting to God" – Thomistic Misconceptions of Van Tilian Presuppositionalism (Updated)
David Gadbois from Green Baggins wrote the following in a comment on Fides, Ratio, et Mysterium:
…I’m definitely in the camp that doesn’t believe that Christianity is transcendentally necessary. I think the VanTilian presuppositionalists overreached in trying to make Christianity, as a package deal, into a transcendental necessity. The various transcendental arguments that have been offered really only get you as far as God’s existence, a personal and just God, not [sic] doubt, but really nothing beyond what is revealed in general revelation. God’s acts of redemption in time and space, as recorded in special revelation, were
-
Commenting on Canon
“Do you mean why should we accept Hebrews rather than the Gospel of Thomas as canonical?
Well, the primary reason is because Hebrews *is* canonical, whereas the Gospel of Thomas is not.
But then I guess you’re asking how we know that.
I would say that it is self-attesting.
See, self-attesting is always objective.
This is strange to me – people usually take that to be subjective.
I’m not talking about a subjective mark, but an objective one.
But it presumes itself authoritative in the same way as other Scripture.
And is qualitatively the same.
I’m not talking about the …
-
Christianity Today Article, Harold Camping, and Intro to Apologetics
Jim Spiegel wrote in Christianity Today on Unreasonable Doubt.
Check out a site pertaining to Harold Camping called Rapture Fail.
Remember that the introductory series on Covenantal Apologetics is done and can be bookmarked here. It is also available by clicking on the Series button at the top right of the page.…
-
Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics by C.L. Bolt
Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics
By C.L. Bolt
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics – Introduction
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 1 – There are two worldviews.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 2 – Everyone has presuppositions.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 3 – There is no neutrality.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 4 – Evidence that Christianity is true.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 5 – Arguments that Christianity is true.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 6 – Arguments that Christianity is true refuted.
- An Informal Introduction to
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics – Conclusion
By C.L. Bolt
What I endeavored to accomplish in the pieces preceding this post was not to provide an exhaustive account of all things presuppositional but to grant the readers a very basic level knowledge of Van Tillian presuppositionalism also known as Covenantal Apologetics without fancy terminology or at least with definitions when technical language was used. My hopes were to write something merely from memory as opposed to turning to sources and then collecting them in a Works Cited or Bibliography. I did not mean to go back and correct much of what I wrote or to answer objections …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 45 – Redemption.
By C.L. Bolt
Non-Christians suppress the truth in unrighteousness, distorting every fact. Unbelievers are both spiritually and intellectually lost, believing themselves to be final authorities with respect to their own intellectual evaluations of the world. Yet in appealing to one’s own authority one appeals to a shifting foundation that certainly does not serve as a norm. Truth itself is relative in this scheme. The standards, purpose, meaning, motivation, etc. for reasoning are completely lost in this assumption of the possibility of thought independent of God. This series has sought to show in some detail how the creaturely mind asserting its …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 44 – Islam.
By C.L. Bolt
Islam is much more similar to the Christian worldview than atheism or agnosticism. Some varieties of the non-Christian worldview are so much like the Christian worldview that they actually admit to borrowing from the Christian worldview, and Islam is one of these. Islam states that faith is the starting point and Muslims place their faith in the Bible “like” the Christian does (on the surface). When the Bible is claimed as the starting point by an unbelieving system of thought, how might we begin to answer that system?
Many Christians are unaware that Muslims claim that the …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 43 – Agnosticism.
By C.L. Bolt
Since Romans 1 teaches a universal belief in God, if the Christian world view is true, then agnosticism is contradictory and thus false. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that agnosticism is true, and the agnostic really does not know whether or not God exists:
If God exists, then everyone knows that God exists;
The agnostic does not know that God exists;
Therefore, God does not exist.The agnostic’s position of agnosticism assumes at the outset that God does not exist. But this is atheism, not agnosticism. For agnosticism to both be agnosticism and not …
-
An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 42 – Atheism.
By C.L. Bolt
So much work has been done regarding atheism that one hesitates to add much more concerning it in an introduction to covenantal apologetics. The atheist must be pressed for consistency in every area, and her inconsistencies immediately pointed out. The problems of skepticism described in this series are so easily applied to atheism that those new to this method of apologetics sometimes mistakenly think that the method is only applicable to atheism.
The atheist will mockingly demand evidence for the existence of God all the while pretending as though she is neutral with respect to any evidence …