Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: ChrisBolt

  • Guest Post: Should we be neutral?

    The following post was written by our friend defectivebit. He is a chat channel regular and helps us out by running our Facebook Page. Make sure to “Like” us on Facebook if you have not already!

    Dr. Greg Bahnsen addresses the question “should we be neutral” in the first chapter of his book Pushing the Antithesis.[1] He cites several passages regarding man’s condition and mindset. Dr. Bahnsen lists Romans 1:18-21 where we see Paul describe the mindset of those upon whom God’s wrath still abides as not only not neutral but openly hostile. Paul proclaims that God gives them …

  • Wise Advice?

    Some readers will recall that when I briefly interacted with a post by Brandon Adams I was quick to add that, “One of the reasons I do not tend to engage in arguments against Clarkianism is that I am rather unfamiliar with the position.” Thus far this statement unfortunately remains true as I simply have not had the time to read through Gordon Clark’s work yet. I noted that a problem I saw with the aforementioned post is that, “there is not much by way of interaction with the position Van Til and Bahnsen actually held…In fact there are no …

  • Some resources to pass the time…

    Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics by Ian Clary.

    Debate between Sye TenBrugencatte and Paul Baird on the existence of God.

    Papers by one of my “favorite” apologists Colin D. Smith.

    Panel Discussion at SBTS on Apologetic Method.

    Debate between James White and David Silverman on, “Is the New Testament Evil?” (costs)

    Brilliant!…

  • God, Worldviews, and Minds

    Al Mohler wrote an excellent post today that you need to check out.…

  • SBTS Panel Discussion On Amusing Ourselves To Death

    Years ago a friend gave me his copy of a book he had to read as a part of a class he was taking as a student at Liberty University. The book was Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Little did I know when he handed me a book being used at LU that it would have the impact on me that it did. The book has found a place in my “Top Ten” and I highly recommend it to you.

    Imagine my excitement when I learned that there was going to be a panel discussion at SBTS regarding …

  • Concluding Remarks on the Wallis Debate

    Chris,

    I have a few final clarifications for you…

    First of all, I’m not sure what premises you think I’m accepting, but let me assure you that I do NOT agree using induction without epistemic justification is irrational. You object to this assertion by complaining that it is not an argument, and indeed you are correct, it is not. What we decide to call “rational” or “irrational” depends on whatever standards of rationality we are using, and so it suffices for me to point out that my standard does not impose any such requirement for the epistemic justification of induction.

    …

  • Happy Reformation Day From Choosing Hats!

    Introduction

    In April 1518 Martin Luther was called upon by the Augustinian order of Germany to set out and defend his theology at the General Chapter of Heidelberg. While Luther was rather thoroughly surrounded by controversy he would be presenting the theological ideas which had produced this controversy to those who shared much of his Augustinian thinking. The name of the presentation Luther delivered is the Heidelberg Disputation. The Heidelberg Disputation consists of a number of theses divided between philosophical theses and theological theses. The theological theses are explained in much greater detail than are the philosophical theses. Luther actually …

  • Pressing the Point: More on the Wallis debate

    Proof and Persuasion

    An important distinction to be made in apologetics is the one between proof and persuasion. One may offer a perfectly sound argument pertaining to some position that accomplishes everything it promises and yet have a recipient of that argument completely unmoved by it. It does not follow from the fact that an individual(s) is allegedly not accepting of an argument that the argument in question does not constitute a proof. On the other hand someone may be presented with a completely invalid and false argument and still be moved to accept the conclusion of the argument, …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Theism, Presuppositionalism, and Induction

    Mr. Wallis writes that, “theism is just as ill-equipped as nontheism to answer the epistemic problem of induction.” In this statement is an apparent acknowledgement that non-theism is unable or at any rate “ill-equipped” to “answer the epistemic problem of induction.” We will set aside this concession regarding the problem of induction in a non-theistic worldview and go directly to the objection to justifying induction in the context of the Christian worldview.

    The problem Mr. Wallis has with attempting to justify induction in the Christian worldview does not concern the content of the answer Christian theology provides. Rather Mr. Wallis …

  • Wallis Debate Recap Continued: Induction

    Mr. Wallis claims that, “we simply must use induction, because we have no other means of planning for action in the world.” An interesting claim to be sure, but it is not clear what Mr. Wallis means by this statement or how Mr. Wallis could know that it is true. He nevertheless concludes from this statement that, “no epistemic ‘problem’ of induction need cause us an abundance of concern.” Even more strange is that Wallis offers these statements as constituting an “objection” to the following argument that he quotes from me from our debate:

    “Reasoning invalidly is not reasonable at …