Category: Authors
-
Opening Statement from my debate with Michael Long
My debate with Michael Long may be found here – https://choosinghats.org/2011/08/is-there-good-reason-to-believe-that-the-christian-god-exists
See some of my debate preparation here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/03/behind-the-scenes-notes-from-my-debate-with-michael-long
Debate Opening Statement
I. Introduction
Thank you Mr. Knapp, Mr. Long, my wife Kerri. Most of all I thank the Triune God of Scripture who chose, redeemed, and sealed me concerning the Gospel through which I am being saved by grace through faith; that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:1-5) I have personally experienced the reality of forgiveness of my sins …
-
“Reason Rally” Report
-
Point of Contact and Human Reason
It’s quite common to find the following objections made – just check out who is answering them as well as giving them for consideration.
…What has been said up to this point may seem to be discouraging in the extreme. It would seem that the argument up to this point has driven us to a denial of any point of contact whatsoever with the unbeliever. Is it not true that men must have some contact with the truth if they are to receive further knowledge of it? If men are totally ignorant of the truth, how can they even become
-
A Fantastic Insight into Redaction Criticism and the Islamic use of it
Two brief excerpts:
…I can tell you, without hesitation, that the vast majority of those who embrace form and redaction criticism in all of its flavors and kinds do so out of tradition, not out of having examined the case set forth in defense of these methods. In fact, very, very few of those who glibly repeat the party line have ever even given thought to any other viewpoint. Anyone who thinks there is a fair, open dialogue in “the academy” over these topics is simply misinformed. To “get ahead” in Christian scholarship you must—not should, MUST—toe the line when
-
Two New Apologetics Books
First, Jamin Hubner has released the Second Edition of his The Portable Presuppositionalist.
Second, Clifford B. McManis has published Biblical Apologetics: Advancing and Defending the Gospel of Christ. Several people have let me know about this book prior to its release, so I excitedly read everything I could in its online preview. I have some initial concerns with respect to the rhetoric and tone of the work.
McManis makes rather large implicit promises about putting a different spin on apologetics, but the portion of the book that I read contains very little, if anything, “new.” Of course McManis …
-
New Atheism, Intentional Ignorance, and Apathy
Over at erstwhile atheist blogger Paul Jenkins’ site, he posted the following:
…At Choosing Hats, contributor McFormtist considers what constitutes successful apologetics. As the type of apologetic usually in question at Choosing Hats is “covenantal” or “presuppositional” apologetics, and my own limited encounters with presuppositionalists have led me to the conclusion that presuppositonal apologetics is spectacularly unsuccessful in the declared purpose of apologetics in general, naturally my interest was piqued.
Early on in the piece comes this:
Our theology dictates to us that it is God who changes men’s hearts. As Reformed Christians, we understand that God in
-
Debate Opener
The following is the text I was going to use to open the debate on the 25th.
The Reformation’s theological reclamation sent shockwaves throughout the Church, and the consistent application of the principles of that reclamation created the Protestant theological legacy of Sola Scriptura, along with the other 4 Solas which comprise central tenets of the Christian faith, seen as a cohesive, coherent, comprehensive unit. The premise I intend to defend in today’s debate is that Covenantal apologetics is the only Biblical apologetic methodology. The principle that the Scriptures Alone are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all …
-
March 25th Debate CANCELED
After a short discussion with my opponent earlier this evening, I’ve decided to unilaterally withdraw from Sunday’s planned debate. If he’d like to claim this as a victory, he can do so at his discretion. As for myself, I value debates for their value to the Body of Christ, and I don’t think this will provide that value, so I’d rather lose than waste valuable time. I don’t think the exchange would be sufficiently valuable, edifying, or provide a teaching opportunity that would outweigh my family and I missing out on our church fellowship meal this Sunday, either. There’s no …
-
Stop Answering Us!
It’s the strangest thing…
Podcast after podcast has been devoted to the alleged refutation of Van Tilian covenantal apologetic arguments over the last year or so. Since I am a contributor here, and since the site is “dedicated to the explanation and demonstration of presuppositional apologetics in defense of the Christian faith to the glory of God,” I have tried to respond to such podcasts when I am able to do so. The same holds true with respect to blog posts. Scripture teaches that non-Christians have no apologetic, or defense, of their position. I believe that, and hence when I …
-
Van Til and starting with the self
I’m posting this here because the blogger I’m responding to has a character limit on his blog comments. The original post can be found here, and my initial comment can be found here. Here is my response.
“Yes, Van Til distinguishes between “mystery” of modernism and the “mystery” of Christianity.”
Then perhaps you should have made the separation clear in your conclusion. It didn’t seem to be clear – it seemed to be confusing “mystery in general”, and/or conflating them.
…“Yes, to Van Til, the “mystery of modernism” is irrational, while the “mystery of Christianity” is rational.
So