Category: RazorsKiss
-
Application and Practicality
There seems to be, at least in my experience, a common objection to Covenantal apologetics that goes something like this. Emphasizing all of these arcane and/or obscure concepts, focusing on theology proper; it just doesn’t address the real world practically. There is no application to be made – it’s all theoretical. There are a few variants, and I’ll bring up a couple. First, the objection is made that we are being “obscure” – Bahnsen, as you may know, addresses this in “Always Ready,” along with an admonishment against “obscurantist arrogance.” Here’s an excerpt.
…“In the last study we heard three
-
Theology Still Matters
Even in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy, such as the Aurora shootings (Alan’s comments about whether comments on it should still be going on aside), there are common themes in responses to tragedy, and what answers you have to give concerning it. As Dr. White is fond of saying – and I’m fond of repeating – theology matters, and your theology determines your apologetic. I had this story linked to me, earlier this evening. It sounds truly remarkable, and I appreciate that he related this story. What I didn’t appreciate, however, was the answer he had to give …
-
Trueman on Papal Authority
…[T]he rise, consolidation and definition of papal power is an historically very complex issue; and, indeed, as scholarship advances, the story becomes more, not less, convoluted and subversive of papal claims. For some converts to Roman Catholicism, papal authority is somehow seen as an obvious riposte to problems with the perspicuity of scripture. In other words, it is the answer to an epistemological/authority problem. For those of us who have spent the best part of our lives reading late medieval and early modern history, however, papal authority is not an epistemological solution to much of anything at all; rather, it
-
On an Apologetic for Doubt
C. Michael Patton is hardly my favorite blogger, as you might have guessed by now. The reason I have him in my RSS feed is because the sorts of things he typically says are symptomatic of what is wrong with most of non-confessional “Calvinism.” What I’ve dealt with most from him, of course, is the subject of “doubt”. The subject of doubt, for some reason, seems to be a fascination with Mr. Patton. As one who is focused on the apologetic implications of theological stances, his “advice” on this subject often horrifies me. Case in point: “On Talking to …
-
One Less God?
With the recent controversy over McFormtist’s recent post, I figured this video might be a good reminder that this subject is nothing new, nor does it lack a prior context. Ignoring this context does nothing to advance the discussion, nor does a simple mention of Roman references to Christians as “atheists” get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that the claim being expressed is, at base, an appeal to neutrality which we both do not and cannot accept – an insistence on the equal footing of all “gods” where the atheist is rejecting …
-
PZ Myers on “twisty” philosophy
There are logical/philosophical arguments against presuppositionalism (there are good examples in the comments at Aron’s blog), but I guess I’m not a philosophical thinker in that same vein — they all seem to[sic] twisty and abstract for me, and I don’t really trust those kinds of rebuttals.
Count the number of assertions from the field of philosophy to follow – not to mention the amazing assertions concerning what presup consists of. Quite intriguing to witness. If you like train wrecks. See how many mistakes you can find in just this short article.…
-
Just a Quick Update
A bunch of folks have liked the Facebook page recently, so welcome! If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to use the contact form.
Thanks to my fellow contributors and our readers for putting up with me over the past couple months! It’s been a bit of a wild ride, and I appreciate their forbearance. I really don’t have any debate commentary as yet, and probably won’t for a bit. I’m sure you all are as tired of the subject as I am by now! Now that that debate is finally over, I’m getting back to some other projects …
-
Debate: Annihilationism – Chris Date vs. Joshua Whipps
Resolution: “The final punishment of the risen wicked will be annihilation, the permanent end to the conscious existence of the entire person.”
The debate took place June 16th, and lasted just over 3 hours.
Chris Date is the host of the Theopologetics podcast. Joshua is one of the contributors here at ChoosingHats. The debate was moderated by Dee Dee Warren, the hostess of the Preterist Podcast.…
-
Debate Audio Update
I will not have the audio ready this evening, unfortunately. I actually have the audio finished… however, I had a technical problem with the recording. There is an approximately 50 second gap in Mr. Date’s closing argument, where my recording software went haywire. Mr. Date was gracious enough to promise to send me the relevant section – however, there will be a short, but unavoidable delay until I receive it. I may make a limited version available to people who frequent our chat channel, but I’m going to hold off on releasing an official version until I have that section …
-
One correction I want to make:
Before any audio goes up, or anything else, I want to correct something I said in the second-to-last Q&A section – I stated that “Christ died the first and second death at once. Think about that.” – I said it, but did not intend to say it. What I meant to say was that “Christ died the second death in place of the first, and did so all at once. Think about that.” I got garbled, and said it as I stated above, and didn’t realize I had said it until Chris responded to it. It was not intentional, and …