Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: Convos, Observations, and Quotes

  • 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 …

  • 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

    …

  • Some thoughts on the upcoming debate

    In my preparations for the debate on Sunday, and in dealing with the quite providential example Paul Copan gave us last week of the importance of the subject, I felt it might be valuable to give a few impressions I’ve had along the way. My opening statement has been written for a week or so now – prior to Dr. Copan’s comments, in fact – and my first thought after reading it was this. I wouldn’t change anything I had to say. First, because Dr. Copan’s comments weren’t anything we hadn’t seen before. Second, because I’m giving a positive presentation …

  • Copan’s Folly

    Dr. Paul Copan’s “critique” of presuppositionalism has started a minor furor over at TGC, with my response as only the first of many.

    Steve Hays
    Copan on Presuppositionalism
    Does Presuppositionalism Begs the Question
    Paul Copan on Common Ground

    James Anderson
    Does Presuppositionalism engage in question-begging?

    James White

    K. Scott Oliphint
    Answering Objections to Presuppositionalism…

  • Questioning Copan

    The Gospel Coalition is running a series on apologetics, and today’s entry was by Paul Copan, entitled “Questioning Presuppositionalism”. What struck me, while reading his take on the subject, was how superficial and inaccurate it was. He introduces Van Til, and then says that Gordon Clark supposedly “generally followed” his methodology, along with Bahnsen and Frame, and then called it “variegated”. Well, given that he’s simply wrong concerning Clark, and that Frame consciously departed from Van Til as well, I’d supposed that’s an assumption guaranteed to result in a certain conclusion, wouldn’t you? It is not the case that …

  • William Edgar – What is Presuppositionalism?

    Good, basic intro post.

    Can be found at TGC, here.…

  • A Breath from Heaven on Dry Bones

    It is upon a field of the dead that the Sun of righteousness has risen, and the shouts that announce His advent fall on deaf ears: yea, even though the morning stars should again sing for joy and the air be palpitant with the echo of the great proclamation, their voice could not penetrate the ears of the dead. As we sweep our eyes over the world lying in its wickedness, it is the valley of the prophet’s vision which we see before us: a valley that is filled with bones, and lo! they are very dry. What benefit is

    …

  • Theology Determines Apologetic: Van Til

    “All Protestants will agree with one another that the doctrines of Protestantism must be defended as over against Romanism. But not all agree that there is a distinctly Protestant method of defending Christianity as a whole. Some hold that Protestants should first join the Romanists in order with them to defend the doctrines that they have in common. All Christians, we are told, believe in God. All believe that God has created the world. All Christians hold that God controls the world by His providence. All believe in the deity of Christ. These and other doctrines may therefore be defended

    …