Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: Debate

  • Augustine and Eternal Punishment

    First of all, it behoves us to inquire and to recognize why the Church has not been able to tolerate the idea that promises cleansing or indulgence to the devil even after the most severe and protracted punishment. For so many holy men, imbued with the spirit of the Old and New Testament, did not grudge to angels of any rank or character that they should enjoy the blessedness of the heavenly kingdom after being cleansed by suffering, but rather they perceived that they could not invalidate nor evacuate the divine sentence which the Lord predicted that He would pronounce

    …

  • Annihilationism: Universalism and The Reality of Eternal Punishment: The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment by Sinclair Ferguson

    http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/universalism-and-the-reality-of-eternal-punishment-the-biblical-basis-of-the-doctrine-of-eternal-punishment

    Now you see the point that is being made: if you believe in the immortality of the soul, then it’s necessary for you to do something in your theology with that immortal soul that rejects God.

    In contrast, it is claimed, the New Testament’s teaching is different. We are to fear him who is able to “destroy” body and soul in hell, and this is what he will do. And it’s vital that we have a biblical response to that.

    And it seems to me that the biblical response to that is this: that the immortality of man—which of

    …

  • The central verses for the doctrine of Hell.

    Under the systematic heading of eschatology, there are topics more controversial, but none more hated than the doctrine of Hell. The doctrine of Hell is more repulsive to the natural man than any other doctrine save that of the holiness and sovereignty of God. In fact, the two are tied together with unbreakable bonds. All of Theology proper is bound up with the doctrines of Eschatology, as are all of the doctrines of Christology, Soteriology, Anthropology, and even Ecclesiology similarly bound. What affects one, affects the others unalterably. Christianity is a cohesive, coherent unit, therefore the modification of one doctrine …

  • Chris Date Receives Bad Advice

    Chris Date (not to be confused with Chris Bolt!) is an annihilationist who will be debating Choosing Hats contributor RazorsKiss on the following resolution: “The final punishment of the risen wicked will be annihilation, the permanent end to the conscious existence of the entire person.”

    See for example:

    https://choosinghats.org/2012/04/debate-annihilationism-with-chris-date

    https://choosinghats.org/2012/04/initial-thoughts-on-the-upcoming-debate

    https://choosinghats.org/2012/04/against-heresies

    When I came home tonight I saw a trackback to a post where Date quotes what is in his words some of the “best advice” he has received concerning the upcoming debate:

    http://www.theopologetics.com/2012/04/10/some-of-the-best-advice-ive-received

    I am not familiar with Date. I do not intend to be rude. However, Date …

  • Initial Thoughts on the Upcoming Debate

    I’m finding lots of commentary by folks who want to somehow separate the doctrine of the soul’s immortality from the doctrine of eternal punishment. Since, after all, we believe in Sola Scriptura, that necessarily includes “Tota Scriptura”, and the necessary relation of every doctrine to the others. This is a fundamental point of Reformed theology. No doctrine exists in isolation. The denial, or modification of one doctrine will quite necessarily have an effect on a host of others, due to the nature of Scripture, and the theology we affirm from it. In the introduction to Van Til’s Christian Theistic Evidences…

  • Debate: Annihilationism, with Chris Date

    Chris Date is the host of the Theopologetics podcast, and says that he has been convinced over the past year of the truth of annihilationism, sought out the best arguments he could find, and found them lacking. He will be defending the following:

    Resolution: “The final punishment of the risen wicked will be annihilation, the permanent end to the conscious existence of the entire person.”

    The debate is tentatively scheduled for June, with a fairly standard debate format, to include Q&A from questions submitted beforehand.

    Format:

  • 20-minute opening affirmative
  • 20-minute opening negative
  • 10-minute rebuttal affirmative
  • 10-minute rebuttal negative
    • …

  • 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 …

  • 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 …

  • 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 …