Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: Objections and Misconceptions

  • Apologetic Method and a CH Shoutout

    Dr. White finished his review of the Jaros/Oliphint discussion, and mentioned Choosing Hats toward the beginning.…

  • The Prophecy of Hosea: God’s Covenant Faithfulness

  • The Law and New Covenant Theology

    Excellent exposition from Romans 2, a text I’ve had occasion to look at as well. He also addresses other texts in a shorter fashion. Pay close attention to the various implications he draws out from the denial of universal moral law, along with other issues, that NCT demands. If I might be so bold, it might also be helpful to look over my paper in the first issue of In Antithesis, which addresses Romans 1 and the first part of 2.

  • New Covenant Theology

    I don’t think I’ve ever posted on this subject before – primarily because the majority of the support for this is internet-based, and non-systematized. Since the subject has come up on the facebook page, however, I decided to include this in order to address the topic, as we are on the subject of covenant, and as some brothers have said, the terminology itself gives the impression of taking the ‘high ground”, as it were. It may also be helpful for those who haven’t studied the topic at all before. It’s an introduction, and done a good while ago. On the …

  • The New Covenant

    This is a wonderful exposition of Baptist Covenant Theology. Again, no homework. I only ask that you be mindful of what is taught, and what the implications are for the denial of that teaching – especially in the context of our methodology.

  • The Covenant of Works

    I don’t have any homework for you before this one. I would, however, invite you to think, very carefully, about what the nature of Adam’s headship would be, if this doctrine was denied – and what covenant that man could be said to be breaking. There are, of course, many implications to be found here – but I’ll leave you to ponder them for yourself.

  • To TAG or Not To TAG?

    How strongly did Van Til feel about using TAG when arguing for God?

    Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument.

    Quite strongly. It’s not that there aren’t other arguments – they just don’t hold any water when arguing for the kind of God revealed in the Bible – an absolute God. If we are totally dependent upon God (as is the case if God is absolute), then we are necessarily dependent upon God as our starting point in reasoning. If we aim to show that this kind of God exists, we must …

  • Our Covenant Keeping God

    Before you listen to the sermon I have linked below, I want you to do something for me. First, read Psalm 36. Second, read Romans 1-3. (As a bonus, throw in 4 and 5 – you might catch why I said that in the sermon.) Third, read the first chapter of Calvin’s Institutes. Fourth, ponder what implications the universal knowledge of God, the universal knowledge of His moral law, and the status of man as covenant-breaker, under Adam, his federal head, might have insofar as what Van Til’s usage of those concepts was, and what theology they presuppose. Please take …

  • An Exhortation

    Once upon a time, long ago, there was a fervent young man with a burning desire to defend his faith. He mixed it up on BBSs, wrote blog posts, went on forums, and even set up networks, and a “blog carnival” (for those of you who might remember that phenomenon). He had books by Lewis, McDowell, Craig, Habermas, Licona, and the like. Then, he ran into a problem. A Roman Catholic apologist wanted to join his apologetic blog carnival – his father was a Roman Catholic, and he knew just enough to know that wasn’t kosher – but he wasn’t …

  • Rebranding Apologetics

    With the name change, there will be particular hang ups with some who use the methodology to defend the faith. A good example is Fred Butler, a respectable guy who graduated from TMS and  advocates presuppositional apologetics. He says :

     

    It is unnecessary because I believe the word “presuppositionalism” is an appropriate descriptor for the methodology. When we engage unbelievers, we are engaging the presuppositions of their worldview — the foundational building blocks of those “strongholds” they have built against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:4-5).  And moreover, we stand our ground on the presuppositions that we are