Category: Objections and Misconceptions
-
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
-
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 …
-
Acts 17 and Covenantal Apologetics
Re-posted from here – http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/13/answering-objections-to-presuppositionalism.
J.R.
March 14, 2012 at 12:51 PMtaco,
Non-presuppositionalists argue that Acts 17 is clearly a classical (specifically Greek) apologetic used by Paul. You’ll need to find another example to make your case. “So Paul, standing in the midst of Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religiou. For as I passed and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.”Reply-
tacoMarch 14, 2012
-
-
Debate: Covenantal Apologetics is the only Biblical apologetic methodology
Date: March 25th
Time: 2pm EST (Watch for updates)
Location: IRC, #chdebate channel – fuller detail will be given the day of the debate.I’ll be debating Scotty Bowers, aka “Ransom” on this topic. I will, of course, be taking the affirmative in this debate. Anyone is invited to attend the debate.…
-
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 GroundJames 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 …
-
Paul Jenkins, Naughty Children, and Hell
Introduction
Somewhat understandably, our friend Paul Jenkins categorizes the discussion of, “whether Hell is ‘eternal conscious punishment’ on the one hand, or ‘annihilation’ on the other” as, “Not just piffle, but risible piffle.”
The alternative that occurs most obviously to me is, “Hell doesn’t exist — it’s a horror story told to children to stop them being naughty.”
One might question how Paul is so dogmatically certain that hell doesn’t exist. Of course it does not matter how certain Paul feels he is with regard to the alleged non-existence of hell if hell does in fact exist. It does …
-
We’ve Got Mail: The Glory of God and Grounding Objections
Pat Mefford writes:
Recently, I’ve been fascinated by this concept of doing things for the glory of God. It’s an interesting answer to the question, “Why does the Creator bother to create?” but glory is an extrinsic property, one that God cannot ground by himself (one needs an ontologically separate thing to properly glorify that which deserves glory). How does the Presuppositionalist account for a property that God cannot ground but yet, seems dependent on?
While the question is interesting, the assumptions inherent in the question interest me more. First is the odd idea that seems to express that God …
-
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