Refuting The Priests of Molech

I’m sure many of you reading this have noticed that there are a few recurring themes in the coverage of the Planned Parenthood fiasco.  This post is an attempt to deal with those themes and show you how to respond to them. These are the major categories:

1) It’s a Hoax
2) The video was edited
3) The means were dishonest
4) Look at all the good we do, and those horrible people over there want to take that away!

There are major issues with each of these, but we’ll give examples of each, so you can see how they …

Read more

A Conversation About Categories

There are particular buzzwords in the air these days. Of course, there are buzzwords in the air every day – and always have been. One of the hot-buttons these days is “transgender”. With the media circus surrounding Bruce Jenner, it is in an impossible glare. The media’s feeding frenzies know no bounds, and the level of rhetoric and sheer hyperbole is shocking, even to a jaded student of mass media narrative creation.

The problem is, the left is in a pickle when it comes to “transgender” – much as it is in a pickle concerning “bisexuals.” With the latter, on …

Read more

Francois Tremblay as Philosophical Flat-Earther

Classical foundationalism is dead. But that does not stop foolish atheists like Francois Tremblay from continuing to promote such an outdated epistemological starting point. Francois Tremblay is an atheist who complains about, “Chris Bolt, who wrote a rant against the principle that, ‘It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’” He writes, “I find this fascinating because this principle is so obvious and so straightforward that the idea of someone arguing against it seems strange at best.”

Right, so it’s an “obvious” and “so straightforward” principle. It’s “strange” that someone would argue against it. …

Read more

Infallibilism, Knowledge, Attenuated Presup and Unwitting Clarkianism

So, I was involved in a bit of a dustup with some folks yesterday. Essentially, the bone of contention was concerning knowledge. The position of our antagonists, essentially, was that knowledge, to be knowledge, must be “infallible.” There are a variety of issues with this stance, but chiefly, my concern is from theology proper, as we will explore; although we will address a few other issues along the way as well.

My response is first to the notion of infallibility being applied to “knowledge” in the first place. Fallibility, obviously, means an ability to fail. Well, to fail, one has …

Read more

Answering the Evidentialist Objection

Introduction

Oversimplification. The unbeliever, and the New Atheist in particular, thrive on it. The situation is no different when it comes to the strong demands for “evidence” in the context of apologetic debate. “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence” was the plea Bertrand Russell planned to use when he came face to face with God. I suspect it did not go over well.

Yet the loudest non-Christian voices among us continue to parrot Russell’s silly sentiment. It has even been given a name. The “evidentialist objection.” It is quite frequently captured in the contention that Christians should immediately provide …

Read more

Point of Contact – Life, Death and Theology

Dealt with approximately 25 minutes of audio from three lengthy Theopologetics podcasts on annihilationism, the presuppositional commitments that are brought to the text, and on the basis of that reading, affect the theology they teach. Had Ben, Matthias, and Justin in with me at various points. We didn’t get to all of it, as we had a near catastrophic recording failure toward the end, where you will hear the audio quality/texture change, and I then make some comments specifically to Chris. Thankfully, it was recovered, and all was then right with the world. Take a listen.

Also, see this post

Read more

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

Read more