Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: Scripture

  • The Necessity of Eschatology for Apologetics (1)

    Decades of dispute over the timing of Christ’s return in relation to the millennium, tribulation, and other aspects of “the end times” have resulted in a general unbiblical apathy and agnosticism toward eschatology. Academic eschatology is narrowly defined as the “study of the last things” and relegated to the back of systematic theologies while its popular forms are dismissed as the substance of fanatical fringe groups on the outskirts of evangelicalism. Some express their eschatological apathy and agnosticism through clever jokes about being “pan-millennial” (“it will all pan out in the end”) or “pro-millennial” (“I’m for the millennium!”) while others …

  • Chris Bolt on the Skepticule Record Podcast

    Atheist Paul Baird recently invited me to come on Skepticule for an informal discussion pertaining to a number of topics. I would like to thank Paul once again for a delightful time.

    You may listen here – http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/07/skeprec-013-20120613.html…

  • The “Self-Attestation” of Scripture (Part 1)

    People (and I mean believers and unbelievers alike) are generally confused about the so-called “self-attestation” of Scripture. Let’s think about the concept of self-attestation outside of the context of Scripture.

    To “attest” is to declare that something is the case. For example, “The sky appears to be blue.”

    Now consider another example, “This sentence appears on a website.” The sentence declares something to be the case. But its declaration is about itself. The sentence makes the claim that it appears on a website. In this sense it is self-attesting.

    Or consider one more example, “This sentence is true.” The …

  • According to Knowledge

    It is often the case that personal ignorance is mistaken for Biblical mystery. It must be immediately stated that just because you haven’t learned something yet does not mean that it remains a mystery, or veiled. The term “revelation” refers to the disclosure of something formerly secret, or obscure. Often, the objector will assert that there is no fundamental difference between subjects such as women in ministry, election, or millenialism – or that the answer to any (or all) of these is simply mysterious – but this simply isn’t true. The Bible speaks with clarity on all that it speaks. …

  • Admitting the Possibility

    (4:50) “Please pray for us? It seems to me as though Joshua’s prayer leading up to this debate, and my prayer, are a bit different. I’ll let you follow his posts so that you can check that out. My prayer for the upcoming debate is not that what I think is the truth will in fact be made out to be true. Because I quite frankly admit the possibility that I might be wrong about this; I don’t think that I am, and I think that the Scripture is clearly in support of the position that I’ll be advancing. But

    …

  • Romans 6 and Prolepsis

    If, as we are told by Date and Co., death spoken of a present tense is prolepsis – an event spoken of as certain to occur in the future – are we to take regeneration to be something that occurs only after this death? For what are we born again, as if we had a need? It’s not as if we are dead, is it? For, as we are told, death is something to be considered as the actual deprivation of life; and speaking of “dead in trespasses and sins” as if it was a present reality is prolepsis, is …

  • Various Issues of Interest to the Debate

    As I noted in my post “The Central Verses for the Doctrine of Hell,” there is a typical list of verses that are appealed to by the annihilationist. What this means in terms of the debate’s actual focus is still up in the air, of course, given that I have not yet heard what he intends to present, and likely will not, prior to the day. This is not problematic, of course, it just isn’t my typical modus operandi. If he sticks with a similar opener to that which he used with Diaz, I believe that he would …

  • 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…

  • Undying Worms and Unquenchable Fire

    It is often asserted that there is a problem (for so-called “traditionalists”) with the use of Mark 9:48 due to it’s relation with Isaiah 66:24. This problem, according to Fudge, is that 1) Jesus quotes it “without amendment” 2) That the body is “already dead” and 3) That the fire “is a consuming, irresistible fire”. He relates “salted with fire” to mean the salting of a field, or of a place in order to make it uninhabitable. He cites Fields for his source, but we aren’t told, by Fudge, why this is supposed to have any connection with the passage …

  • The Problem With Saying “Goddidit”

    Covenantal apologists are often mocked in virtue of their alleged recourse to repeatedly claiming “Goddidit” as an answer to all challenges in the apologetic context.

    The mockers are mostly wrong, but partially right.

    Complaints about “Goddidit” usually stem primarily from the rejection of the frank acceptance of authority inherent to the apologist’s presuppositional program. In this the mockers are wrong.

    Meanwhile, complaints which focus not upon the authority involved in “Goddidit” but its content are valid objections, for the Christian worldview consists of much more than a trite, reductionistic, sound byte solution to some problem that faces another worldview.

    Just …