Apologetics to the Glory of God

Search results for: “certainty”

  • The Apostle of Doubt vs. Calvin

    Why I Lack Certainty about Christianity – C. Michael Patton:

    Some people say that they have no doubt at all, and they never have. I have difficulty believing assertions such as this, though I suppose they might be true for a very small number of individuals. However, at this point, I think it would be valuable for us to distinguish between “certainty” and “certitude” (Daniel Taylor introduced me to this concept, but I don’t know if the distinctions he made are embedded in the specific definitions of the terms). “Certainty” is the more objective type of conviction. It is the

    …

  • The Issue of Authority – God Speaking

    C. Michael Patton’s recent posts, in his own words, look a whole lot like “I am shooting myself in the foot.” He rejects this characterization, of course – but as we have seen in my own posts responding to his over the last couple years, we have an entirely different view of the issues of certainty, and doubt. This recent series, of course, shows where this difference arises from – a different doctrine of Scripture. See, there’s a significant difference between the generally evangelical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and the historic Reformed doctrine. Dr. White, TurretinFan, and I all …

  • An Experiential Apologetic

    Quite often, we hear the claim “I came to faith through evidence” – with the conclusion being, of course, that evidentialism must be a valid form of apologetic methodology. How would you answer such a claim for yourself?

    First, there is the confusion of “system” with “element.” Evidence is not evidentialism. The two are massively different things. Evidentialism is distinguishable (in some ways) from classicalism, and in a host of ways from presuppositionalism. These differences, of course, are not on the level of “which things in this world that get talked about in …

  • Problems With Authority in Classical and Evidentialist Apologetics

    To the extent that attempts are made in order to distinguish between the “evidentialist” and “classical” schools of apologetics, in an effort to salvage the “classical” method, these distinctions nevertheless fail to dodge the criticisms leveled at evidentialism by Van Tilian presuppositionalists. It shouldn’t strike us as very coincidental that the problem presuppositionalists have with the classical/evidentialist methods primarily concerns the presuppositions of these methods. Furthermore, that practitioners of either the classical or evidentialist methods borrow aspects from presuppositionalism (which I would argue is inevitable as long as the practitioner is at least to some extent devoted to sola scriptura…

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey and Mr. Black VIII

    It’s been quite a while since there’s been a post in this series, hasn’t it? I apologize for the delay! This post will continue the discussion we left off in the last post, and pick up on the same page.

    Of course, what Mr. Black is doing appears very reasonable to himself. “Surely,” he says, if questioned at all on the subject, “a rational man must have a systematic coherence in his experience. Therefore he cannot accept as true anything that is not in accord with the law of noncontradiction. So long as you leave your God in the realm

    …

  • Why do we expect the future to be like the past?

    Why do we expect the future to be like the past?

    “Because in the past, the future has always been like the past.”

    This response begs the question. It assumes the very point to be proven. In the past the future has always been like the past, yes, but why do we expect that in the future the future will be like the past?

    “We don’t know for certain that the future will be like the past.”

    This response misrepresents the question. It assumes the question is asking about certainty with respect to the future. But the question …

  • Sola Scriptura and the Canon Revisited: Guest Post by Adam Blauser

    As I have gotten involved in dealing with Roman Catholicism and sola scriptura, I have found two things very interesting. First of all, there is a grossly simplistic view of meaning in language amongst many Roman Catholic apologists. Many of them will be willing to destroy human language in order to argue against sola scriptura, borrowing from men like Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish to argue that we cannot know which interpretation of scripture is correct. It is amazing to be able to cite deconstructionists making parallel arguments to Roman Catholic apologists.

    Second, what I am realizing more and more …

  • A Friendly Chat With An Atheist

    Chris:  Are you a believer?

    Atheist:  nope

    an atheist

    Chris:  Ah.

    Well it’s nice to have one of those around every now and then.

    We have to get Christians from somewhere after all. 😀

    So I presume you have heard the Christian Gospel?

    Atheist:  yup

    Go to mass… et cetera 😉

    Chris:  I’m guessing that you’re joking. 🙂

    Atheist:  I am

    Chris:  So why are you an atheist?

    Atheist:  I don’t think that any spirits exist

    be they gods, ghosts or anything else

    Chris:  That’s the definition of your position then.

    Why do you hold it?

    Atheist:  I don’t see …

  • Theology Still Matters

    Even in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy, such as the Aurora shootings (Alan’s comments about whether comments on it should still be going on aside), there are common themes in responses to tragedy, and what answers you have to give concerning it. As Dr. White is fond of saying – and I’m fond of repeating – theology matters, and your theology determines your apologetic. I had this story linked to me, earlier this evening. It sounds truly remarkable, and I appreciate that he related this story. What I didn’t appreciate, however, was the answer he had to give …

  • On an Apologetic for Doubt

    C. Michael Patton is hardly my favorite blogger, as you might have guessed by now. The reason I have him in my RSS feed is because the sorts of things he typically says are symptomatic of what is wrong with most of non-confessional “Calvinism.” What I’ve dealt with most from him, of course, is the subject of “doubt”. The subject of doubt, for some reason, seems to be a fascination with Mr. Patton. As one who is focused on the apologetic implications of theological stances, his “advice” on this subject often horrifies me. Case in point: “On Talking to …