Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: apologetic method

  • Impostors in Presuppositionalism

    I came across a very good post discussing the rise of of some popular level apologetic methodology that tries to brand itself as Van Tilian presuppositionalism but is really just an impostor.

    Check it out here: http://pousto.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/naive-presuppositionalism/…

  • If one is uncertain; one is certainly an evidentialist?

    Someone pointed me to the following quote on facebook yesterday:

    The Baptist is inherently an evidentialist. They must look to subjective always changing evidence to prove covenant membership.

    A Presbyterian assumes an objective, universal standard for membership that can be known with certainty.

    A Baptist cannot claim certainty.

    Granted, this is a non-sequitur in its own right as it stands. It seems to be a post meant to start what those of us who have been around Internet discussions a while call a “flame war” about the subject of baptism in some purported presuppositionalist sub-group. I choose to ignore that …

  • Dr. James White Interviews Dr. Oliphint on the Janet Mefferd Show

    Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries does an excellent job interviewing Dr. K Scott Oliphint about his new book Covenatal Apologetics. Check out the show here or download the mp3 here.…

  • T. Kurt Jaros and “Finesse”

    T.K. Jaros recently posted an article entitled “Total Depravity: Theological Finesse Needed, Part 1.” As the title implies, it’s obviously merely the first of a series. What struck me, and practically everyone else who I’ve linked the article to, is that immediately after saying “finesse is needed” in the title, the definition he gives of the doctrine is not from a theologian, but from… Wikipedia. Obviously, his posts are not especially thorough, and despite his MA in Systematic Theology, not especially theological, on the whole. As with most of modern evangelicals, his primary interest seems to be philosophy. …

  • Christ the Center review of the Oliphint/Jaros discussion.

    Christ the Center reviewed the Dr. Oliphint/Jaros discussion that they had “Unbelievable?” Check it out here: http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc288…

  • Dr Scott Oliphint Fields Questions on Unbelievable?

    That’s right, it was an inquisition! Ok, not quite that bad. Dr. Oliphint was on Unbelievable? to talk about Presuppositional/Covenantal Apologetics. He ended up having to spend the entire time defending it from Kurt Jaros who clearly doesn’t understand the Theological underpinnings of the method, or their implications. However, because of this, there are some very good explanations that Dr. Oliphint gives that I think are very helpful. One that stands out in my mind is confusion between the fact that non believers are irrational yet we can also reason with them. Listen carefully for these great answers Dr. Oliphint …

  • Unintelligent Design?

    Allow me, for a moment, to explain some of my initial thoughts concerning what denial of God’s existence entails with respect to Design. If you hold that there is no God, and that there is no Design to the universe, there are a few things that follow. If there is no Designer, and if there is no Design, then there are no “designers” and there are no individual “designs.” None, at all, anywhere. I will now proceed to explain the same thing in probably too many ways and in probably too many words.

    There is only cause and effect. “Intention” …

  • On God’s “Evil” Actions

    Probably one of the most common objections to Christianity that we hear is one that relates to the Problem of Evil. While the problem of evil asks, “How can an Omnipotent, Good God exist with evil in the world,” this particular one asks, “How can God be ‘good’ if he has done all these evil things?” Men will object to Christianity saying that God has done evil things. And from this they conclude God either doesn’t exist, or if he does exist he is not worth believing.

    We answer the former problem by demonstrating from the Bible that the …

  • 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…

  • When Contra Munda isn’t All About You

    Back in the third century of the church, as I’m sure some of our readers are aware, there was a bishop named Athanasius – his tenacious defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition to the swiftly growing heresy of Arianism gave rise to the statement “Athanasius contra mundum” – Athanasius against the world. In a sense, this wasn’t quite true – there were other defenders of the Trinity around, but none so prolific, and none who were targeted nearly so heavily as Athanasius, who was ejected from his church five times, and was only vindicated after his death. …