Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: apologetic method

  • In Antithesis: An Announcement – and A Call for Papers

    In a previous post, Chris announced our intention to begin an apologetics journal; this current announcement both confirms those plans, and makes a small change. The finalized name for the journal, we’ve decided, is In Antithesis: A Reformed Apologetics Journal. You can now see the link to the Journal page in the upper right navigation section. The first issue of In Antithesis is currently slated for a June release, barring providential hindrance.

    Along with this announcement, we are calling for papers conforming to the specifications outlined on the Journal page. The deadline for submissions is May 31st. As …

  • Various and Sundry Issues to Recap

    Last week, my comment at Aporetic Christianity resulted in a bit of a firestorm – of posts, and sometimes fiery discussion. I’d like to use this opportunity to make a few comments on this exchange, and exchanges in general. In the exchange between Paul, myself, and BK, some might consider the “tone” in places to be overly harsh. While I think Paul may have thought at one point that I was objecting to the tone, I think we’ve come to at least a partial understanding of the other’s goals. That being said, there’s a balance to be had in the …

  • Not that again…?

    Paul Manata wrote a post on whether or not TAG is a deductive argument here which Brian Knapp responded to here and then Paul wrote more here and here and here.

    While I do not plan on jumping into the discussion, the readers may be benefitted by the somewhat lengthy discussion of this topic that I did engage in here and here and here and here and here and here.

    My views now are not necessarily what they were then, but there are some points here that should be read in an effort to understand the texts from …

  • Knowledge, Attenuated VanTillianism, and a False Dilemma

    Yesterday, I did some commenting on a post by Paul Manata entitled “Do All Men Know that God Exists?“.

    In this post, he offers a couple possible responses he would consider Van Tillians to potentially offer, tells us he’s an “attenuated” Van Tillian (which is unsurprising, at best); we interacted in the comments for a bit, (complete with his typical ad hominem) and he returns today with a bit of screed, venting about Van Tillians. His problem, apparently, seems to be my “certainty”. Far be it from me to point out that he acts anything but uncertain, but …

  • But you have to start with yourself! (Updated)

    Today on the Dividing Line Dr. White took a call on presuppositionalism concerning R.C. Sproul’s objection that we cannot escape from ourselves and hence must start with ourselves in epistemology. Dr. White did not have any problem pointing out the fundamental reason that Sproul is wrong (and inconsistent) by appealing to the theological argument that we are epistemologically tied to God as it were by virtue of our having been created in the image of God. John Calvin notes this right away in his Institutes. Make sure to listen to Dr. White’s answer provided at the link above as …

  • A Paradigm Shift

    As we enter into a discussion of apologetics, the very first thing we must contend with is the fact that the apologetic methodology set forth in scripture is at odds with the way in which we typically reason. This fact entails that we must prepare ourselves for a paradigm shift in the way we approach the apologetic task, and is therefore by no means a trivial a matter. The Biblical method of apologetics requires that we reason in a way that is quite unfamiliar to the average person, yet is wholly consistent with a Biblical anthropology. In other words, the …

  • James Anderson's Response to David Reiter on TAG

    Some time ago I linked to a summary of and posted some Initial Comments on the Reiter Article.

    Shortly thereafter I heard that two different philosophers who have been influenced by Van Til were working on responses to the Reiter article. However, the response is now complete, and was posted today by James Anderson. If I am not mistaken this is the first positive, “peer reviewed journal entry” on the Transcendental Argument for God. I know, I know, some people will argue that Philosophia Christi is not one of the journals that critics of TAG have had in …

  • Apologetic Mirror Objection

    David Byron recently commented on this post which concerns TAG and Islam. Rather than letting a rather lengthy comment linger on an old post I have decided to post it here in full. Part of being a good apologist is being aware of common objections to one’s methodology and arguments. This leads to further study and a stronger apologetic. It also equips the apologist to be able to at the very least recognize a particular objection in the context of an apologetic encounter. Byron writes out a helpful description of what has elsewhere been labeled the Apologetic Mirror Problem (AMP). …

  • ZaoThanatoo Answers the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Guest Post)

    The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God

    The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering II (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering III (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 4 (Chris) / ZaoThanatoo Answers (ZaoThanatoo) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering IV (Mitch)

     

    I will provide a brief rebuttal to Mitch’s response and grant him the

  • How about a little offense? by defectivebit (Guest Post)

    In the thirteenth chapter of Always Ready Dr. Greg Bahnsen states

    “The Christian cannot forever be defensively constructing atomistic answers to the endless variety of unbelieving criticisms; he must take the offensive and show the unbeliever that he has no intelligible place to stand, no consistent epistemology, no justification for meaningful discourse, predication, or argumentation.”[1]

    I have often wondered why it is that in most debates I watch between a Christian and a non-Christian that the Christian spends very little time on the offensive side of the battle. This affinity to a defensive posture was also made clear to …