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 But that does not stop foolish atheists like Francois Tremblay from continuing to promote such an outdated epistemological starting point.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

Van Tilian Turf Wars (Part 1)

At least three types of Van Tilian presuppositionalists have emerged from the recent surge in popularity of presuppositionalism.


The first group are the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not necessarily to be identified with fundamentalism in general, but rather with fundamentalist tendencies when it comes to discerning apologetic methodology. This brand of presuppositionalism takes a more biblicist approach to apologetic questions and disputes. Though arguments may be offered in the context of apologetic discussion, these arguments are typically less philosophically precise and more explicitly biblical or dogmatic. Examples of those in the fundamentalist strain of presuppositionalism include Answers in Genesis, Sye …

Read more

Introduction to Apologetics Seminary Course

Lord willing, I will be teaching AP8521 Introduction to Apologetics at the Huntsville, Alabama extension center for Birmingham Theological Seminary on Monday nights from 7:30-9:30pm starting in September. Please find more details at and pass this information along to anyone you know who is interested and lives in the area!…

Read more

Fred is Dead: A Christian Response to the Followers of Fred Phelps, Founder of “Westboro Baptist Church”

Fred Phelps is dead.

Phelps is best known for heading up the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). The WBC is infamous for preaching a message of hatred toward homosexuals (“God Hates Fags”) and picketing the funerals of United States military.

Most people are shocked and appalled at the WBC. I do not fault them for that. However, I do fault them for substituting their subjective emotional responses for sound intellectual responses to the WBC. In a society where feelings matter more than substantial thought, even most Christians are satisfied with the purely emotional response to the WBC. But they should …

Read more

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. …

Read more

Farewell to my Readers

My dearest readers,

For nearly five years I have devoted a great deal of my time and effort to this site. Many of you have contacted me to express your gratitude for my work. Thank you. Your words have been a great encouragement to me.

For good or for ill, everything this side of the new heavens and earth must come to an end. And my time at Choosing Hats is over. You will note I have taken a number of short breaks from posting in the past. For the last year or so, I have struggled over the direction …

Read more

“When Christian Ethics aren’t Christian Ethics”?: Response to Matt Oxley, Part 1

The title of the post I will be responding to is “When Christian Ethics aren’t Christian Ethics.” According to fundamentalist atheist Matt Oxley, “Christian Ethics” are, “Biblical Ethics and, more specifically, the ethics demonstrated in the New Testament and by the early Christian Church as described in the New Testament.” Presumably, Matt means sometimes what people call Christian ethics are not actually biblical, demonstrated in the New Testament, or by the early Christian Church as described in the New Testament.

Matt complains about a radio program he has been listening to and writes, “Stopping abortion, refusing homosexual equality, guarding capitalism, …

Read more

A Brief Introduction to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP)

Every now and then I see some questions about this topic, and though the New Perspective on Paul isn’t very “new” anymore, it certainly isn’t dead either. I’ve posted a brief introduction to the topic below, from a paper I wrote on it years ago. Just to be clear, this post is not an endorsement of NPP, but an overview followed by a few possible objections.

The New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul is the name given to a theological movement which questions long held assumptions in the Lutheran tradition of Pauline interpretation. The New Perspective on …

Read more

Covenantal Apologetics and ‘God of the Gaps’

Some opponents of covenantal apologetics contend the method relies upon so-called ‘God of the Gaps’ (GoG) argumentation. GoG is actually a form of the fallacious ‘Argument from Ignorance.’ But covenantal apologetics have nothing to do with GoG.

  • GoG pertains to the natural world, whereas covenantal apologetics address topics well outside the narrow realm of naturalistic science.
  • GoG arguments generally work in accord with natural theology, while covenantal apologetics preclude this use of natural theology, with arguments based instead upon the presupposition of the existence of God.
  • GoG begins with alleged gaps in knowledge of the natural world. Covenantal apologetics do
Read more

We’ve Got Mail: When does rational discourse come to an end?

I was having a discussion with a friend, and he made the statement that using the Bible as one’s ultimate authority was self-referential and therefore invalid (like you’ve never heard this one). 🙂 I responded by explaining to him that his method of determining truth, autonomous reason, was circular and as it appealed to nothing higher than himself, arbitrary. What he said next floored me. He agreed that using his own reason as his ultimate authority was arbitrary. It did not concern him in the least. How do you reason with someone who (arbitrarily) says that their (arbitrary) reasoning is

Read more