Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: debate

  • Sola Scriptura Debate

    Sorry for the long wait. The audio for the debate can be found here. A transcript (courteously provided by Mr. Marcum) can be found here.

    The full thesis: Sola Scriptura is an essential Christian doctrine, and necessary for instruction in faith and practice

    Debaters: Dan Marcum, myself

    Moderator: BK…

  • Does the Triune God of Scripture Exist? Jamin Hubner vs. Ben Wallis

    Jamin Hubner has made public his debate with Ben Wallis here and Ben Wallis has done so as well and reviewed the debate here. You can download or listen to the debate here or here and apparently there is a transcript of the debate here. Don’t forget to check out the debate that I had with Ben Wallis here if you have not already and to take a look at the subsequent discussion regarding that debate here and here and here and here.

    That should keep people busy until I get the time to review the Hubner …

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

    In the previous post, we saw Cornelius Van Til examining the apologetic method of the Reformed, vs the Evangelical varieties. By Evangelical, he means the Arminian or Roman Catholic schools of theology and/or apologetic. As our friend Dr. White is wont to say, “theology determines apologetic”. We’ll continue this series in this post, the second of the series, and pick up where we left off.

    An excerpt from Defense of The Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – Chap. 12, Sec. 3, pg. 313-315, 4th Ed.

    The Believer Meets the Unbeliever – Part II

    Let us first look briefly at

    …

  • Responses to the assertions of Yasser Ali

    In the debate transcript, I have inserted my opponent’s answers, as I said I would. This post is intended to answer his assertions made therein, and to address the various problems I found with them. As of this posting, he has yet to offer his final questions, so I’m going to go ahead and offer comments on the debate in it’s entirety, and consider the debate closed. My questions will be italicized bold, his answers in italics, both will be in quote, and my responses in plain text. I will be offering more comments in the future, and …

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

    An excerpt from Defense of The Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – Chap. 12, Sec. 3, pg. 312-313, 4th Ed.

    The Believer Meets the Unbeliever

    To see clearly what is meant, think of a dentist. You go to him with a “bad tooth”. Does he take care of your tooth in two operations? To be sure, you may have to come back to have him finish the job. But it is one job he is doing. He takes all the decayed matter out before he fills the cavity. Well, Mr. Black is the man with the toothache, and you,

    …

  • Debate Announcement

    On Februrary 5th, I will be debating Roman Catholic Dan Marcum (a Skype debate) on the proposition “Sola Scriptura is an essential Christian doctrine, and necessary for instruction in faith and practice“. My goal is to argue this proposition presuppositionally. I’m planning on a couple of podcasts in the near future to give the audience some preparation, and to ensure my opponent knows where I’m standing, going into the debate, so stay tuned.…

  • WLC/Dawkins

    I know, I know that this is a “presuppositionalist site,” but a number of us have been waiting to see this:

    I have not had time to view it yet.…

  • Some resources to pass the time…

    Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics by Ian Clary.

    Debate between Sye TenBrugencatte and Paul Baird on the existence of God.

    Papers by one of my “favorite” apologists Colin D. Smith.

    Panel Discussion at SBTS on Apologetic Method.

    Debate between James White and David Silverman on, “Is the New Testament Evil?” (costs)

    Brilliant!…

  • Concluding Remarks on the Wallis Debate

    Chris,

    I have a few final clarifications for you…

    First of all, I’m not sure what premises you think I’m accepting, but let me assure you that I do NOT agree using induction without epistemic justification is irrational. You object to this assertion by complaining that it is not an argument, and indeed you are correct, it is not. What we decide to call “rational” or “irrational” depends on whatever standards of rationality we are using, and so it suffices for me to point out that my standard does not impose any such requirement for the epistemic justification of induction.

    …

  • Pressing the Point: More on the Wallis debate

    Proof and Persuasion

    An important distinction to be made in apologetics is the one between proof and persuasion. One may offer a perfectly sound argument pertaining to some position that accomplishes everything it promises and yet have a recipient of that argument completely unmoved by it. It does not follow from the fact that an individual(s) is allegedly not accepting of an argument that the argument in question does not constitute a proof. On the other hand someone may be presented with a completely invalid and false argument and still be moved to accept the conclusion of the argument, …