Lex Lutheran and Caleb Keith Discuss Presuppositional Apologetics

“He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ.” – Martin Luther (29th Thesis, 1518 Heidelberg Disputation)

Disclaimer: Ben Woodring made me promise to be nice in this post.

Inerrancy

On the most recent episode of the newly named Wittenberg Project podcast featuring Caleb Keith from 1517 Legacy and Thinking Fellows, the presuppositional apologetic method is described as making arguments from a presupposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.…

Read more

Regular Reformed Guys: The Transcendental Argument

We had the opportunity to interview Brian Knapp, co-founder and former contributor of Choosing Hats on my podcast The Regular Reformed Guys.

We talked about what the transcendental argument is, why it is a more biblical, and effective means of doing apologetics, and we talked about the modern development of Van Til’s work.

Check it out.

Read more

Van Tilian Turf Wars (Part 2)

Presuppositionalists are sticklers for sound apologetic methodology. But how is sound apologetic methodology discerned? Presuppositional proclivities preclude the vast majority of classical or evidentialist approaches to apologetics. That much is clear. But how does one determine who is right and who is wrong when presuppositionalists argue about methodology amongst themselves? Perhaps we all agree that presuppositional apologetic methodology is the way to go, but who is to say what presuppositional apologetic method is? Is there some standard of presuppositional orthodoxy?

Fundamentalist presuppositionalists tend to respond to these questions by citing the Bible as their ultimate authority for apologetics. The …

Read more

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 But that does not stop foolish atheists like Francois Tremblay from continuing to promote such an outdated epistemological starting point.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

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 http://birminghamseminary.org/ and pass this information along to anyone you know who is interested and lives in the area!…

Read more

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 …

Read more