Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: evidentialism

  • Apologetics and the Arminian

    The purpose of this post is to address a response to the above presentation, wherein presuppositional apologetics seems to be misunderstood by the author. The author’s response can be found here, but I will address most of the post, if not all, in the following article.

    James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. (link) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject.

    If you watched the above video (or heard …

  • A Hypothetical Apologetic?

    In taking Scripture as an absolute presupposition and standard for thought, the Christian apologist ought to maintain that there are no possibilities outside of what God is and decrees to be. It is never possible for God to be other than the type of being He is portrayed to be in His self-revelation. Because he does not presuppose the certain truth of the Bible at the very start of his apologetic (de facto and in principium) Clark (a self-professed Calvinist) is willing to reduce the whole system of Christian truth revealed by God therein to a possible accident

    …

  • Bahnsen and Bare Possibility

    Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible

    …

  • Church History and Apologetics Classes

    Recently, I had the opportunity of teaching two classes for my local church, on the subjects of Church History and Apologetics.

    Chris asked me to post them, so here they are!

    Note: I wasn’t professionally recorded – I did it myself – so the quality is only so-so.

    Church History: I used a primarily biographical method in teaching a quick overview of the history of the Church – and it’s isn’t nearly as comprehensive as many classes might be. It’s only 12 sessions, so I obviously had to go fairly quickly. This was taught as an introduction to the …

  • Always Ready Study : Parts 1-5

    Always Ready Study: Part I

    Always Ready Study: Part II

    Always Ready Study: Part III

    Always Ready Study: Part IV

    Always Ready Study: Part V…

  • Theology Drives Apologetic

    What we believe drives what we’re defending, obviously. When someone defending another position that claims to be Christian interacts with us, how are we to respond? Many times, that will tell unbelievers as much about us as our interaction with them does. Wes Widner, featured recently due to his citation of Open Theist Gregory Boyd, has criticized Dr. James White in the recent past, quite vehemently.

    Most notably for: “misrepresenting and slandering” William Lane Craig, Norm Geisler, etc.

    When pressed to give examples on The Dividing Line, Wes was unable to give any concrete examples. In other conversations since, Wes …

  • Science Is Not That Simple (Part 3)

    Part 1
    Part 2

    Chalmers also challenges the idea that facts provide a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge. This argument falls in line with the other arguments.

    Further difficulties concerning the reliability of the observational basis of science arise from some of the ways in which judgments about the adequacy of observation statements draw on presupposed knowledge in a way that renders those judgments fallible.1

    Chalmers uses the example of Aristotle’s idea that fire is a substance. Fire was observed, and it could be seen rising into the air so that it seemed accurate to say that fire …

  • Science Is Not That Simple (Part 2)

    (For the first part of Science Is Not That Simple click here.)

    Chalmers argues against the common idea that facts precede and are separate from theory. Chalmers starts his argument out against this common idea by explaining the ambiguity of the term “fact”.

    It can refer to a statement that expresses the fact and it can also refer to the state of affairs referred to by such a statement.  For example, it is a fact that there are mountains and craters on the moon.  Here the fact can be taken as referring to the mountains or craters themselves.  Alternatively,

    …

  • Proving the Bible

    Jamin Hubner at Real Apologetics has written another very fine article which may be found here.…

  • Bravo Nocterro

    Kudos to Nocterro (who sometimes comments here) for writing a pretty clear explanation of what presuppositionalists have been saying for some time now.

    Showing that the Bible is correct in its historical claims does not show it is correct in its theological claims…

    Imagine for the sake of argument that someone showed that Jesus did indeed resurrect…All it would show is that a man resurrected, not that Yahweh exists and that such a being was the cause of such an event. It could have been that it was the doing of some other sort of god, or even something else

    …