Lutherans, and Muslims, and TAG! Oh My!

On yesterday’s Dividing Line (September 11, 2012) a caller (37 minute mark) asks Dr. White some questions about “apologetic frameworks.” You may find the program here – http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5229. As usual I recommend listening to the program in its entirety, but I want to mention two links related to the aforementioned discussion.

The first link is to a post where I tried to squeeze Martin Luther into a presuppositionalist framework. I don’t actually think he fits into that category, but it was worth a shot. You may find the post here –  https://choosinghats.org/2010/10/happy-reformation-day-from-choosing-hats-2.

The second is the article I …

Read more

The Recent Rise of Covenantal Apologetics (5 of 10)

“Theology matters and theology determines apologetic methodology.” – Dr. James R. White

The entire program of presuppositional apologetics can be summed up in the “need for consistency” challenge constantly set forth by Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. If one ever wonders where the present day Greg Bahnsen of apologetics is one need look no further than Dr. White. Such a statement might ruffle some feathers, but having followed Dr. White’s ministry for a few years now I believe the statement is substantiated by the ministry delivered to Dr. White by the grace of God.

From C.L. …

Read more

Forty Arabic Words

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا – Surah 4:157

ζω δε ουκετι εγω ζη δε εν εμοι χριστος ο δε νυν ζω εν σαρκι εν πιστει ζω τη του υιου του θεου του αγαπησαντος με και παραδοντος εαυτον υπερ εμου – Gal 2:20

As this video reminds us; there a billion people on this planet who denied that Christ ever died – due to 40 Arabic words.

That they

Read more

Islam: Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai on the Knowledge of Allah (2)

In my previous post on Islam I began to address the attempt that Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai (ASMHT) makes to argue for the necessity of his god Allah through natural theology (123). ASMHT offers a rational argument that takes the subject of knowledge as its most basic assumption and speaks of three objects of knowledge in the very first sentence of his argument for Allah which are human beings, god, and the world. In order for him to make a successful argument, ASMHT must connect the subject of knowledge with these objects of knowledge.

I asked …

Read more

Islam: Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai on the Knowledge of Allah (1)

In Shi’ite Islam, Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai (hereafter ASMHT) attempts an argument for “The Necessity of God” through natural theology (123). There are many different understandings of what exactly natural theology is and what it actually accomplishes, but in this particular passage ASMHT attempts to prove the existence of the Muslim god Allah through a simple, straightforward natural theological proof (123). This attempt is made at the very beginning of a chapter on the knowledge of ASMHT’s god, so it is clear that the argument he presents is pre-dogmatic in nature and possesses even an apologetic function. Since …

Read more

A Fantastic Insight into Redaction Criticism and the Islamic use of it

Two brief excerpts:

I can tell you, without hesitation, that the vast majority of those who embrace form and redaction criticism in all of its flavors and kinds do so out of tradition, not out of having examined the case set forth in defense of these methods. In fact, very, very few of those who glibly repeat the party line have ever even given thought to any other viewpoint. Anyone who thinks there is a fair, open dialogue in “the academy” over these topics is simply misinformed. To “get ahead” in Christian scholarship you must—not should, MUST—toe the line when

Read more

Questioning Copan

The Gospel Coalition is running a series on apologetics, and today’s entry was by Paul Copan, entitled “Questioning Presuppositionalism”. What struck me, while reading his take on the subject, was how superficial and inaccurate it was. He introduces Van Til, and then says that Gordon Clark supposedly “generally followed” his methodology, along with Bahnsen and Frame, and then called it “variegated”. Well, given that he’s simply wrong concerning Clark, and that Frame consciously departed from Van Til as well, I’d supposed that’s an assumption guaranteed to result in a certain conclusion, wouldn’t you? It is not the case that …

Read more