Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: philosophy of religion

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

    In our previous post, we saw the beginnings of the typical evidential/classical method, as posed by Dr. Carnell. We will continue our journey through Van Til’s dialogue, on pages 316-317 of Defense of the Faith.

    Of course, Mr. Black will be greatly impressed with such an argument as Mr. Grey has presented to him for the truth of Christianity. In fact, if Christianity is thus shown to be in accord with the moral nature of man, as Mr. Black himself sees that moral nature, then Mr. Black does not need to be converted at all to accept Christianity. He

    …

  • 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

    …

  • 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.…

  • Ramblings On Rolling in the Dirt for the Glory of God

    I have spent many, many hours reading and studying and listening to and teaching philosophy. I do not really consider myself a philosopher, and I am not particularly good at doing philosophy, but I am interested in it and wanting to get better at it. However, I would not suggest that many others invest as much as I have in the area.

    Apologetics and philosophy are distinct disciplines. It is troubling to me that many who desire to develop an apologetics ministry (and by ministry here I do not mean a blog or website or non-profit or book or …

  • 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!…

  • Point of Contact – Are the Laws of Logic Created?

    Point of Contact

    In this first episode of our newest podcast – Brian Knapp, Joshua Whipps, and Nic Heath discuss the nature of the laws of logic.

    …

  • 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.

    …

  • Happy Reformation Day From Choosing Hats!

    Introduction

    In April 1518 Martin Luther was called upon by the Augustinian order of Germany to set out and defend his theology at the General Chapter of Heidelberg. While Luther was rather thoroughly surrounded by controversy he would be presenting the theological ideas which had produced this controversy to those who shared much of his Augustinian thinking. The name of the presentation Luther delivered is the Heidelberg Disputation. The Heidelberg Disputation consists of a number of theses divided between philosophical theses and theological theses. The theological theses are explained in much greater detail than are the philosophical theses. Luther actually …

  • 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, …