Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: Presuppositional Apologetics

  • Ben Wallis responds to “induction again” (Updated)

    Ben Wallis has responded to the post found here.

    Chris,

    You offer several quotations from me on induction, and suggest that they are contradictory. But how? What contradiction exactly do you see? Because I confess, I cannot find any. Perhaps you think that having something new to say about induction constitutes a change in view…? I hope that’s not the case. It just means that I’m trying to find more effective ways to communicate the point, and raising other points which might bear on it. After all, there are different problems on the table, here, and they all demand

    …

  • Miscellaneous Links

    In response to some questions I have received I should mention that An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics will Lord willing resume sometime after next week. The plans as of right now are for it to consist of 50 Parts total in addition to the Introduction and Conclusion.

    In the meantime I thought I would plug a few blogs which may or may not interest you.

    Royce Hall writes so as to be understood clearly and breaks some pretty hefty theology and presuppositionalism down so that even those who are not familiar with either can understand them. You may find …

  • Ben Wallis, induction again, and a desperate attack on Christianity

    My favorite philosopher, the Scottish skeptic David Hume, did more than just a little damage to traditional religious views in terms of their philosophical justifications. Unfortunately, those who appeal to Hume for solace in their anti-theistic battles often overlook that Hume destroyed much else besides the aforementioned philosophy of religion. Hume was a skeptic through and through, so much so that he was skeptical of his own skepticism. This general consistency with Hume with respect to skepticism came as a result of his rejection of the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture and has driven more than one unbeliever to take desperate …

  • 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…

  • An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 12 – Transcendental argumentation.

    By C.L. Bolt

    We have said that the apologetic encounter involves a clash of worldviews which are opposite one another and are held at the deepest level of thought determining how evidence, argumentation, and even fundamentals and concepts like possibility and logic etc. are thought of and interpreted. We have said also that the unbeliever suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and that objections to the Christian faith could not even be raised were it not for the unbeliever knowing God. We might plainly assert all of these things, but they do not thereby constitute an apologetic argument. How then might …

  • ZaoThanatoo Answers the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Guest Post)

    The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God

    The Argument from Horrific Suffering for the Non-Existence of God (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 2 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering II (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 3 (Chris) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering III (Mitch) / Answering the Argument from Horrific Suffering 4 (Chris) / ZaoThanatoo Answers (ZaoThanatoo) / Bolt and Horrific Suffering IV (Mitch)

     

    I will provide a brief rebuttal to Mitch’s response and grant him the …

  • How about a little offense? by defectivebit (Guest Post)

    In the thirteenth chapter of Always Ready Dr. Greg Bahnsen states

    “The Christian cannot forever be defensively constructing atomistic answers to the endless variety of unbelieving criticisms; he must take the offensive and show the unbeliever that he has no intelligible place to stand, no consistent epistemology, no justification for meaningful discourse, predication, or argumentation.”[1]

    I have often wondered why it is that in most debates I watch between a Christian and a non-Christian that the Christian spends very little time on the offensive side of the battle. This affinity to a defensive posture was also made clear to …

  • 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 …

  • Dear Eldnar

    The following comment and response may be found on this post.

    Hi there,

    Some would take a leap and state that “this cause is God”, but such a leap is unwarranted.

    *GASP* I’ve only heard two people *ever* try to say that the uncaused cause is not God, and you are the second of the two. Here’s what happened to the first person:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc

    There is nothing in the premises of the argument that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the cause of the universe is God.

    True. But it points to God “beyond reasonable doubt”. A person can

    …

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

    These posts contain lengthy quotations from Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius Van Til – this post will deal with pages 319-323. In the previous post, Van Til dealt with the unbeliever’s state before God, his self-deception, suppression of the truth, and the proper apologetic methodology to use with the unbeliever. Beginning here, he begins to answer the charge that a covenantal apologetic is “circular reasoning”, or has no “point of contact” with the unbeliever.

    The one main question to which we are addressing ourselves in this series of articles is whether Christians holding to the Reformed Faith should

    …