Dr Scott Oliphint Fields Questions on Unbelievable?

That’s right, it was an inquisition! Ok, not quite that bad. Dr. Oliphint was on Unbelievable? to talk about Presuppositional/Covenantal Apologetics. He ended up having to spend the entire time defending it from Kurt Jaros who clearly doesn’t understand the Theological underpinnings of the method, or their implications. However, because of this, there are some very good explanations that Dr. Oliphint gives that I think are very helpful. One that stands out in my mind is confusion between the fact that non believers are irrational yet we can also reason with them. Listen carefully for these great answers Dr. Oliphint …

Read more

For the Love of God and Philosophy

One of the biggest roadblocks to accepting the Bible as the Word of God is putting biblical theology in terms of philosophy (and by this I mean modern philosophy, or the formulation of thought in the tradition of the popular philosophers), rather than putting philosophy in terms of biblical theology. The philosophical categories, which have largely been fabricated in ignorance of the Bible, are often insufficient to expound the doctrines of the Bible. At the same time, many of the modern philosophical categories are created with intent to circumvent the implications of biblical theology. This same deference to man’s philosophy …

Read more

You Asked: Your Questions. God’s Answers. by Dr. Edgar

Dr. William Edgar of Westminster Theological Seminary has published a new book geared towards teens to answer a lot of common questions they have. I have not read this book yet but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that this book will likely be helpful for parents in answering these questions right along with their teens. Dr. Edgar is the Professor of Apologetics at WTS and edited and footnoted some of Dr. Van Til’s works for their latest editions. Having read those I am confident that this is a book worth looking into.

Check it …

Read more

Problems With Authority in Classical and Evidentialist Apologetics

To the extent that attempts are made in order to distinguish between the “evidentialist” and “classical” schools of apologetics, in an effort to salvage the “classical” method, these distinctions nevertheless fail to dodge the criticisms leveled at evidentialism by Van Tilian presuppositionalists. It shouldn’t strike us as very coincidental that the problem presuppositionalists have with the classical/evidentialist methods primarily concerns the presuppositions of these methods. Furthermore, that practitioners of either the classical or evidentialist methods borrow aspects from presuppositionalism (which I would argue is inevitable as long as the practitioner is at least to some extent devoted to sola scriptura

Read more

Verificationism And Christianity

One of the many problems atheists have with Christianity involves the issue of Verificationism. They may say, “I can’t believe Christianity because it can’t be verified,” and some might include, “…scientifically.” Some may even say, “It’s not true unless it can be verified.” Greg Bahnsen has a chapter in Always Ready entitled, “The Problem of Religious Language,” wherein he deals with both Verificationism and Falsificationism. The summary of the problem is that any religious utterance cannot be considered “meaningful” unless it can be checked against real-world data. Any talk of God, for instance, must correspond to something observable in the …

Read more

Addressing a Common Evidentialist Retort

My brother-in-law went to school with an atheist who excelled in virtually every subject he studied. This particular atheist was a sharp thinker. He was also firm in his atheistic convictions. But he liked to drink. A lot. One night he had a bit too much. By the end of the night he was weeping and crying out about how there has to be a God. Plenty of his friends witnessed the event. They brought it up later. His response was to grumpily tell them not to talk about it.

My old Sunday School teacher had a friend who came …

Read more

Why do we expect the future to be like the past?

Why do we expect the future to be like the past?

“Because in the past, the future has always been like the past.”

This response begs the question. It assumes the very point to be proven. In the past the future has always been like the past, yes, but why do we expect that in the future the future will be like the past?

“We don’t know for certain that the future will be like the past.”

This response misrepresents the question. It assumes the question is asking about certainty with respect to the future. But the question …

Read more

Some Questions for Matt Oxley

Matt Oxley describes himself as a “former Christian helping others work through the battle of a lost faith.” One aspect of his mission is “to promote intelligent discussion.” So he won’t mind my probing a bit concerning his claim, “I’m a former Christian.”

Recall Scripture states, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2.19) Recently a professing Christian cited this verse for Matt. The implication …

Read more