Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: worldview

  • Should we concede anything to our opponents?

    Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein

    Debate Transcript

    Should we argue for “general theism”?

    Should our case be “subjective or personal”?

    Should we concede anything to our opponents?

    Bahnsen’s last introductory remark prior to his main argument for the existence of God involves a concession to Stein’s “area of expertise.” As insignificant as this concession seemingly is it serves as a refutation of the oft-repeated-but-never-cited claim that presuppositional apologists contend that unbelievers cannot know anything. The truth is that if unbelievers were epistemologically consistent they could not know anything, but unbelievers are never epistemologically …

  • Nature Grace Dualism (Part 2)

    Nature Grace Dualism Part 1

    Nature Grace Dualism Part 2

    The presence of nature grace dualism throughout Roman Catholicism has resulted in a host of worries. Goldsworthy quotes Vittorio Subilia’s observation that Roman Catholicism is marked by “a phenomenon of complexio oppositorum.”  The claim is an historical one supported by the evidence of Roman Catholic syncretism. While Gnosticism and mystery religions are cited as examples of non-Christian systems of thought that have at times been adopted by Roman Catholicism and blended in with Christian categories the non-Christian systems of thought stemming directly from philosophy are perhaps more interesting to …

  • WCF, LBC, and TAG

    A friend pointed me toward this post by Brandon Adams. From what I can tell Brandon is influenced a good bit by Gordon H. Clark and argues in his post that Van Tillian presuppositionalism and specifically TAG is inconsistent with the WCF and LBC. While I am not one to excitedly engage in the Van Til versus Clark debate there are a few areas where I believe Brandon is simply mistaken about Van Til and Bahnsen’s method. One of the reasons I do not tend to engage in arguments against Clarkianism is that I am rather unfamiliar with the position. …

  • Thoughts of H.W.B. Joseph

    In 1931 a late nineteenth and early twentieth century philosopher at Oxford by the name of H.W.B. Joseph published a book called Some Problems in Ethics. The following is quoted from the aforementioned work:

    If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as nonsensical to call a movement true as a flavor purple or a sound avaricious. But what is obvious when thought is said to be a certain bodily movement seems equally

  • An Argument For Agreus

    One might deny that laws of logic exist, but not without presupposing the laws of logic (i.e. the law of non-contradiction). Since the affirmation of a proposition implies the falsehood of its contradictory, the denial of the laws of logic is self-refuting.

    The possibility of rational inference presupposes the laws of logic (i.e. identity; non-contradiction), but the laws of logic entail that nonphysical, nonspatial, nontemporal reality of some sort be accepted. The laws of logic are not physical laws as is evidenced by the fact that they are applicable to possible worlds in which there are no physical objects. [1]

  • 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 Guide To Godly Disputation

    HT: Fisher

     GUIDE TO GODLY DISPUTATION
    JOHN NEWTON (1725-1807)
    A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows.
    Dear Sir,
    As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am

  • Muhammad in the New Testament?

    James White and Sam Shamoun discuss whether Muhammad is seen in the New Testament, as many Muslims assert. You can watch here. Also includes a run-down of Dr. White’s recent debate with Sheik Awal.…

  • Hey Jude

    Some time ago I wrote a short post while thinking through some issues raised by a commenter calling himself Theo Beza. He responded and I replied that it would take me some time to get to what he wrote. One concern he raised will be addressed here briefly.

    Theo Beza wrote:

    When I said that Fristianity is the same as Christianity except for a Quadrinity, I wasn’t suggesting that every claim possibly labeled as Christian or made by Christians in history is a claim endorsed by Fristianity (with the obvious exception of Trinity). I was sort of looking at it

  • Trinity vs Tawheed

    James White and Sam Shamoun discuss the distinctions between Trinity and Tawheed, and the apologetic implications of those distinctions.

    You can watch it here.…