Piper’s Apologetic on Why We Believe the Bible.
July 26, 2010 at 5:47 am | Posted in Apologetics, bible | Leave a CommentHere Piper teaches on the Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Authority of the Bible. This is from Piper’s website here. Notes for this seminar can be viewed here.
Why We Believe the Bible:
Part 1 MP3 | Part 2 MP3 | Part 3 MP3 | Part 4 MP3 | Part 5 MP3
Now, what is Presuppositional Apologetics?
July 16, 2010 at 4:42 am | Posted in Apologetics, Reformed Theology, Theistic Philosophy, Theological Terms | Leave a Comment“Being confident of these things, a truly Reformed apologetic must begin from the presupposition that the living and true, triune God speaks to him with absolute authority in infallible Scripture. His reasoning then finds its only legitimate function as a servant or tool of God’s word, rather than its judge. Following God’s Word, the Christian receptively reconstructs the created facts of the universe about him with a view toward both fulfilling the cultural mandate and being conformed to the image of his Savior by the power of Christ’s Spirit; hereby he glorifies God and enjoys Him forever. Thus, the apologetic task will consist, not of externally verifying the Christian presupposition but, of applying it by (1) bringing God’s truth and command to bear upon the lives of unbelievers, appealing to the image of God in them (distinguishing between present remnants of man’s orignal nature and the ever-present nature of fallen man), pointin out that every fact of the world bears witness to God, and (2) doing an internal critique of the non-Christian’s system, calling down its idols, and pointing out the absolute necessity of Christian presuppositions if logic, factuality, history, science, and morality are to have any meaning, validity, and application at all. The Christian apologetic will not concede intellectual ground to Christianity’s cultured despisers or allow them to exploit theorethical foundations to which they have no legitimate claim without depending on the Christian faith. Thus, part of the Christian’s reasoned defense of the faith will be an aggressive offense.
Not like the fool who built his house upon the sand, the Christian apologist must, in love for Christ, found his whole life, including apologetical reasoning, upon the solid rock of Christ’s Word. In accordance with this the apologist seeks the repentance of the sinner and does not encourage his continued use of hostile, autonomous reason in judgment over God’s Word. We seek a God-controlled man, not a man-controlled God.
(Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics, Page 6-7)
HT: Domain for Truth
What is a Presupposition?
July 16, 2010 at 4:30 am | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | 1 Comment… I don’t think there’s anything mysterious about Van Til’s usage. From my reading, Van Til uses “presuppositional” as a synonym for “transcendental” reasoning. Indeed, one synonym for presuppositional apologetics is transcendental theism.
So what does it mean to reason presuppositionally (i.e. transcendentally)? Well, as one scholar defines it:
Transcendental arguments are partly non-empirical, often anti-skeptical arguments focusing on necessary enabling conditions either of coherent experience or the possession or employment of some kind of knowledge or cognitive ability, where the opponent is not in a position to question the fact of this experience, knowledge, or cognitive ability, and where the revealed preconditions include what the opponent questions. Such arguments take as a premise some obvious fact about our mental life—such as some aspect of our knowledge, our experience, our beliefs, or our cognitive abilities—and add a claim that some other state of affairs is a necessary condition of the first one. Transcendental arguments most commonly have been deployed against a position denying the knowability of some extra-mental proposition, such as the existence of other minds or a material world. Thus these arguments characteristically center on a claim that, for some extra-mental proposition P, the indisputable truth of some general proposition Q about our mental life requires that P.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/trans-ar/
Van Till gives this type of argument a specifically Christian twist.
A Great Chart on Worldviews!
July 15, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | Leave a CommentHere is a helpful worldview chart courtesy of Summit Ministries.
HT: Exotesparemboles
Free Lectures on Introductory Logic.
July 8, 2010 at 5:04 am | Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Logic, Reformed Theology, Theistic Philosophy | 3 CommentsIntroduction to Logic, John Robbins (18 lectures)
- Introduction to Logic
- Definition of Terms
- Logic and Theology: The Westminster Confession
- Informal Fallacies, Part 1
- Informal Fallacies, Part 2
- Logic and Theology: Christ’s Use of Logic
- Definitions
- Formal Logic
- Logic and Theology: Paul’s Use of Logic
- Categorical Forms
- Immediate Inference, Validity, Euler Circles
- Logic and Theology: Empirical Apologetics
- Homework Review
- The Syllogism
- Logic and Theology: Why Science Is Always False
- Homework Review
- Conclusion
- Logic and Theology: Vantillian Apologetics
Preview John Frame’s “Doctrine of the Word of God.”
July 7, 2010 at 11:24 am | Posted in Apologetics, Biblical Theology, Epistemology, Reading, Reformed Theology, Systematic Theology, Theistic Philosophy | 2 CommentsThis will be the closing piece to his essential Lordship theology series, and a volume that I cannot wait to get my hands on. All you trispectival nerds will love this, Frame is letting us preview at “Reformed Perspectives.” Enjoy!
- • The Doctrine of the Word of God
- God’s Revelation Through Words: Prophets and Apostles
- Webpage PDF Word
- • The Doctrine of the Word of God
- Respect for God’s Written Words in the Old Testament
- Webpage PDF Word
- • The Doctrine of the Word of God
- Scripture’s Authority, its Content and its Purpose
- Webpage PDF Word
Via: Domain for Truth
Bahnsen in a FLASH.
June 24, 2010 at 4:12 am | Posted in Apologetics, Technology, Theistic Philosophy | Leave a CommentCovenant Media Foundation has put together a new product that offers several convenient features at an outstanding price. We have collected 54 lectures by Dr. Greg L.Bahnsen on a wide range of apologetics topics, all contained on one Flash Drive. Some of these lectures are not as well-known and are often overlooked. These all contain rich material that many have found to be outstanding helps.
The following is the information. You can go directly to their website and order HERE
HT: Domain for Truth
Transcendental Ethical Values by Shin
June 17, 2010 at 9:04 am | Posted in Apologetics, Christian Ethics, Theistic Philosophy, Theology | Leave a CommentFrom The Domain for Truth:
A 10 page article, from Reformed Perspective Magazine
The author Yoon Shin writes from a Van Tillian Presuppositional Perspective
He himself is a student of Dr. John Frame
A Response to Muslim Apologetics…
May 21, 2010 at 3:55 am | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy, Uncategorized | Leave a CommentFrom the Reformation Theology blog:
““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ – Matthew 7:20-23 (ESV)
Dr. James White teaches on a text very familiar to us, responding to a Muslim apologist who says the verse can only be applied to Christians. (approx. 25 minutes)
Theonomy, Presuppositional Van Tillian Thought, & R.C. Sproul?
May 12, 2010 at 3:37 am | Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Reformed Theology, Theistic Philosophy, Theology | 6 CommentsYes, I know a weird mix huh (that may be the first time I’ve ever used “huh” in a blog). Anyway, Sproul does a fine job of giving an elementary break down of what Theonomy is. I like his approach in stating that we are all, in some regard, theonomists (although there is probably a better way of stating that), that is, we hold to an objective standard of ethical values and theistic law… the question is how far we ought to take that…. here are some of his thoughts:
(Correction: as you see in the comments from Sproul Jr., these are his words… )
Like Calvinism and Reformed theology, these two terms are often used as synonyms, but could be understood as genus and species. That is, embracing Calvinism is part of what it means to be Reformed, but not the whole. In like manner some would suggest that theonomy is part of the broader body of convictions described as reconstructionism. Theonomy might be understood as the conviction that the civil law God gave to Israel in the Old Testament ought to be the law of the land in all nations everywhere. Reconstructionism, if not seen as a mere synonym would include theonomic convictions, and add also an optimistic eschatology, that is the conviction that the kingdom of God is growing, and will before the return of Christ cover the world as the waters cover the seas. It would also include, by and large, a commitment to Van Tillian or presuppositional apologetics. This perspective suggests, depending on whom you ask, either that we must presuppose the existence of God in order to prove His existence, or that seeking to prove God’s existence is impossible and impious, and that we ought only instead to presuppose it. Others might add more qualifiers to the definition of reconstructionism, (such as concluding covenant theology) but these four, Calvinist in theology, theonomic in ethics, optimistic in eschatology and presuppositional in apologetics would be the key four.
Two other important and related points. Whether one embraces theonomy as defined above or not, all of us ought in some sense to be theonomists. My theonomic friends are wont to drive us to one of two choices, “Autonomy or theonomy!” And of course they are precisely right. We will either have man’s law, or God’s law and only a fool would choose man over God. The question then rightly understood isn’t whether we ought to have law as God would have us have it. The question instead is what law would God wish us to have. Did God give the civil law (that is, the law as it relates to government) to Israel as an exact paradigm of the ideal law for any state, or not? The Westminster Confession calls us to embrace what the divines called “the general equity” of the law. That is, while there are underlying principles of God’s justice at work in the establishment of Old Testament civil law, there may be fitting and appropriate adjustments to take into account our differing circumstances. A common example of this is here. In Old Testament Israel homeowners were required to have fences on their roofs. Such a law would make little sense in our day since we do not spend much time on our roofs as our fathers did. The “general equity” suggests that the point is safety for families and their guests. Thus one could argue that modern homeowners ought to have fences around their swimming pools. How loosely one applies “general equity” would tend to describe how closely one might identify with theonomy as an ideology.
Second, be careful not to heed those critics who have precious little understanding of theonomy or reconstruction. Those on the left, both theologically and politically, delight to present these heirs of the Puritans as evangelical jihadists hell-bent on imposing a Calvinistic fascist regime on the rest of the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Theonomists, like the rest of us, long to see justice in the political realm. They long to see the nations discipled. They long to see the kingdom made manifest. They long to see every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Who, within His kingdom, could ever argue with that?
HT: Ligonier Blog
Ethics, The Emerging Church & Brian McClaren
May 12, 2010 at 3:22 am | Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Interviews, Web, church | 2 CommentsToday’s interview is (part two of two) with R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University. He talks about postmodernism, what it is, and how it is affecting the Church. He shares his thoughts on the good and the bad in the emerging church movement and the works of Brian McClaren
. (See the first interview with Scott on ethical issues here.)
Some Apologetical Resources for Your Tuesday – Gordon Clark & Lee Strobel
May 4, 2010 at 5:05 am | Posted in Apologetics, Lectures, Theistic Philosophy, Uncategorized | Leave a CommentFrom “The Domain for Truth,” some Gordon Clark and John Robbins Resources :
Four Lessons on Islam
Here is an interview by Lee Strobel of the late Antony Flew, not too long after his rejection of atheism. Video clips in five parts at LeeStrobel.com:• Why did your beliefs change? (2:06)
• What is God like? (5:08)
• A Creator was involved in the creation of life (2:59)
• Afterlife and Christianity (5:42)
• My time with C.S. Lewis (1:35)
**Let me put a little disclaimer, while I don’t completely agree with either of these scholar’s apologetic, both are useful and warrant a thoughtful consideration. Ok, now go enjoy these!
Paul Helm’s Presuppositionalism Visited
March 22, 2010 at 9:13 am | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | Leave a CommentTags: Bahnsen, Clark, Van Til
Steve from Triablogue has a great response to Paul Helm’s view of Presuppositionalism. Click Here.
Objective Moralistic Standards?
March 22, 2010 at 8:50 am | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | Leave a CommentPresenting Evidence from a Presuppositional Van Tillian Framework.
March 1, 2010 at 4:48 am | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | 2 CommentsTags: Van Til
My friend Danny found this great article and he writes:
I found this article to be helpful concerning how Christians should present evidence to non-Christians. Often, we are too quick to jump to give evidence without considering more broadly how non-Christians interpret evidence within their worldview.
For example, you may be giving evidence to a non-Christian for the resurrection of Christ, but they will dismiss any evidence because they are a naturalist who refuses to believe in miracles. Or take, for example, the illustration of a man who is convinced that he is dead. The doctors and psychiatrists are doing everything they can to help the man realize that he is not dead. Finally, the doctor asks the man one day, “Do dead men bleed?” The man responds, “No, of course not!” The doctor then proceeds to walk over to the man, pricks the man’s finger with a needle, and a droplet of blood forms on his finger. Now, the doctor is thinking to himself, “Q.E.D.,” but as the man looks down at the droplet of blood on his finger, he responds, “Whadda’ know! I guess dead men do bleed after all!”
So, instead of throwing evidences at them that they will simply dismiss with a waive of the hand, their “philosophy of facts” must first be exposed and addressed.
Li writes,
Van Til is quite insightful in his observation that there is no such thing as “brute” facts, or “facts in themselves.” There are times when one “fact” is viewed by one group of people as a fact while another group rejects the same claim as a fact. At the root of the issue is one’s philosophy of facts which determines what the facts will be. In order for something to be a fact, it must satisfy one’s criteria of what a fact should be. Van Til is correct when he writes:
The battle is not one primarily of this fact or of that fact. The battle is basically with respect to a philosophy of facts. The non-believer virtually makes a universal negative proposition about God every time he engages in his scientific effort. Even when he thinks teleologically in the way that Aristotle did and proves the existence of a God, he is still assuming that God is not and cannot be the Creator and Redeemer of the world.
This truth has implications for the practical question of when to give evidence. In asking the question of when to give evidence, a similar question must also be asked of when it is inappropriate to give evidence. If the nonbeliever’s philosophy of facts is already problematic, then any evidence that the Christian may cite will readily be dismissed by their flawed philosophy of facts. During such an occasion, rather than give evidence, it would be more fruitful for the Christian to first address the nonbeliever’s philosophy of facts.
Read the rest here.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.





