First Word

The thesis is that the “Easter belief” of the early Christians (a) refers intentionally to a literal, physical (not merely spiritual) raising of Jesus from the dead, and (b) the mode and breadth of this belief can only be explained on the hypothesis that that is what actually happened. The thesis is pursued in specific and detailed interaction with the Leben Jesu literature, most of which denies the resurrection. The characteristic emphasis that we would expect from Wright is (more…)

It behooves us to take an opening stance on the volcano (more…)

Biblical scholars have debated the meaning and types of sacrifices given in Scripture. Calvin says there are two types, sin offerings and offerings of worship (Inst. 4. 18. 13). Aquinas maintains there are three: burnt offerings, sin offerings and peace offerings (ST IaIIae 102.3). Their division differs according to their emphasis. Calvin is more concerned with the purpose of the sacrifice and Aquinas more with how the victim’s carcass is disposed. Both have their merits (and demerits: neither seem to recognize the atoning element in all sacrifices), but for reasons that will become obvious, I shall follow Aquinas. (more…)

The following are notes that a student took during a lecture I gave in May 2001. They are short and contain few examples and illustrations, but there is enough here that may be some help for those interested in the rudiments of presuppositional apologetics. My thanks to Ryan Kidd for taking these notes. (more…)

There are a variety of topics in our current discourse, such as racial linguistic reference, and the question of the desirability of integration in church or state, to which our disputants often have a ready argument: “there will be no race in heaven; therefore we should operate as if that were the case now.” As will prove to be the case again and again, both the major and minor premises of modern truisms are generally dubious. Here I wish to analyze a premise that functions as the “minor” in that argument, and is taken as “obvious” even by intelligent people today. Namely, the idea that “there will be no race in heaven.” (more…)

Paul Schneider was a German Reformed minister whose early ministry coincided with the ascendancy of the National Socialist movement in the 1930s. His critique of the folk’s movement in view of the Word of God as well as a series of stands for the independent rights of the church vis-à-vis the state led to continual conflicts with Party functionaries, and penalties of increasing severity. At length, the conflict culminated in consignment to the concentration camp at Buchenwald, where his life ended. (more…)

Everyone expects me to say “Predestination” or something. But that’s so far down the list that I’ll forget to even mention it.

There are three things that prevent me from becoming a Methodist. (more…)

Roger Williams, because of his views of freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state, and the fact that he was able to implement them in Rhode Island, is celebrated as the founder of American liberties by writers as diverse as nineteenth-century Democratic historian George Bancroft (History of the United States, vol 1, p. 255), Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 880) and the writer of the article on Roger Williams at Wikipedia. (more…)

Philip Jacob Spener wrote this initially as a preface to an edition of some sermons by J. Arndt; it became popular in its own right and subsequently was published by itself (more…)

Whenever I meet a Baptist or other Independent in a context where discussion of a slightly confrontational nature is permitted, I always ask, “how do you know you are part of (more…)

Johann Arndt (1555-1621) was a Lutheran minister that was troubled by formalism or dead orthodoxy among the German people. He wrote this book, True Christianity (Wahre Christenthum) to counter this trend, arguing that mere assent to correct doctrines (more…)

In many traditional discussions of the church, a host of definitional distinctions are brought out right away: the church invisible vs. visible; triumphant vs. militant; representational vs. lay; and so forth. All of these distinctions have their place, and in their place are very important. Here, however, I propose to start with the primary lexical meaning of the Hebrew qahal or Greek ekklesia as “the called,” which, in the biblical context, connotes a people called out of the sinful mass of humanity to be the people of God, to worship him in truth, and be constituted as the corporate body identified with the living and true God. (more…)

Review of Robin Bruce Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988). BT 819.5 .B35 1988

Under the rubric of apocalypticism, this book weaves together a story about views of time and history, eschatology, astrology, magic and secret societies in Lutheran Germany in the century following the Reformation.

Prof. Barnes (of Davidson College) defines apocalypticism as a view of the future combining prophecy and (more…)

In the comments section to a previous post, somebody asked if (more…)

The following article is from the current edition of Faith for all of Life, the bi-monthly publication of (more…)

The following is an letter I wrote to a friend who had questions about the reformed doctrine of “limited (more…)

The following article was part of the Minority Report of the Committee to Study the Framework Hypothesis for the Presbytery of Southern California of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, October 15-16, 1999. It is also found in Kenneth L. Gentry and Michael R. Butler, Yea Hath God Said: The Framework Hypothesis/Six-Day Creation Debate (Eugene Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002). (more…)

Although Christian theologians have debated whether it is ever permissible to lie, there has always been universal assent to the proposition that God himself does not lie – at least until (more…)

My colleague has done some very important work that answers several of the standard criticisms of vantillian apologetics.

In my opinion, the most important one is the so-called “uniqueness” claim. That is, the question arises, how does the presuppositional method prove Christianity in its concreteness, as opposed to merely showing that something like Christianity– say, affirming a Quadrinity rather than a Trinity– is a necessary precondition of thought?

This is reprinted from a chapter in The Standard Bearer.

Study, enjoy, and interact. Click here to start.

Full title: William Lane Craig. Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton (more…)

It turns out the expression “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda,” though often imputed to the Reformers, was probably never enunciated by them at all. At least, no one has been able to give me a citation.

Here is an invitation to the world: send me a documentable citation, and I will reholster my revolver.

(One internet doctor claims Voetius, but could not give a citation in response to my email query. Not that Voetius counts as a Reformer anyhow.)

Let’s think about the slogan. I give my dynamic-equivalent translation: “The Reformed Church should continually be formed again” (lit. “is always to be reformed.”)

If the expression were merely saying that all councils and creeds are in principle subject to err, (more…)

When encountering adherents to Eastern Orthodoxy, the issue of authority is pivotal.  Orthodoxy and Rome agree, at least formally, with Protestants on at least this much: God is the final authority and only he is in a position reveal himself to mankind.  Thus if we are to know anything about him –– or, indeed, anything about ourselves and the world around us –– he must reveal himself to us.  The doctrine of divine revelation necessarily plays a central role in all Christian traditions. But where is this revelation to be found?  The Protestant answer is summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.  Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.” (more…)

In response to the transcendental argument for God’s existence (TAG), Michael Martin has offered what he calls the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG).¹ Before responding to the details of his argument, some understanding of TAG is helpful.

TAG asserts that only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience. That is, only the Christian view of God, creation, providence, revelation, and human nature can make sense of the world in which we live. So, for example, only the Christian worldview can make sense out of morality since it alone provides the necessary presuppositions for making ethical evaluations, namely, an absolute and personal Law Giver who reveals His moral will to mankind. It does not make sense, however, for the atheist/materialist to denounce any action as wrong since, according to his worldview, all that exists is matter in motion. And matter in motion is inherently non-moral. That is, since the world according to the materialist is totally (more…)

In a previous article I overviewed the history and theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. In this article I shall expose some of the common fallacies that Eastern Orthodoxy apologists commit when arguing for their position.

1. The first it what I shall call the Antiquity Fallacy. This is the fallacy that appeals to the antiquity of a position to prove its truth - the older the position, the better. This type of argument is fallacious because the age of an idea or position is irrelevant to the truth of it. There are innumerable positions that are at the same time ancient and false just as there are many discoveries that are recent and true. And so to assert that one’s theological perspective is true on the basis that it has been around longer than any other view (assuming that it can be factually established) is to use flawed reasoning. Thus even if Eastern Orthodoxy has antecedents that pre-date any other tradition - and this is something that is runs counter to the historical evidence - it does not follow that Eastern Orthodoxy is true. (more…)

Framework hypothesis advocates are sensitive to the related charges that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is novel and that this novelty is, at least in part, due to making concessions to modern scientific timelines of the age of the earth. The charge of novelty is a serious one. If the framework view is so apparent in the text of Genesis 1, as some advocates have contended,¹ how could the church have missed it for so many years? This is tied to the next question: why is it that this view of the text did not arise until after the arrival of modern geological, astronomical and biological theories of the age of the earth?

In response to these questions, the framework proponents trump Augustine as an example of an early advocate of the view. Henri Blocher, for example, contends, “… the framework theory, is not, as is too often imagined, an innovation of the modern age. Augustine…constructed a brilliant and startling interpretation of the days in De Genesi ad litteram.”² Lee Irons is even more adamant. “The framework interpretation in its modern form builds upon Augustine’s view and is in fundamental continuity with it.”³

The claim that Augustine’s interpretation is a precursor of the framework hypothesis is highly contestable, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is indeed a forerunner to this view. This granted, the claim that the framework hypothesis is novel is proved false and the suspicion that it arose in order to allow the Bible to comport with modern scientific dogma is less credible. (more…)

Because epistemology is at the heart of apologetics, and because there continues to be significant disagreements between men over epistemological questions, the apologist must begin with a clear and firm understanding of his own position as a Christian–in particular, his distinctive Christian conviction touching matters of epistemological importance. If he is muddled or mistaken about these basic issues touching on the Christian faith, he can hardly raise a clear and effective defense of that very faith. He is more likely to resort to argumentative tactics which do not epistemologically comport with the system of truth he seeks to vindicate.

- Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic

Throughout the history of the church, apologists and theologians have adopted (sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously) epistemological views from pagan and secular sources in an attempt to defend the truth of Christianity. But as Greg Bahnsen has warned us, these epistemologies need to be investigated in order to discover whether they comport with Christianity. Sadly, this has rarely been attempted and thus Christian apologists have rarely had a completely biblical epistemology with which to defend the faith.

Though many examples could be cited, I will illustrate the problem of employing non-Christian epistemologies in apologetics by examining the traditional Roman Catholic approach as represented by Thomas Aquinas and a compromised Reformed approach as represented by Charles Hodge. (more…)

According to one estimate, the Eastern Orthodox Church in America has over six million members, making it the fourth largest religious body in the country. Historically, most Orthodox Americans have been immigrants from eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Russia, Ukraine). While this is still the case, the last twenty five years have witnessed a number of high-profile conversions to Orthodoxy. Surprisingly, many of these converts have come from evangelical roots.

Peter Gillquist and other former Campus Crusade for Christ staff members led a group of people into Orthodoxy during the 70’s and 80’s.¹ Charles Bell led most of his Vineyard Christian Fellowship congregation into the Eastern church in 1993.² Perhaps the most high-profile conversion was that of Franky Schaeffer, son of the late Francis Schaeffer, who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in 1990.³ The trend East hit home in 1995 when a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the denomination of Machen, Van Til, Murray and Bahnsen, demitted the ministry and converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Even the thought of such apostasy would not have occurred twenty-five years ago. (more…)

Advocates of the Framework Hypothesis recognize that considerations of the literary structure of Genesis 1 is not in itself sufficient to establish their conclusion that the narration of the six days of creation in Genesis 1 is topical and figurative rather than chronological and literal. They, therefore, have put forth a supplementary argument based on considerations from Genesis 2:5. Meredith Kline is the originator of the argument, but many others have picked up on it. Mark Futato summarizes it thus:

The [”Because It Had Not Rained”] article demonstrated that according to Gen 2:5 ordinary providence was God’s mode of operation during the days of creation. Since God’s mode of operation was ordinary providence, and since, for example, light (Day 1) without luminaries (Day 4) is not ordinary providence, the arrangement of the six days of creation in Genesis 1 must be topical not chronological.

Kline and Futato contend that Genesis 2:5 provides an important insight into how we are to understand the creation week. Since, on this interpretation, God used ordinary providence (rain) to maintain earth’s vegetation, we should infer from this that ordinary providence was the modus operandi of the creation week. That is, God’s ordinary way of maintaining his creation obtained during the period of his creation of the heavens and earth and was only punctuated at certain intervals by his creative fiats. This being the case, it is obvious, for example, that the creation of light on one day and light bearers on another is a violation of ordinary providence. And so we are not to read Genesis 1 as a chronology of God’s creative works, but as a “semi-poetic” topical arrangement of how God fashioned the world in its present form. (more…)

This essay is based on a lecture delivered by MRB at a 1998 conference.

Introduction

The title ”The Fossils Don’t Speak!” is intended to evoke curiosity from those familiar with creationist literature. It is, of course, a reversal of the title of a book written by Dr. Duane Gish. However, the contradiction may or may not actually be a corrective to the work of Dr. Gish or his creation-science colleagues, as we will see.

The thesis I will argue for is that the debate between Christianity and Darwinism is conducted at the wrong level. The level that it is commonly carried out on is what we can call the evidential or factual level. One side puts forth evidence in support of Darwinian evolution while the other proffers evidence against it. The debate, then, is to be resolved by judging which side possesses the preponderance of the evidence. Obviously the Darwinists think the weight of evidence leans on the side of evolutionary theory while creationists think the scale is tipped in the other direction.

I do not maintain that scientific evidence is irrelevant to the creation-evolution debate - such a claim would be patently absurd. Nevertheless, scientific evidence in itself is insufficient to decide the issue either way. By this I do not mean that I think the evidence is ambiguous. I firmly believe that the scientific research that has been done clearly indicates that every living (and non-living) thing in the universe is the result of direct act of creation by God and not the product of an evolutionary process.
However, I also believe that a debate of this issue on purely scientific evidence will get nowhere. The debate must take place on a different level before any resolution is possible. Thus my present objective is not to refute Darwinism and vindicate creationism. Instead I will endeavor to realign the terms of the (more…)

This book (see bibliog. at end) is a discussion of the philosophy of time, with specific attention to the question of the relation between God and time. (more…)