The newest reveal of the cryptocrats that rule over us is that UFO’s are real after all. The turnaround is dazzling for its rapidity. Five years ago, UFO believers were mocked by all quarters as tin-foil hatted loony-tunes. Now, it is the Pentagon solemnly “admitting” sightings, Continue reading
Category Archives: Apologetics
Ten or twelve life-changing books: #8
8. 1981. Cornelius van Til. Introduction to Systematic Theology Continue reading
Ten or twelve life-changing books: #5, 6
5. 1979. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law
Lewis had brought me back to an Arminian, though militant Continue reading
Preface to the Frank Schaeffer you-tubes
The son of the L’abri founder Francis, when he was an angry young man, went by “Franky” Continue reading
Book. Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? Part 2.
We have considered Schaeffer the philosopher in part 1, now we will consider Schaeffer the historian. Continue reading
Book. Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live?
C.S. Lewis once said that marking good essays and bad essays is easy, it is the those that fall in between Continue reading
The Pulling Down of Strongholds: The Power of Presuppositional Apologetics
The following article is from the current edition of Faith for all of Life, the bi-monthly publication of Continue reading
Book: Neusner. A Rabbi Talks to Jesus.
In this book, Jewish Prof. Neusner interacts with Christianity Continue reading
van Til 501
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.
Essay. Eastern Orthodoxy, part 1
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. Continue reading
Essay. The Fossils Don’t Speak
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 Continue reading