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…)
The following article is from the current edition of Faith for all of Life, the bi-monthly publication of (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.
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…)
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…)
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…)
Italian Umberto Eco is a creative linguist and semiologist made famous in American literary circles by his novel “Name of the Rose” (which should not be judged by the dirty movie based on the novel). Cardinal Martini is an Italian prelate noted for his intellectual gifts. This book reprints a friendly newspaper debate between the two some years back.
Here is a just a brief sampler of some of the topics.
Abortion
Eco is “pro-life” but “doesn’t want to impose” etc. Sees Creationism (as opposed to Traducianism) as allowing for flexibility as to when the human soul is present. Martini appeals to meaning of life as participation in divinity, rather than divine fiat by covenant. Refers to “mother earth” “with all her tremors, fecundity, and breath.” (p. 47).
That intellectual popery must appeal to pantheism to ground a key social position of the church says all that needs to be said there. On the other side, Eco’s appeal to Creationism (thus, ironically, showing more theological acumen as an agnostic than his churchman opponent) is however very weak indeed. At best, Creationism plus a “but who knows when” converts the problem of abortion from “this is homicide” to “this might be homicide.” But this is hardly a solution to one desiring a clear conscience before God.
Role of women
Eco sees scriptural evidence as culture-determined. Can’t understand why women can’t be ordained.
Martini says…Tradition! Earlier justifications have fallen by the wayside, but they were merely culture-bound attempts to explain something that must be profound and divine to have lasted this long in both west and east.
Again, though both parties are confused, at least agnostic Eco is dealing in a theologically coherent category.
Martini’s appeal to tradition as pointing to something “profound and divine” is too convenient. At one time, any given practice that we now, with centuries of hindsight, refer to as tradition was not tradition. The question every traditionalist needs to ask is what the justification of the practice at that earlier point would be.
The hidden premise seems to be that any incorrect practice or belief will eventually die out; consequently, hindsight can be appealed to under the rubric of “tradition” to argue, by modus tolens, that a surviving practice “must be” good, divine, beneficial, or whatever.
Oddly enough, this viewpoint is a kind of conceptual Darwinism. Or we think of Marx, with his prediction that capitalism would die out due to its own contradictions.
There is some truth to the model. However, that it proves divine warrant is a category confusion. A surviving practice might show a propensity to survive certain hostile conditions in a brute way; and that might be all.
Foundation of ethics without God
At length, Martini springs the ethical “nuclear” argument: without God, how do you get to first base with an ethical “ought”?
Eco sees the answer in an ego-other dialectic that is rooted in the ego. The other defines and validates the ego; thus, an other-oriented ethic is inescapable.
However, this confuses “is” with “ought.” Mix together “this is” and “I prefer” and shake as hard as you like; you will never get an “ought,” as C. S. Lewis and others have pointed out.
The weakness of both men’s arguments on various issues should serve as a confidence-booster to reformed ethicists of presuppositional orientation.