These are Presuppositional apologetics links from around the World Wide Web from April 21st-30th.
Enjoy!
2.) Refute Atheism: God is Required for Meaning
3.) Are Atheists Intellectually Dishonest?
4.) Visitor: Society Determines Morality and Much Biblical Morality is Unacceptable Today
5.) Seth Andrews DEBATE Part 2
6.) 10 Things You Didn’t Know About John Frame
7.)Bart Ehrman’s Worldview Problem
“If one feels isolated in a sea of meaninglessness, one has to be isolated from something.” from Refute Atheism: God is Required for Meaning.
It is a very interesting article that speaks MUCH truth. I hd never looked at things from this point of view but it was enlightening. Thanks for sharing SJ. Lord bless you.
I think Presuppositional apologetics is good at taking the atheist worldview to task
Reblogged this on Truth2Freedom's Blog.
Thanks for sharing this!
You’re welcome. Thanks for your updates brother.
SJ,
Take a look at this blog. I have left comments for the author detailing what I believe is a missing component of his treatise regarding Presuppositional Apologetics. I believe he/she is missing the strong modal claim of true Presuppositional apologetics, namely that the Christian worldview is not only one plausible worldview but is the only worldview that can bear the epistemological weight of what is presupposes. My comment are awaiting moderation but thought you might be interested in *weighing in*.
Grace,
BBG
I’ll have to check it out after I preach tonight
blogginbaldguy,
I couldn’t help and took a look. Something stated by the author that really stood out and troubled me in this post was the following,
“But to ground our confidence in the truth of the gospel, more is needed. There is still a strong need for solid evidential arguments for the reliability of Scripture and the historicity of the resurrection, on which confidence in the gospel ought to be based.”
Does the author hold we are Christians because of the evidence…?
Hi JD,
Glad you followed the link. I am with you, the author makes a number of interesting or should I say alarming conclusions. He or she would like to say that the 3 forms of Apologetics are somehow equivocal and this is a completely new assertion as far as I am concerned. Also, as I mentioned on the site, completely bypasses the need for the strong modal claim of Presuppositional apologetics.
You raise a great question, did you happen to leave that in the combox at the site?
I started to, but was waiting to see what kind of response you received. I may yet do the same.
Regarding, bypassing the strong modal claim, I wonder if the same is done because he/she does not really understand the true nature of the presuppositional approach and views it as simply another avenue of presenting evidence. Or, is it a concious maintaining of autonomy, with regards to human reasoning, and an elevation of the same above the Lord. Upon whom it is predicated.
Soli Deo Gloria
Good observation; it’s interesting to note that when the resurrection of Christ is being challenge in Athens, Paul in Acts 17 focus on laying the presuppositions (theological in nature) to make sense of the Resurrection.
Brother I felt that there’s so many thing so off with the blog posts you shared and his way of categorizing things are strange (3 fold division of apologetics, when they are three different schools, etc); I wonder how fruitful it would be, but will jump in seeing how he responds
Amen!
I would love to be able to share with y’all a dialogue that took place a few months back within a FB group I am a member of. The same was a discussion between two evidentialists (One of which was Frank Turek) and two presuppositionalists (One of whom was Sean Boatman). Anyway, it was a great discussion, the presuppositional strength was evident. I would cut and paste, but that might make for a long thread.
What is the name of the facebook group if you don’t mind me asking?
The Presupper Club
Completed for my own record