Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ Category


Although I don’t agree with him in everything nevertheless I do appreciate the apologist and evangelist Francis Schaeffer.

This is a rare clip of Francis Schaeffer teaching.  This was recently loaded online on Youtube courtesy of the Francis Schaeffer Study Center on the occasion of Resurrection Sunday.

Here’s the video’s description:

This video is from the 1983 L’Abri Conference in Atlanta. The full lecture with Q&A time has been included. The lecture was also previously given on May 11, 1983 in Minneapolis at the Evangelical Press Association Convention. A transcript of this lecture is available here: http://edmontonbpc.org/wp/2012/02/names-and-issues-by-francis-schaeffer/


Read Full Post »

Hitler's Philosophers


I’m glad that Yale Press published this.  When I first saw this book I knew I had to read it for two reasons:  As someone who enjoys intellectual history, this book will no doubt touch on the ideas and philosophy that influenced Hitler (or to be more charitable, it would point out the ideological capitals Hitler used to persuade people to his policies).  Secondly, we see an increase in the last fifteen years of historical works addressing the question of how did a mad man managed to lead a civilized people towards barbaric policies with the focus of the complicity of various institution, from the Pope, the church, scientists, social sciences and the universities.  In the same vein, this works show the intersection of philosophy/philosophers with Hitler/Nazism.  The book definitely fulfilled the initial reasons for why I wanted to read the book.

The author divided the book into two parts. The first section focused on Hitler and philosophy, and on the philosophers who collaborated with the Nazi’s ideological vision.  The second section concentrated on German philosophers that the Nazi opposed.  It is a big endeavor the author pursued since each section of the book can easily be the focus of a book-length treatment.

Chapter one was a mini-ideological biography of Hitler and what philosophers he liked and who and what influenced him.  I appreciated the chapter’s focus of the early years of Hitler before political opportunism seasoned his rhetoric and when he was passionately frank about what he believed during the lowest point of his life in a German prison.  The author worked through materials not only from Hitler’s writing and speech (he tend to brag about his intellectual prowess) but also sources from early supporters and friends.  I think chapter one definitely establishes the Nietzsche influence in Hitler’s worldview.  Chapter one also indirectly contributes to the debate of whether Hitler was a Christian or not, and what degree he was a Christian if he was one.  If one understands Hitler’s philosophy its very hard-pressed to see how his atheistic Nietzschean beliefs is compatible with Christian theism.

Chapter two looked at the historic philosophers and philosophies that Hitler invoked in his ideology.  For those familiar with philosophy the main idea of these philosophers are nothing new.  What is interesting and new to many is the thread of anti-Semitism among these philosophers, some of them who are important canons of Western philosophy.  The author is nuance in describing how these philosophers are not “Nazis” and many of these philosophers would probably be surprised with how someone like Hitler would invoke their name and thoughts.  I do think that these philosophers do project a trajectory that Hitler later borrowed and build his own philosophy upon.

Chapters three through five focused on the collaborators with Hitler’s Germany, with chapter three being specifically about the Nazi figures who controlled academia and German philosophy while chapter four and five look at the specific example of philosopher of jurisprudence Carl Schmitt and existentialist Martin Heidegger respectively.  Most interesting of this section is the author’s argument that Heidegger was more than an opportunists but one who embraced Hitler’s Nazi’s ideology wholeheartedly.  I think the author presented an excellent case.

Chapters six through nine focuses on philosophers the Nazis opposed.  We read of the tragic story of the Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin who committed suicide when he was unable to flee from the Nazis and the exile of Theodor Adorno.  The best known of the philosophers in this section is Hannah Arendt, a Jewish woman who managed to escape from the Nazis.  In juxtaposition to Arendt is the story of Kurt Huber who as a philosopher spoke out against Nazi beliefs in the classroom and involved with the White Rose resistance movement that led to his execution.  Here is a heroic philosophical martyr who dared to oppose the Nazis.  The author laments of how Huber is little known today because of his resistance to the Nazis.


What I learned

This book re-affirmed to me the maxim that ideas have consequences.  Though it is a bit tangent from the book, there is no political systems that are philosophically neutral: there is some kind of worldview driving one’s political theory and at minimum we can say some philosophers will be willing mercenaries for political agendas in order to advance their academic careers, their school of thoughts, etc (Kuhn’s theory of the structure for scientific revolution is applicable in evaluating social sciences and the humanities as well).

From this book I learned of the composer Richard Wagner and his influence upon Nietzsche.   From there the book also show how Nietzsche’s idea shape other influential members of the Nazi party.

Perhaps the most surprising thing I learned was Heidegger’s adulterous affair with Hannah Arendt.  In one of history’s incredibly ironic moments, we see this famous philosopher whom the Nazis earned great intellectual credibility with him on their side, being caught up with a Jewish woman.   One sees how personal affair can shape one’s philosophy in the instance of Hannah Arendt beliefs in the war and after.


What I want to look up more on

I love looking through the endnotes and the bibliography of the book for it provides a treasure trove of references for further studies.  It is a wonderful way to acquaint oneself with the primary sources and scholarly secondary sources.

This book also made me realize I need to study more of certain philosophers.  Martin Heidegger is someone that I want to look up more beyond the few selected readings from my days in undergraduate.  I have always heard the name Schopenhauer but don’t really know what he believes.



I wished the book would have adopted Chicago style format since it was rather annoying for me as someone who reads all the endnotes to turn from the page I’m reading to the end notes and then again to the bibliography.  I don’t find this kind of format being conducive to readers’ attention to the sources (why give citation anyways when your format discourage its use?).



Excellent work.  I wholeheartedly recommend it and I think those acquainted with philosophy would get the most out of it.

Read Full Post »

James White

The video below is a debate between James White and Bart Ehrman on the topic “Does the Bible Misquote Jesus?”

The debate originally took place on January 21, 2009 at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and was sponsored by American Vision but the video of it on Youtube was just recently made available for free for viewing online.  We appreciate American Vision and Alpha Omega’s ministries’ generosity in blessing God’s people!

Enjoy the debate by two capable scholar.

Read Full Post »

Presuppositional Dispensationalism


This is an expansion of an “index” to a previous series on Calvinistic Dispensational Presuppositionalism I had about two years ago.  I’m trying to have a “one stop shop” page that has links to everything online related to the tiny niche of Calvinistic Dispensational Presuppositionalism.  Bookmark it as I will add to this page from time to time!









Read Full Post »

Marines demonstrate Corps tactics, principles

Introduction and an Illustration

Before I develop the point of my post on apologetics’ tactics, let me begin with a physical illustration (pun intended).  Before I was a Pastor I’ve spent some time around men who are incredible warriors and fighters (although I’m not really a physical fighter myself ).  The US Marines have a saying: “One mind, one weapon.”    You will be amazed at how good fighters put quite a bit of thought into their training and actual fighting–and one man I know described it excitedly as a game of chest in light of your opponent’s intelligence and ability.  Serious fighters realize that training someone to be a skillful fighter is more than memorization of a few move–it involves the whole mind, a mind that wisely know which moves to employ at any given situation; and at times, the wisdom of not doing anything.  Although I stress the mind, that is not to say that learning tactical moves are not important–in fact a lethal warrior mind that learn some new moves will find a way to incorporate it into the way they think and become a part of who they are in terms of practically deal with an opponent.  And sometimes the simple move goes a long way.

My favorite move from the Marines is rather simple; it’s called the Iron bar take down.

marine iron bar take down

One might laugh at how it’s doesn’t even look like a Ninja move.  You simply grab the guy’s wrist with one hand while using the other hand to grab their upper arm so you can force them to the ground.  I have spent some time thinking about this move.  Since I’m a much smaller guy I like to throw my whole hip when I execute the movement in a spiraling descending direction to get the momentum from my body as additional force.  The key is to do it quickly.  Like I said, it’s not a move you’ll see in the movies because it doesn’t look Ninja-cool.  But it has helped me in the Marines and later as security for Hollywood’s red carpet events (Hollywood has its shares of weirdos).   Again, sometimes the simple move goes a long way.

I believe the same is true with apologetics’ tactics.

Unger Who?

Those who frequent Veritas Domain might be familiar with Lyndon Unger.  Mr. Unger is a Calvinistic Dispensational Presuppositionalist.  He blogs on WordPress under the name MennoKnight and is a regular contributor at The Cripple Gate.   John MacArthur has also mentioned his research.  Before he became (in)famous(?), Lyndon once shared with me a good and simple apologetics tactic.  I’ll call it the “Unger Move.”  Again, it’s not a complicated karate chop but remember, sometimes the simple move goes a long way.

The Unger Move

Those engage in apologetics for any length of time will inevitably run into those who says, “There are too many evidence for _______,” or “There are too many reasons against _____________.”  Typically conversations with such individuals also include them throwing out objections after objections against Christianity.  They might go on so long with their ranting, you are not given  time for a rebuttal–or if you do disarm one objection, they go ahead to offer another objection followed by another, etc.

As Calvinists, we must acknowledge the Biblical truth that nonbelievers will suppress the truth and will keep on doing so, since Romans 1:18-19 states:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident[m]within them; for God made it evident to them.

Yet we must also acknowledge that God wants us to refute error as 2 Corinthians 10:5 exhort:

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

While also realizing that if someone were to ever convert and be saved, the Gospel needs to be shared in the apologetic dialogue.

How does one deal with such a conversation and be faithful to all three of these Biblical truths?

  1. Set the Ground rule
    1. Tell the individual since there are too many reasons/objections they are giving, ask that they limit their presentation to their TOP reason/objection/argument.
      1. Explain the rationale:  Best use of time.
      2. Explain the rationale:  Present their best one, because if their top argument “works,” they have already establish their perspective is rational.  Other argument, if there is merit to them, will confirm it.
      3. Explain the rationale:  Present their best one, because if their top argument fail, then the other arguments/objection/reason by their own admission presents a weaker case.  If the best reason presented is unconvincing, the lesser reasons will be even less convincing.
    2. Tell the individual that after their TOP reason is given, you should share whether or not there is merit to their case.
      1. Explain the rationale:  Fairness of both individuals speak in the conversation.
      2. Explain the rationale:  Just because someone says an argument is reasonable doesn’t mean it is; we need to scrutinize it.
  2. Let the individual share their TOP argument.
    1. Listen carefully.
    2. Rationale: For true understanding of the other person’s view so as to love them and not misrepresent them.
  3. Refute it.
    1. Bring Presuppositional apologetics to bear.
    2. Rationale: Don’t get lost in trails with the particular details (they do have it’s place), but remember the bigger picture of worldview analysis.
  4. Present the Gospel
    1. Be Biblical in the Gospel presentation.
    2. Rationale: Only the Gospel will save sinners and soften harden hearts.

Read Full Post »

Kevin D. Zuber


We want to thank Dr. Kevin D. Zuber from his busy schedule of the pastoral ministry and being a professor to take part in this interview!

1.) Describe your current ministry to the Lord and your educational background.

I graduated from Grace College, Winona Lake, IN (BA 1977) and Grace Theological Seminary (MDiv 1981; ThM 1985) and from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (PhD 1996). I’ve been a pastor for over 25 years (Indiana, Iowa, Arizona, Illinois). Currently, I’m Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL and Pastor of Grace Bible Church Northwest in Schaumburg, IL and I’m also an Adjunct Professor with Asia Biblical Theological Seminary, Chang Mai, Thailand. At Moody, my full time job, I teach Systematic Theology classes and electives, some Bible classes (Romans, Life of Christ), and some classes in philosophy. The church where I serve is small and we meet only on Sunday mornings in a rented facility—it’s mostly just me preaching (expository) for an hour, with some prayer time, and q & a once a month (www.gracebiblechurchnorthwest.com — don’t expect much, our website rather minimal – don’t everybody go there at once!). ABTS is an extension of Cornerstone University (Grand Rapids) and I teach one class a year in various SE Asian countries (e.g. Theological Issues in Asian Ministry).

At Moody I teach an elective class called, simply enough, Presuppositional Apologetics. More on that later.


2.) How did you became a Presuppositionalist?

Backing up a bit, I became a believer after high school. The girl I dated on and off in those years was a Christian and I wasn’t; so after high school she broke it off. That led to me reading the New Testament a couple of times through (I understood none of it!). On a later occasion I had a chance to see that girl again and she took the opportunity to share the gospel (again) and this time the Spirit worked and I became a Christian and we got married (I’m shortening the story!)

I knew nothing about the Bible or biblical theology so we headed to Grace College so I could get an advanced course in being discipled. Everything was new to me; when I took NT intro I had no idea who this fellow Paul was! I read voraciously (and out of desperation) everything anyone recommended. Someone hooked me up with the tape ministry of Believer’s Chapel in Dallas and the teaching of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. He was expository and his tapes on Systematic Theology (ST) were foundational to all my thinking as a young believer. Later I was introduced to the writings of Francis Schaeffer and was overwhelmed. All through my college years I felt like I was playing “intellectual catch-up”; everything was new! I wanted to know how these men came to such knowledge so I read what they said to read. Dr. Johnson, in the tapes on ST said to read Berkof’s ST, Berkof’s notes referenced “Dutch Reformed” men (I had no idea what that meant at the time.) Schaeffer referenced a lot of philosophy; my college didn’t have a lot of that to offer so I tried to read stuff like Descartes and Spinoza with no net! The apologetics I was exposed to in college was evidentialist / rationalist (again, I didn’t know what that meant at the time) but Schaeffer’s writings seemed to point in another direction. Some research led me to where Schaeffer might be getting his ideas—and that led me to some badly-copied mimeograph notes from one Cornelius Van Til. I didn’t really understand much of it . . . BUT it seemed to match up better with the theology (a just “what the Bible says” type of theology) I heard preached by S. Lewis Johnson. I read “Why I Believe in God” and tried to wade through “Apologetics” and  “Introduction to Systematic Theology” by Van Til. I’m not sure how much stuck.

When I moved up to Grace Seminary I took apologetics from John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and he actually assigned some (easier) writings from Van Til. That’s when I heard the term “presuppositional apologetics” and things began to “click.” I’d come across some more badly-copied mimeograph notes from one John Frame and that along, with yet more preaching (via cassette tapes) from Dr. Johnson, and John MacArthur, grounded me – that’s how I became a presuppositionalist. I started to “get” the theology, hence the worldview, of the Bible and presuppositionalism “fit” better.


3.) You have been teaching at Moody Bible Institute for over a decade now, what are some frequent challenges students might have in grasping Presuppositional apologetics?

First, it used to be that the term “presuppositional” was new to the students – now, often, the term “apologetics” is a new term as well. As with most Christians who live in “two world-views” (one in church / in private devotions [Christian Mind] and the other out there with the work-a-day world [Worldly Mind]) students have never thought about “how they think” (epistemology is another new term for them.) The “evidentialist / rationalist” way of thinking makes most sense to them because they spend most of their time / lives out there where everyone else lives. It also seems “logical” that we must try to win the unbeliever on his/her terms, with arguments that make sense to him/her. At least, that’s what they’ve been exposed to if they’ve been exposed to “apologetics” at all. “Evidence that demands a verdict!” “The Case for This,” “The Case for That” and all that—this is what they’ve heard and it makes sense to them on the “Worldly Mind” level. This is the method of “You should trust the last smartest person you’ve talked to”; and I ask the students if they recognize that—and they do. And I ask them if they know anyone who left their youth group and went to university and lost their faith—and they all know examples of that—and I explain it’s because we have taught them to “trust the last smartest person they’ve talked to”—and if that’s a pagan university prof, well, what else would we expect?

So in short, the biggest challenge has been that students don’t think Scripturally; as Harry Blamires said years ago, “There is no Christian mind.” Hence they don’t think apologetically at all. On the other hand, I’ve had students who do like apologetics but by the time they get to my class they are most often already committed to a “brainy apologetics” that tries to be that “last smartest person” (e.g. as in so-called debates between high-powered Christian apologists and hapless atheists who accept the invitation to such dog-and-pony shows.) I see my main task to get students (Christians) to think with the world-view of Scripture (I do that with good theology and exposition) and then to do apologetics with that worldview! I think this is exactly what Paul is arguing for in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.


4.) Some people believe that Dispensationalism and Presuppositional apologetics are incompatible.  Do you believe this is so?  Why or why not?

Well, I think this actually relates to a more basic question and that is the relationship between dispensationalism and reformed (small “r”) theology. For reasons I can’t get into here, I don’t think someone can be a consistent presuppositionalist and an Arminian. I see dispensationalism and the “doctrines of grace” as fully compatible (Michael Vlach at The Master’s Seminary has addressed that issue along with others.) But to the point, I don’t see any place where dispensationalism and presuppositionalism intersect in a contradictory way. I think it may be the Reformed (big “R”) guys who want to preserve presuppositionalism for covenant theology who argue that but I’m not seeing it. (I think Fred Butler’s answer on this point was a good one, so I’d defer to his analysis—link to his interview here.)


5.) Seeing how you have many years of faithful ministry to the Lord, what would you caution, encourage and exhort to a young man interested in apologetics?

If I can go back to my brief testimony above—I came to my “Calvinism,” my “dispensationalism,” and my “presuppositionalism” in the most un-dramatic but (I think honest) way possible. In my college and seminary years I just listened to S. Lewis Johnson preach the Word. All through my pastoral years I’ve listened to John MacArthur preach the Word. I still can’t get enough of listening to the Word preached. I read the sermons of preachers—Calvin, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones. I came to read the Puritans after seminary and wish I’d read them before and during those years—especially Thomas Watson. I got “into philosophy” but never as a “primary study”—it was only to try and understand theology. But my theology was driven by exposition.

I explain to my students that I don’t see apologetics, or evangelism, or preaching to a congregation, or even counseling as fundamentally different activities. I think it was John Frame who defined apologetics as “the application of Scripture to unbelief.” Well, in my mind expository preaching is the application of Scripture to the needs—spiritual, practical, ecclesiological—of a local church. Counseling is the application of Scripture to an individual—spiritual, practical, personal, matters / issues. Evangelism is the application of the gospel (The Word) to sinners.  Even “personal devotions” are the application of Scripture to . . . me!

So, I’d say that a young man or woman who wants to do “apologetics” well, should master . . . or better, be mastered by Scripture. Know the Word! The worldview of Scripture needs to be so ingrained that the worldview of the world looks “odd.”


6.) Any resources on apologetics, worldview or theology that you recommend?

The textbook I use in class is Greg Bahsen’s massive volume on Van Til. We just jump in—it’s the “sink or swim” method—perhaps not the best but most students don’t drown (!). Actually, I use the links provided here at this website pretty often to supplement that text. Otherwise, the recommendations made by others in this series of interviews are the one’s I’d offer as well.

Read lots of good theology—listen to lots of good exposition—then one’s apologetics should flow naturally from that.


7.) What is the role of resurrection?

Very briefly, when I read the Book of Acts I never see anyone arguing for the veracity, historicity, reality of the Resurrection of Christ but they did argue from the Resurrection. Or, to put it better, the Resurrection was not something to “be proven” but something that “proves”—it was deployed to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed, the Lord and Christ! (See the end of Peter’s Acts 2 and Paul’s Acts 17 sermons) Here I’m just following Van Til – we cannot separate the historical and theological facts about the Resurrection – if we do we may find folks willing to accept the historical fact (“So He was raised from the dead, wow, that’s weird.”) but not willing to accept the theological fact (“Raised? Maybe—but it doesn’t mean anything.”) Actually, the apologetic question or issue here is not the Resurrection but the credibility of the Bible—and on that I hold that the Bible must be self-authenticating. But that’s another question.

Read Full Post »

The Historical Adam Barrick


For the last few years the historicity of Adam has been a topic of controversy and debate within Evangelical academia.  It comes at no surprise that Zondervan would come out with a book in their Counterpoint series addressing this topic.  Four views are given a hearing in this book represented by Denis O. Lamoureux (Evolutionary Creation View that denies the historical Adam), John Walton (Archetypal Creation View), C. John Collins (Old Earth Creation View), and William D. Barrick (Young Earth Creation View).

Normally I’m cautious about these Four Views book either because I feel better contributors could have been selected or space limitation didn’t allow justice for the complex subject at hand.  With these expectations I must say I thought the book did a better job than I expected.  I’m happy to see some improvements over the years with this genre. The four scholars selected are highly qualified representative of their respective views.  In previous works the format feature the chapters by each school followed by the responses by the other schools; I appreciated that this work also feature a rejoinder to the other schools’ responses, a plus in my opinion in seeing what a counter-rebuttal looks like.  I also appreciated the editors’ decision to have two pastoral reflections that discussed what the implication of the discussion of the historicity of Adam means practically for the Christian (although I must say it seems Gregory Boyd’s essay ended up being more on why Christians should welcome those who deny the historical Adam as brothers and sisters in the faith even in our disagreements).  The two contributors selected for this part were excellent:  Both Gregory Boyd and Philip Ryken are well known for being pastor-scholars.  I thought the pastoral reflection also made their contribution to the discussion of which view one should take on the historical Adam question, and these two essays must not be overlooked or dismiss because its pastoral in nature; in particular I had in mind how Ryken’s essay laid out what an historical or non-historical Adam means theologically for the Christian experience and Gospel witness.

I imagine not many will change their views from reading this book and yet I would say this book is still important and worth buying because it provide a concise summary of each perspective’s argument.  Never had I read a book in Zondervan’s Counterpoint series in which the contributors footnoted their own work as much as they did in this volume but I appreciated this as helpful for those who want to do further research.  One can’t really blame the contributors for footnoting themselves so much since this is a much more complicated subject than most topics in this series since there is immediate question of Adam’s existence and also the undercurrent of one’s understanding of the role of modern science/evolution in interpreting the Genesis 1-3 that formulate one’s conclusion to the Adam question.  Really, this book had only one contributor (Lamoureux) who denied the historical Adam while the other three believed in a historical Adam; and yet all three who agreed on Adam didn’t arrive to their conclusion by the same method necessarily given their divergent view of the role of extra-biblical data (Modern cosmology, science, evolution, Ancient Near East studies) in interpreting Genesis 1-3.

Dr. Barrick has one of the most exegetically rich chapters in the book, and readers will appreciate his grammatical and syntactical observation brought out from Genesis 1-2.  The contributor with the strongest scientific background is Lamoureux but appeared to be the most exegetically weak, where in the responses the other three contributors harped on him for his take on the Hebrew word Raqia and his misleading translation of this term as “firmament.”

NOTE: This book was provided to me free by Zondervan and Net Galley without any obligation for a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

Read Full Post »


This is a debate on the topic of Sin and Salvation in the Qur’an vs the Bible between Christian apologist James White and Muslim apologist Shabir Ally.  It took place at the Erasmia Hall Mosque in South Africa back in October 7th, 2013.  It has just went online a few days ago thanks to Alpha and Omega Ministries!

The moderator of the debate mentioned in the beginning of the video that this might of have been the first time a debate occurred in a Mosque in South Africa.  There is also a mention of a book that’s being worked on presently with James White and Shabir Ally.  I can’t wait to get this book when it comes out!


Read Full Post »

The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God John Frame cover


John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is an excellent work touching on apologetics, Reformed theology, the Bible and epistemology (philosophical branch of studying how do we know what we know).

Reformed Audio ministry reads aloud various books and literature and makes them available for free and last month they read aloud chapter four from The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.


Read Full Post »


These are links related to Presuppositional apologetics (Van Tillian apologetics, Covenantal apologetics, etc) from around the World Wide Web between February 21st-28th, 2014.

What links were you blessed by?  Do share with us!

1.) Keller Quits God!–Ben Holloway on Tim Keller’s apologetic methodology.

2.) Transcendental Analysis Defeats the Anti-theism of Bart Ehrman

3.) Riddle me this!–Steve Hays on Antony Flew’s infamous parable about the invisible gardner and how it’s self-refuting.

4.) If I Had a Hammer, I’d Hammer this Point Over and Over Again–Gary DeMar on the atheist foundation.

5.) Parsing perspectivalism–Steve Hays

6.) Why I Love John Frame’s “Biblicism” & You Should Too

7.) Bill Nye Admits Loss–Thoughts from Frontline Reformed Apologetics.

Read Full Post »

Ken Ham Bill Nye Debate 2014


Today (Feb. 4th, 2014) is the debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye the Science Guy on the topic of Creationism.  It is taking place at the Creation Museum but it will streamed online for free.

You can watch the debate live and for free if you click HERE.

Kent Hovind will also have a pre-show and a post show to discuss about the debate.  If you are interested click HERE.

Read Full Post »

ethics under scope

Here’s a video on the Introduction to Christian Ethics that kicks off a church monthly series on Christian ethics at South Bay Alliance Church:

This lecture lays the foundation for ethics and touches on the inter-play of the Christian worldview, apologetics and Presuppositionalism.

Here’s the handout:


Selected Scriptures

Purpose: Today we will explore the importance of studying Christian ethics and provide a general direction of defending Christian ethics from the perspective of life and worldview so that you can live out and articulate God’s requirement in our lives.

I. What is Ethics and Christian Ethics?

Secular view: “Ethics may be defined as the philosophical study of morality..Morality has to do with right and wrong conduct and with good and bad character.”[1]

Christian view: “Ethics is theology viewed as a means of determining which persons, act and attitude receives God’s blessing and which do not.”[2]


II. Why Study Christian Ethics?





III. What is the Basis for Christian Ethics?






IV. What is the relationship of Christian ethics to Life and Worldview?





















[1] Paul W. Taylor, Problems of Moral Philosohy (Encino, CA: Dickenson Publishing Company Inc., 1972), 3.

[2] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed., 2008), 10.

Read Full Post »

Sye doppelganger


Here’s a debate Sye had with an atheist about a year ago but it’s only recently loaded up online on Youtube:


Read Full Post »


These are links between December 22nd-31st 2013.  Are there other links you think should be here as well?  Let us know!

1.) Secularism: How We Got Here.

2.) Just another question-begging atheist

3.) Van Til’s Philosophy of Education

4.) What is a Worldview? [12/29/2013]


6.) JD Hall interview Sye on Presuppositional apologetics


Read Full Post »

Van Til and the Limit of Reason


This is a book that has been recently published towards the end of 2013 by Chalcedon Foundation. This work is a compilation of writings by R.J. Rushdoony by his son Mark Rushdoony on the insight of the Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til. When I first heard about this work I wanted to get it because Rushdoony was one of Van Til’s early expositor, having written several works expounding his ideas and also applying his apologetics towards other areas as well. Rushdoony’s The One and the Many is one such example in which Van Til’s argument that the Trinity is the solution to the philosophical problem of the one and the many gets some more pages of application especially in the area of critiquing political philosophy. In Van Til and the Limit of Reasons, the first part of the book (chapters 1-3) was originally a booklet on Van Til that Rushdoony wrote for the Modern Thinkers Series in 1960. I have seen this booklet once at a used Christian bookstore years ago and haven’t been able to find it since, so I am happy to see it being republished as three chapters in this present work. I’m also happy that this will also reach a newer audience in our modern world of kindle and the internet. According to the beginning of the book, chapters four through seven are published for the first time. Chapter three is the longest chapter of the book and what seems to me the meat of the book. Rushdoony has a good and memorable analogy from the children story of the Emperor having no clothes to illustrate the task of Christian apologetics: we are exposing the uniblical worldview and philosophy around us as intellectually bankrupt and empty. In this chapter Rushdoony quotes heavily from Van Til’s syllabus Metaphysic of Apologetics and Van Til’s essay titled “Nature and Scripture” in a compilation work by Westminster Theological Seminary titled The Infallible Word. Van Til’s Metaphysic of Apologetics is better known by it’s later publication title A Survey of Christian Epistemology. On page 45 Rushdoony has an excellent discussion distinguishing the difference between ultimate and immediate starting point. This is helpful for readers who might be struggling with the objection that some people have that as human beings we practically begin our starting point with ourselves and what we experience. Van Til’s point was to distinguish between our immediate starting point and the foundation for those starting point, what he calls the ultimate starting point. One of the things I like about reading Rushdoony is following the trail of endnotes of the fascinating documentation of what people think and say. The first half of the book quotes work heavily from the first half of the twentieth century but the second half of the book even quote a work as recent as the 1990s (remember, Rushdoony died in 2001). For the end notes, there is a mistake in which chapter six is titled “Rationalism and Sentimentalism” and chapter seven is titled “The Irrationalism of Rationalism.” It should be the other way around. Examining the end notes and the date of the publication of the works cited made me realized at how old some of these chapters have been written—not necessarily a bad thing but it made me appreciate just how early Rushdoony came around to Van Til’s apologetics and further examine his heavy reading load in light of a Van Tillian framework. The fact that it was written very early also made it valuable to me in terms of historical insight; there are several instances I was surprised to see references to Herman Dooyeweerd. For instance chapter two suggests the optimism of Reformed philosophy during the early days of Dooyeweerd, Van Til and other translators of Dutch Reformed philosophy. I realized Rushdoony’s son in law later published The Twilight of Western Civilization and I can’t help but to imagine Rushdoony had something to do with it but in the end Van Til and Dooyeweerd ended up disagreeing.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this as the first work for someone new to Presuppositional apologetics to read; it require some familiarity with Van Til’s theme and a knowledge of philosophers such as Kant, Hume, etc. But I would recommend this if you want to see how Van Til’s idea eventually shape Rushdoony, and in turn Rushdoony’s application of Van Til here and elsewhere.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 603 other followers