Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Cornelius Van Til’ Category

800px-Praia_do_Cassange

These are links gathered from March 21st-31st, 2015.

1.) Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool?

2.) Phil Robertson and the Swampy Morass of Atheist Morality

3.) The Movie ‘Killing Jesus’ Avoids the Essentials Regarding The Day Christ Died

4.) Apologia Radio: Superheroes From a Superlative Worldview – 3/28/2015

5.) Dr. Craig on the role of the Holy Spirit in unbelievers

6.) THE PART THAT DAWKINS LEFT OUT

7.) Trinity, Tawheed, and the Unity and Diversity of God

 

Missed the last round up?  Check out the re-blogged post from a friend

Read Full Post »

In Defense of Theology Gordon Clark

Gordon Clark. In Defense of Theology.
Milford, MI: Mott Media Inc, 1984. 119 pp.

Most Christians if they know anything about Gordon Clark probably know of him as a critic of Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til.  It is a shame that few Christians even among those interested in Christian philosophy, apologetics and Reformed theology know who Gordon Clark is.  In contrast to Van Til, Gordon Clark seems to have written more works at the popular level than Van Til did while remaining less known than Van Til.  This work is one of them.  In this review I want to look at Clark’s work as a full blooded Van Tillian who disagree with Gordon Clark but have found him beneficial to read and interact with.

I appreciated this book because while Clark is capable of writing more technical and difficult work this seems to be the one book that is accessible for lay people that pretty much summarize Gordon Clark’s apologetics.  The book presents a defense of the endeavor of theology while embracing the Biblical worldview and subjecting opposing worldviews to logical scrutiny and refutations.  The flow of the book critiques three groups of people with the first being those who subscribe to atheism, secondly those who are disinterested and the third group being Neo-Orthodox.

I really like his chapter on atheism.  Even if one disagrees with his apologetic methodology it is succinctly stated.  Clark notes briefly that he has problems with the Classical arguments for the existence of God which puts Clark in a different trajectory with his approach towards the question of God’s existence and atheism.  I think Clark persuasively argued contrary to the Existentalists that it is important to first discuss about essence over existence; practically for the topic at hand Clark note that it is important to define what God is and which God we are believing before we ask whether or not it exists because after all the Christian is not engage in prove some kind of bare theism or some other gods that is not the Christian God.  I think Clark’s discussion about axioms and ultimate authority being axiomatic is excellent.  While I don’t necessarily fault the book for fleshing it out given its limited space nevertheless it is important for readers to know that my general criticism of Clark’s apologetics is applicable to the methodology of the book here: I often wish Clark developed more of the implications of Romans 1 for apologetics and shaping how he understands the unbeliever and approaches towards their unbelief.  In particular, I wished he could have seen the apologetic value of the phenomenon in which people suppressed the truth they do know and perhaps lead him to see a role of some kind of transcendental argumentation to make that point.

Clark’s chapter on the disinterested is rather short but he does give more space to critique the Neo-Orthodox.  His survey of the Neo-Orthodox works chronologically backwards since he wishes to begin the readers with better known contemporary writers and then tracing it back their influences.  I think his critique of the irrational claims and methodology of Liberals and Neo-Orthodox is excellent.  Clark is really out to defend the propositional nature of Scripture.

This leads to a chapter length discussion about the role of logic in the Bible.  This discussion is indeed a key component in Clark’s defense of theology, given that the task itself involve the use of logic.  The book ends with a fourth group that is contrast to the first three group in that these are believers of Jesus Christ who loves the Word from the Lord.  He also add in this chapter a discussion about grounding the laws of logic in the Imago Dei that I think should have been better organized to have been part of the chapter on logic.

Overall good book.  If you had to read a book that’s an introduction to Gordon Clark and also get a flavor of his method (and his highbrow sarcasm) then this is the book.

Purchase: Amazon | Also Available as E-Book from Trinity Foundation

Read Full Post »

frank schaeffer

I have written on Franky Schaeffer in our blog before where we looked at the irrational things he has said in public.  He’s the son of the late Christian apologist and evangelist Francis Schaeffer.  Franky himself is an apostate has spent much time and energy attacking his father and the Evangelical faith of his father.

I just found out that his latest book is titled “WHY I AM AN ATHEIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD.”  Most people would think, “Is that logically possible?”  Frank in a video recorded book discussion have said that he intentionally had a provocative title to make people think and:

Basically telling people that first of all labels are Nonsense.

He’s not the only one that says something like this.  I had flashback of hipster Emergents, old College hippie professors, etc., when I heard Franky say that.

What are Franks’ reasons for why he thinks labels are nonsense?  He’s explained:

“Because you may describe yourself one thing today but give it twenty years and you may well look at yourself as something else.  And we all change in our journey.”

And in his dribbling monologue he’s also talked about the need to embrace paradox rather than resolve everything.

I want to address this issue since it’s bigger than him and many people throw this or something similar out there during religious discussions.

1.) Whenever I hear someone say labels are categorically nonsense I always want to show them a picture of this:

food-labels

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Seriously, labels are nonsense?

2.) Secondly, Frank’s first reason for why labels are nonsense does not logically follow.  Just because people do change over time this does not necessarily mean labels are in of itself nonsense.  Sure, people twenty years from now may change in their views of themselves and what they believe but that doesn’t mean labels are in of itself are nonsense.  It just means one might change “labels” even if that label is something different than the previous label or those labels are different from the larger segment of the population.  Go change labels a hundred times that still doesn’t mean labels are nonsense!

3.)  Frank’s second reason for why labels are nonsense is equally problematic.  Just because there are paradoxes in life that one must embrace surely does not logically follow that labels are nonsense and ought to be categorically rejected. What about two paradoxical labels?  Should we embrace them (give his call to embrace paradox)?  Or should we reject them because they are labels?  We have here a rational/irrational tension.  Note here that Frank’s second reason is talking about a different subject (paradox) and not the issue at hand of why labels are nonsense.  A categorical fallacy.

4.) Paradoxes won’t exists if two or more objects are at minimum in a contrary tension (I don’t think paradoxes must necessarily be in actual contradictory relationship).  People often use shorthand terms to denote things, and when we identify paradoxes we are saying two or more things share a tension in their relationships.  Notice denoting things is an act of “labelling.”  Thus to talk about paradox one are already engage in the act of giving labels.

4.) As an example of point four, look at his own author-talk where Frank does the same thing.  His talk goes on about the problem of the label love and hate and yet he talks about “hating less” is an act of “love.”  Even for an anti-label guy like Frank, he’s incurably using labels.

5.) Someone might object that Frank does not refer to “labels” as the act of denoting, naming, defining something but rather sterotyping something.  But that does not seem to be case because as one seen in the quote above, Frank talks about how the labels we give ourselves changes.  I don’t think Frank is saying we are sterotyping ourselves ignorantly.  His talk in the beginning makes it pretty clear he does not like “Certainty Addicts” who wants him to define things.  Frank is against the very act of defining things.

6.) Concerning “labeling” as sterotyping people, isn’t ironic that Frank’s writing always engage in labeling others in that sense of the term?  Within that Huffington Post I linked, note how he labels pro-science advocates and fundamentalists: “Somewhere between the sterile, absolute, and empty formulas of reductionist, totalitarian science and the earnest, hostile, excessively certain make-believe of religious fundamentalism, there is a beautiful place.”

7.) By the way, rejecting a bad and negative label does not mean one should reject labeling in the first sense of the term.

8.) Per point five, since Frank is against the act of labeling in the sense of defining things, he’s destroyed in his own worldview the ability to communicate since words must mean something and not mean its opposite, etc.  But he doesn’t really believe that inside even though he claims it because he’s still communicating with words the words that undermine the intelligibility and meaningfulness of those words.  Franks’ father had a mentor who would have noted the folly and suppression of the truth in Frank’s apostate antinominian atheist worldview.

Frank’s rejection of labels is nonsense.

Read Full Post »

complaints-letter-structure

Earlier during the month I wrote a piece titled “.”  It proved to be a very popular post, generating thousands of hits and many comments.  I am thankful to you guys who shared it with others.  As people were sharing this post online I have also seen strange criticisms of the post.  These criticism are now what I want to address.

Here’s one comment on Facebook from someone named Yochanan Lilley that was originally directed towards someone who shared the article:

My friend this article could not miss the point more; the man who wrote it clearly does not understand philosophy, particularly concerning epistemology.

For everything he said in this article I would like to hear his argument for why the doctrine of inspiration is true of the Bible from a pressupositionalist position; can you give me the argument you think he would make which is not the argument Sproul used?

Response: First off, I think our friend Lilley has the burden of proof to demonstrate his claim that I’m philosophically and epistemologically ignorant.  Secondly, let’s hypothetically grant for the sake of the argument that I don’t understand philosophy and particularly epistemology.  He still faces the following four dilemmas:  (a) We must remember that he is merely asserting that and doesn’t give any actual substantive reason to support his claim that my lack of understanding of philosophy and epistemology has somehow made me deficient in my evaluation of Sproul’s objection towards Presuppositional apologetics.  (b) I also don’t know how much his criticism of my epistemological ignorance has any bearing to the immediate issue at hand since my original post was more about the obvious logical fallacies and problematic reasoning in Sproul’s objections to Presuppositionalism rather than it being some kind of sophisticated and technical epistemological counter-defeater that understandably require a deeper understanding of philosophy and epistemology.  (c) If our friend object that I must employ more advance epistemological and philosophical content in order for me to discuss about Presuppostionalism and RC Sproul’s objection, note that our friend failed to engage in the same fashion according to his own standard.  (d) Actually, for all our friend’s one liner about epistemology and philosophy, I think my post touches on those aspect more than his comment did.  Should we then apply his own sloppy line of reasoning to himself and then conclude that he is even more ignorant of philosophy and epistemology?

Secondly, our friend has also committed a red-herring fallacy.  Again my original article addressed the fallacies Sproul committed in his criticism of Presuppositional apologetics.  Our friend has not interacted with the fallacies we pointed out at all but merely dismissed it in another comment saying that there are much words but no substance to the charge.  But a mere waving of the hand doesn’t do anything; he has the burden to prove his claims that the fallacies I pointed out were not there in Sproul’s presentation.  Instead Lilley wants to talk about something else (whether Sproul’s argument and the Presuppositionalists argument will differ concerning Inerrancy).  The two topics are distinctly different.  There are some Presuppositionalists like John Frame who would probably be comfortable with Sproul’s positive case for the Bible while noting that being grounded with a Christian worldview would solidify the foundation that is necessary for Sproul’s endeavor with historical apologetics for the Bible to work in the first place.  Among such Presuppositionalists, asking whether the Presuppositionalists argument is different than Sproul’s argument for inerrancy isn’t an issue.  Moreover, let’s say for the sake of argument that Lilley is right, that the Presuppositionalists does use the Classical Apologist’s argument for Inerrancy.  That still does not remove the fallacies Sproul committed when he objected towards Presuppositionalism.  Nor does one have to be a Presuppositoinalist to see the fallacies and misrepresentation that Sproul committed against Presuppositionalism.  One can subscribe to the Evidentialist school of apologetics and still admit that Sproul’s objections against Presuppositionalism has problems.  Again, all this demonstrate that Lilley has committed a red-herring fallacy by not addressing the elephant in the room.


 

I want to look at another comment by James O’Brien:

This author’s complaint seems to be that Sproul did not engage in an elaborate critique of presuppositionalism, but then, that wasn’tSproul‘s purpose was it?

However this criticism commits a straw man fallacy.  My original post was not a complaint that Sproul didn’t engage in an elaborate critique of Presuppositionalism.  Rather the point of my original post was that Sproul’s critique wasn’t adequate in that Sproul mispresented Presuppositionalism, haven’t interacted with the Presuppositionalist’s answer concerning circular reasoning, was in error in charging the Presuppositionalists with the fallacy of Equivocation along with the errors of asserting that Presuppositionalism was inadequate to deal with Islam and Mormonism and finally some of Sproul’s objection to Presuppositionalism was also a self-defeater for his own apologetics’ methodology.  That’s quite different than complaining that Sproul should have had an elaborate critique of Presuppositionalism isn’t it?

 

I think we as Christians can try to read better those we disagree with.  I’m not immune to this.  This also does not mean we never fault someone’s writing and point out fallacies.  Rather it means we represent the other side carefully and also think clearly and logically if we are going to disagree.  It goes without saying that we ought to be respectful as well.

Read Full Post »

Ecuador-Quito-Street-L

Posting these a little earlier than usual in light of Evangel’s scheduled book review tomorrow. These are links gathered between March 15th-20th, 2015.

1.) Apologetic Methodology in Dialogue

2.) Why You Should Believe in God and Reject Atheism part I

3.) “Protective strategies”

4.) APOLOGETICS AND YOUR KIDS (2) – THE PRICE OF TRUTH

5.) The Futility of Autonomy

6.) Irony and Illegitimate Standards

7.) Author Interview with John Frame

8.) Covenantal Apologetics: Defending The Faith and Beyond

 

Missed the last round up?  Check out the re-blogged post from a friend

 

Read Full Post »

RTS

About five months ago I shared on our blog a dissertation titled “The Self-Attestation of Scripture as the Proper Ground for Systematic Theology” that was completed at Southern Seminary.  Personally I find the self-attestation of Scripture to be a fascinating doctrine that has tremendous implications for how we do theology, counsel believers, evangelize non-believers and present an apologetics to those who ask for the reason for the hope that we have.

Today I want to share a thesis that was completed for a Masters of Arts that was completed over at Reformed Theological Seminary.  It is titled “The Self-Attesting Nature of the New Testament Canon” and written by John Gordon Duncan.  Duncan takes the approach of exploring how the self-attesting nature of Scripture has its contribution towards the canonicity discussion.  In his introduction he writes the following summary:

For the purposes of this paper, the canonization of the New Testament will be explored by examining the subject of criteria, including the early Fathers’ perception of scripture, inspiration, and apostolicity, with an emphasis on the self-authenticating nature of the New Testament. By taking a self-authenticating approach, such language as Eugene Ulrich uses when he talks of, “the historical development by which the oral and written literature…was handed on, revised, and transformed into the scriptures,”9 will be avoided. The scriptures were handed down. However, a revision or transformation from letter to scripture cannot be supported. Once that fact is established, this paper will offer a summary of the various lists and collections that led to the recognition in the late fourth century that the canon was closed.

For the PDF of this thesis click HERE.

Read Full Post »

Tony-Preaching

Hello Tony,

We at The Domain for Truth would like to first thank you for your ministry.  We have been blessed by your dedication and love for God, His people, and the lost.

Here are some of the questions we would like to ask you:

1) What caused you to write a book called: Should She Preach? Biblical Evangelism for Women?

There was an incident at a major outreach that really started me thinking about whether or not Christian women should engage in open-air preaching. I watched as a diminutive sister in Christ got in the face of a large male heckler. Well, more accurately, she got in the chest of the heckler. I remember thinking at that moment how my sister in Christ had set aside her God-given femininity as she postured, acted, and talked like a man.

As soon as I returned home from the outreach, I began to think hard about my long-standing position: while no woman should stand in a pulpit or exercise authority over a man in the context of the local church, that same standard did not apply to women preaching in the open-air. As I studied the Scriptures, I came to the painful realization that I had been wrong for years—that I had errantly encouraged, even trained, hundreds of women to preach in the open-air.

I decided to write Should She Preach—Biblical Evangelism for Women, not as penance, but as fruit of repentance. I had erred and I had to do what I could to make things right. I had been very public for years about my support of women preaching in the open-air. So, I felt I had to speak even louder and more publicly about the fact that I had been wrong.

I also wrote the book to encourage my sisters in Christ that while they should not preach the gospel in the open-air that in no way relegates them to a second-class evangelistic status. They can be fully engaged in evangelism and do so biblically, in keeping with God’s perfect design, while fulfilling their role in the Bride of Christ, without sacrificing God’s mandated gentle and quiet spirit for them.

Purchase book hereAmazon

2) Often times, people view open-air preaching as a pointless endeavor that brings no fruit bearing such as conversions. Do you hear that often?  If so, what is your response?  At times they discourage many of these godly men from not preaching open-air.

Yes. I hear this frequently. I’ve heard it in more than 20 states and in several foreign countries. Such a sentiment is born from an unbiblical understanding of “effectiveness.” And it often comes from an unbiblical theological construct known as “synergism”—the idea that man cooperates with God in salvation. This is antithetical to the biblical doctrines of “monergism”—the reality that God works alone in salvation. God causes a person to be born again. Repentance and faith, instead of being works that lead to salvation, are the first fruits of salvation, which are entirely gifts from God.

When people, most often professing Christians, question the “effectiveness” of open-air preaching, I tell them that every person with whom I have shared the gospel has made a decision. I tell them that I lead every human being with whom I speak to Christ. Everyone makes a decision. Sadly, 99.99% of people make the decision to continue to hate God and live in wanton rebellion against Him, in keeping with their sinful nature. I lead every person with whom I speak to Christ. I take them right to the foot of the cross and trust in the Sovereign Creator to do what He will with that person.

3) Why do you do open-air preaching?

For me, open-air preaching is an act of worship. I cannot think of a greater way to express my love for God than to make Christ known—to lift up the name of Jesus and to proclaim His gospel. Open-air preaching (as well as every other form of biblical evangelism) is also, in my estimation, the best way to fulfill the two greatest commandments—to love God and to love people.

I preach the gospel in the open-air because I want to bring glory to Jesus and I want to see lost people come to repentance and faith in Him.

4) What are your thoughts concerning those who would like to do open-preaching?

To any man who senses a desire to open-air preach, my advice is simple. Go talk to your pastors/elders. Talk to the leaders of your local church, men who should know you inside and out, and ask them to examine you to see if you are both called and qualified to serve as one of God’s heralds. The Bible gives no examples and lends no support to the erroneous idea that a man calls himself to be a preacher of any kind, including an open-air preacher.

I believe that any man who desires to be an open-air preacher, whether or not he aspires to the position of elder in the local church, should meet the spiritual and character qualifications of an elder, which includes the ability to teach.

5) There has been a growing movement of more and more open-air preachers who embrace the Doctrines of Grace (i.e reformed theology)? Has that been an encouragement to you?

Yes! This is very encouraging to me. Why? The Doctrines of Grace are the gospel. The Doctrines of Grace, sometimes referred to as Calvinism, are seen in the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation. While Calvin may be credited for systematizing these precious doctrines, they were not his invention. These doctrines communicate man’s truly depraved condition and his only means for reconciliation with his Creator. These doctrines communicate God’s perfect, monergistic, and sovereign plan for salvation—His glorious gospel.

6) What are your thoughts concerning nomadic open-air preachers who are not part of a local church body?

Again, the Bible knows nothing of the man who calls himself to be a preacher. The Bible knows nothing of the Christian nomad, one who tries to live the Christian life while living independent of the local church. No, the Church is not a structure. But it most certainly is structured. God has provided a clear framework in His Word, for the local church—from appointment of leadership to supervisory and subordinate roles, to mutual accountability, to discipline, to the sending of evangelists and missionaries, and so on.

Show me a nomadic open-air preacher, and I will show you a man (or a woman) who has likely become a law unto himself, who likely believes he and his little enclave are the holders and guardians of truth, who has likely abandoned biblical doctrine for heresies, and who is may tragically be heading down the road of apostasy.

7) What type of messages are profitable for open-air preaching? Verse by verse exposition, topical, etc.?

I believe every qualified and called open-air preacher should preach with Bible in hand. I’m a bit of a purist, but I would even allow for a Bible on some of these new-fangled, electronic gizmos. Unless an open-air preacher has the whole counsel of God’s Word memorized, then he should humbly carry the Sword of the Spirit in his hand.

Open-air preaching must be just that—preaching. But the depth and breadth of the preaching can vary based on location, type of crowd, and time constraints. There are occasions, particularly at train, bus, and subway stations when I have a limited amount of time with the people in front of me. In such circumstances and environs, I will preach shorter, more general law and gospel messages. If I am in a location where people are milling about, sitting around engaged in conversation, etc. then I will exposit a passage of Scripture—one that includes elements of the law and/or the gospel. There are other times when I will simply open the Bible and engage in the public reading of Scripture.

I am not opposed to topical messages in the open-air. Current events are often excellent segues for the law and the gospel. But I always make sure that I am ready to exposit a verse or passage that speaks to an aspect of the current event to which I refer in my message.

8) It seems intuitive that you would receive verbal assaults, but have you received many physical attacks while evangelizing? If so, are the attacks being generated more from open-air preaching or from one-on-one evangelism?

While every conceivable situation cannot be anticipated, physical assaults are less likely during one-to-one conversations than they are during open-air preaching. One reason is that in a one-to-one conversation the Christian most often chooses who he or she will talk to. In an open-air setting, the preacher has relatively no control over who is in the crowd, or what happens upon the preaching.

Open-air preaching, like pulpit preaching, is an authoritative act. The open-air preacher exercises a certain amount of authority over his hearers. And let’s not forget, the Bible from which he preaches is the ultimate authority. The open-air preacher does not simply carry the Sword of the Spirit, sharing it with others. The open-air preacher wields the Sword of the Spirit. To wield such power, to exert such authority is yet another reason why any man who contemplates open-air preaching should be examined and qualified by his pastors and elders, to determine if he has the spiritual maturity, character, and temperament for such heavy responsibility.

Open-air preaching can be far more confrontational than sharing the gospel with someone in a one-to-one conversation. And it is confrontational evangelism in which Jesus and the apostles engaged most of the time.

With confrontation comes the very real possibility of negative, even violent reactions. While open-air preaching, I’ve been assaulted many times and in many ways: hot coffee, water, water bottles, various food items, spit, rocks, and fists. I was even heckled once by two very old rabbis with a shofar.

9) How can open-air preachers best serve their local churches while at the same time, not ignoring remote areas either when opportunities that are feasible arise?

An open-air preacher’s service begins, it does not end, with the local church. Any man who is unwilling to clean the toilets in the church, any man who is unwilling to vacuum his pastor’s office, any man who is unwilling to serve in the nursery, any man who is unwilling to participate in a weekly Bible study, any man who sees service within and to his local church as beneath him is unfit to serve God as an open-air preacher.

As the sheepdog is subservient to the shepherd, the open-air preacher should see himself as subservient to the leaders of his local church. He should see himself as a servant to every member of his local assembly. He should strive to see himself as least among the brethren and to mature to the point of being willing to wash the feet of every person in his church family.

Open-air preachers don’t struggle with being too committed to and submitted to the local church. Open-air preachers struggle in the opposite way. They struggle with maintaining their commitments to the local church. If the open-air preacher is going to err, let him err on the side of serving the church. He cannot over-serve the Bride of Christ.

10) What are the some of biggest mistakes you have made in evangelism and what have you learned from them?

I would say the biggest mistake I’ve made in evangelism is not bathing my efforts in enough prayer. Whenever Ray Comfort got into the car, as we were set to head to engage in evangelism somewhere, he would always ask this question: “So, are we going to pray, or are we going to do this in the flesh?”

The open-air preacher cannot pray too much. He can only fail to pray as he should. The open-air preacher must pray before, during, and after every evangelistic endeavor. The prayer-less evangelist is an unarmed evangelist.

11) Has the law enforcement experience helped you in anyway concerning evangelism?

Yes. In many ways. As I mention in my book, Should She Preach—Biblical Evangelism for Women, one thing that law enforcement helped me to develop was command presence—the ability to act and speak with authority, and the ability to exert meekness, which is power under control.

My 20 years in law enforcement also taught me how to read people, how to assess real and present dangers, and how to talk my way out of more fights than I was actually engaged. All of these qualities necessary for survival for a street cop have benefited me greatly as a street preacher.

12) Do you believe Presuppositional Apologetics can play an important role in our evangelism?

While I have always been partial to Presuppositional Apologetics, I credit my dear friend Sye Ten Bruggencate for making the theoretical practical—for taking high-brow, academic, theological conversation and making it accessible to and useable by laypeople like me.

I believe a turning point in my evangelism in general, and my open-air preaching in particular, was when I came to the realization that any effort on my part to prove to an unbeliever that God exists was to deny the truth of Scripture and to literally blaspheme the God who wrote the Scriptures. To try to prove to someone that God exists, to literally play God’s defense attorney in the unbeliever’s courtroom is to make the unbeliever God’s judge. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are no atheists, agnostics, or skeptics. There are simply people who know God exists, but they suppress that truth by their unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-25). They love themselves and love their sin more than they love God, so they create delusional, religious constructs like atheism and Darwinian Evolution.

So these days, when I open-air preach, and a heckler wants to argue about the existence of God, I declare to them that it is not God who is on trial. I authoritatively assert to the heckler that he is on trial. I love and fear God too much to participate in the unbeliever’s blasphemous act of putting God on trial, but submitting to their demands for evidence. Every unbeliever knows that God exists the same way I do. The issue is never one of evidence. Every human being works off the same evidence. The issue is one of worldview. The Christian lives in submission to the God of whom he has always known. Everyone else lives in rebellion to the God of whom they have always known.

13) Since you and The Domain for Truth went to The Inerrancy Summit recently, we can share many truths we heard. In terms of inerrancy’s relationship to evangelism, what would be some negative implications if one subscribes to limited inerrancy or denied biblical inerrancy?

Anyone who subscribes to limited inerrancy or who denies inerrancy outright when it comes to the Word of God should examine himself to see if he is even in the faith. I don’t see how a person can truly be born again while denying the inerrancy of God’s God-breathed Word. How can any open-air preacher open his mouth while denying the perfect reliability of his only authority—the Scriptures? When a heckler questions him about the Scriptures, how will the denier of inerrancy respond? Will he say? “Ya know, you could be right. After all, the Word of God isn’t inerrant.” Can any man standing on such a sandy foundation really be a Christian? I can’t see how.

You make a very good point.  I recommend our readers watch the video by Dr. Farnell, whereby there are some who wear the sleeve of the Christian heritage, but hold unto limited inerrancy or deny biblical inerrancy.  He exposes some very dangerous teachings going on inside our circles.  Here is the link for our audience“Responding to the New Attacks on Scripture” by Dr. David Farnell

14) I recently was reading from Lectures to My Students by Charles Spurgeon and he laid out the qualifications for an open-air preacher from the chapter entitled, “Open Air Preaching–Remarks Thereon.” What are your thoughts on his list of qualifications?

QUALIFICATIONS FOR OPEN-AIR PREACHERS:

  • A good voice.
  • Naturalness of manner.
  • Self-possession.
  • A good knowledge of Scripture and of common things.
  • Ability to adapt himself to any congregation.
  • Good illustrative powers.
  • Zeal, prudence, and common sense.
  • A large, loving heart.
  • Sincere belief in all he says.
  • Entire dependence on the Holy Spirit for success.
  • A close walk with God by prayer.
  • A consistent walk before men by a holy life.

How can I possibly improve upon the wisdom of the Prince of Preachers, who required all of the students of his Pastor’s College to engage in open-air preaching? The only thing I would add, a qualification I’ve already mentioned, a qualification I’m sure Spurgeon assumed would be the case with every open-air preacher. The open-air preacher must have not only an internal call to preach, but also an external call from the Church to preach. And the open-air preacher must be examined by his shepherds (elders/pastors). Those who serve as his leaders in the local church must examine him to see if he has the maturity, ability, and character to serve as one of God’s heralds.

15) Anything else you want to add that were not asked in this interview?

I think I’ve said enough to get myself in trouble. Thanks for the opportunity.

Thank you, Brother Tony.  We have enjoyed our time with you in this interview.  We pray that the Lord will use this interview to help shed some light in the topic of evangelism, the role of evangelism within the doctrine of ecclesiology, and sound doctrine.  May the Lord continue to bless your ministry.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,301 other followers