4 Part Audio Series: Foundations for Theology

This is a four part audio series on the foundations for theology that was given before exploring further the various doctrines of God.  The audios are in MP3 format and I’ve included the PDF of the outlines to follow along as well.

Read Full Post »

Three Theological Questions Foundational to Studying God: How has God revealed Himself? Part 2: Special Revelation

How has God revealed Himself? Part 1

Here in this fourth and final outline of this series we are in part two of how has God made Himself known.

Read Full Post »

Quick Question: How would you respond to an atheist who said that he presupposes the laws of logic as descriptions of reality?

Over on Facebook a question was asked:

How would you respond to an atheist who said that he presupposes the laws of logic as descriptions of reality? Consequently, it’s not that they have any justification, they are just part of the way things are. Is there a contradiction in such a view?

Here’s my take:

There might not be an obvious contradiction at the surface level of the atheist statement but I do think his claim faces tension with other beliefs he might hold.

1.) I think I would begin by saying that in agreement with him I too presuppose that the laws of logic are “descriptions of reality” but I would press him on how is it that he as a finite being cannot know that without a revelational epistemology (one which situate properly basic beliefs and intuition in the context of General and Special revelation).  Can he say the laws of logic are “descriptions of reality” and claim that “they are just part of the way things are” if he hasn’t experienced all of reality?

 

2.) We must be acutely aware of the naturalistic fallacy of confusing “is” with “ought.”  In order for the laws of logic to be functional it is not enough to presuppose that the laws of logic are descriptive.  I think I would also press him to see if he thinks the laws of logic are “merely” descriptive.  There is also a prescriptive aspect to the laws of logic governing our thoughts; for example, when someone gives a logically sound argument with true premises that individual is saying to himself and others that they are obligated to accept the conclusion.  We must not make the fallacious jump from “is” to “ought.”

3.) I am not going to rehearse the whole discussion here but in light of my second point I would also also say that the standard Presuppositional arguments apply here concerning the problem of norms being unintelligible and meaningless in a non-Christian worldview given that the nature of the laws of logic is also prescriptive.

4.) I’m sometimes amazed at how much an atheist can sound like a Van Tillian when he asserts that the laws of logic are descriptions of reality.  When pressed often the answer I hear is that they say we need the laws of logic because it just is the case and that without the laws of logic nothing else makes sense.  The argument here is Transcendental in nature, just like the Transcendental Argument the Presuppositionalist use.  My observation here is that an atheist in this scenario doesn’t reject the form of the Transcendental argument a Christian use since they employ it themselves.  If they reject TAG the very arguments can be used as a self-defeater to those who claim he can just presupposes the laws of logic as descriptions of reality.  But we are not left with two equally plausible alternative between God and atheism after the two Transcendental arguments have been given; we must remember the problems described in point one through three that is stacked against an atheism that presupposes the laws of logic as descriptions of reality.

Read Full Post »

John Frame’s Quote: Definition of Sufficiency of Scripture and Role of Extra-Biblical Data

What is the role of Scripture and extrabiblical data in light of the sufficiency of Scripture?

I appreciate John Frame’s definition of the sufficiency of Scripture not as “sufficiency of specific information but sufficiency of divine words” with the note that “Scripture contains divine words sufficient for all of life.” (John Frame, Doctrine of Christian Life, 157).  I think this definition is helpful because it allows us to delineates the use of Biblical and extra-biblical data in knowing and doing things as Frame explained in this extended quote:

If you remember that the sufficiency of Scripture is a sufficiency of divine words, that will help us to understand the role of extrabiblical data, both in ethics and theology.  People sometimes misunderstand the doctrine of sufficiency by thinking that it excludes the use of any extrabiblical information in reaching ethical conclusions.  But if we exclude the use of extrabiblical information, then ethical reflection is next to impossible.

Scripture itself recognizes this point.  As I said earlier, the inscriptional curses does not forbid seeking extrabiblical information.  Rather, they forbid us to equate extrabiblical information with divine words.  Scripture itself requires us to correlate what it says with general revelation.  When God told Adam to abstain from the forbidden fruit, he assumed that Adam already had general knowledge, sufficient to apply that command to the trees that he could see and touch.  God didn’t need to tell Adam what a tree was, how to distinguish fruits from leaves, or what it meant to eat.  These these were natural knowledge.  So God expected Adam to correlate the specific divine prohibition concerning one tree to his natural knowledge of the trees in the garden.  This is theology as application: applying God’s word to our circumstances.

The same is true for all divine commands in Scripture.  When God tells Israel to honor their fathers and mothers, he does not bother to define ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and to set forth an exhaustive list of things that may honor or dishonor them.  Rather, God assumed that Israel have some general knowledge of family life, and he expects them to apply his commands to that knowledge.”

(John Frame, Doctrine of Christian Life, 163).

Some of the highlights I put in bold font.

I think Frame is building upon the observation that I first read from the apologist Cornelius Van Til of the need of general and special revelation being inter-dependent.  God’s Special Revelation always interpret His General Revelation and extrabiblical information; but note here that Special Revelation assumes that there are extrabiblical information out there; moreover, it will never contradict God’s special revelation.

For more quotes from John Frame, I invite you to “like” our blog’s face book page which will be featuring daily morning quotes from Frame’s book, The Doctrine of the Christian Life.

Read Full Post »

Reformed Forum Show on Cornelius Van Til’s Nature and Scripture

The Reformed Forum is a great website filled with great resources on all things Reformed (systematic theology, biblical theology, historical theology, philosophy and apologetics!).  No doubt many of you have probably enjoyed their show and discussions.

I’ve listened to an episode of their podcasts in which they interviewed Westminster’s professor of apologetics, Scott Oliphint on Cornelius Van Til’s 1946 essay titled “Nature and Scripture.”  I thought Oliphint’s exposition of Van Til was excellent and a must-listen.  Well now that I just discovered that Reformed Forum also had this show in video format, it’s also a must-see.  Enjoy!

One last note.  Towards the end of the show, Scott Oliphint mentioned that he has been working for years with P&R on a new edition of Van Til’s last work, “Common Grace and the Gospel” with Oliphint’s commentary.  This sounds like it will be similiar to Oliphint’s comments in the fourth edition of Van Til’s “The Defense of the Faith.”  I can’t wait for it to come out–not only because my old copy is falling apart but also because I want to benefit from Oliphint’s insight and explanation.

Read Full Post »

Systematic Theology Outlines: Introduction and Doctrines of the Bible

Systematic Theology Outlines

• Systematic Theology
  • Introduction to Systematic Theology
    1. Part I: Definition and Its Place with other Theologies
    2. Part II: Why Should Christians Study Theology?
    3. Part III: Objections to Systematic Theology
    4. Part IV: How Should We Study Systematic Theology: Issues of Source and Authority
    5. Part V: How Should We Study Systematic Theology: Practical and Personal Considerations
  • Doctrine of Divine Revelation
    1. Part VI: General Revelation
    2. Part VII: Special Revelation
  • The Authority of the Bible
    1. Part VIII: The Self-Authorizing Scripture
    2. Part IX: God’s Word & God’s Character
    3. Part X: Heretical Views of God Undermine Authoritative Revelation – An Apologetic Tool
    4. Part XI: Objections to Culture and Traditions As Authority
  • Doctrine of Inerrancy
    1. Part XII: Doctrine of Inerrancy Part I
    2. Part XIII: The Nature of Debating Inerrancy in Light of the Doctrine of Biblical Authority
    3. Part XIV: Scriptural Response to Two Common Objections
  • Part XV: Doctrine of Biblical Clarity
  • The Self-Attesting Word of God
    1. Part XVI: Meaning and Philosophical Issues
    2. Part XVII: The Biblical Case
  • Part XVIII: The Doctrine of Illumination
  • Part XIX: The Eternal Word of God
  • The Canon of Scripture
    1. Part XX: Introduction to the Canon of Scripture
    2. Part XXI: Foundation of the Canon from the Doctrines of the Bible
    3. Part XXII: Missing Books in Light of Anti-Supernatural Presuppositions
    4. Part XXIII: Against the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Canon
    5. Part XXIV: Inerrancy and the Canonical Coherence Test

Read Full Post »

TRINITY REVIEW:IN DEFENSE OF THEOLOGY

Latest Trinity Review feature portions from a new reprint of Gordon Clark’s “In Defense of Theology” that is now published by John Robbins of Trinity Foundation

See the Trinity Review in PDF file here:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/270-InDefenseofTheology.pdf

Read Full Post »

Atheism vs. Theism debate

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/08/debate-is-atheistic-woldview-superior.html

Christian Pastor Gene Cook debates Atheist Steve Scianni on August 5th, 2007.

Online for free for a limited time.

I have yet to listen to this debate…

Read Full Post »

Something to chew on, with application of Presuppositional Apologetics

A thought many Christians might have with Presuppositional Apologetics: 

Sometimes people ask me what they should do if the opponent tries to use the same method against the biblical worldview that we use against the non-biblical worldview.

Vincent Cheung’s thought is worth chewing on: 

The question implies a basic misunderstanding of biblical apologetics. It is not the method as such, but it is the content of our worldview that gives us the victory in debate. Winning by method or skill alone would be intellectual sophistry. Our method is just a way of arranging the clash, exposing the differences, and making obvious the reality of the situation, that the biblical worldview is true, and that the non-biblical worldview is false. Therefore, we have nothing to fear from the unbelievers. In fact, we want them to imitate our method of strict rational argumentation and syllogistic analysis. This will help facilitate the process of completely presenting the contents of each worldview, and thus the vindication of the biblical worldview, and the destruction of the non-biblical worldview.

(SOURCE: Vincent Cheung’s Apologetics in Conversation, pg. 39-40)

Read Full Post »

CALVIN: SPECTACLES FOR OUR DULL SIGHT

The words of John Calvin,

“Now in describing the world as a mirror in which we ought to behold God, I do not want to be understood as asserting either that our eyes are sufficiently clear-sighted to discern what the fabric of heaven and earth represents or that the knowledge to be hence attained is sufficient for salvation.  And whereas the Lord invited us to himself by the means of created things, with no other  effect than that of thereby rendering us inexcusable, he has added (as was necessary) a new remedy; or at least by a new aide he has assisted in the ignorance of our mind.  For by the Scriptures as our guide and teacher, he not only makes those things plain that would otherwise escape our notice, but he almost compels us to behold them, as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles” (From the Crossway Classic Commentaries Series, edited by Alister McGrath and J.I Packer, page xiii and xiv)

The ramification of these sentences are huge, in regards to the discussion of General and Special Revelation.

Read Full Post »