Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: BK

  • In Antithesis, Vol 2, No. 1

    In this issue of In Antithesis:

    THE NEW ATHEISM, FAST COMPANY, AND THE INTEGRITY OF DOUBT
    Stephen Rodgers
    GOD’S PROBLEM: REVIEW AND SOLUTION
    Alan Rhology & Matthew C. Martellus
    HOLLYWOOD, GENEVA, AND ATHENS – A REFORMED PHILOSOPHY OF FILM
    Nathaniel Claiborne, B.S., Th.M.
    BOOK REVIEW – A REASON FOR THE HOPE: ESSAYS IN APOLOGETICS BY MASSIMO LORENZINI
    Chris Bolt, B.A., M.Div.

    We hope you enjoy reading it, and are both exhorted and encouraged thereby.…

  • Brian Knapp of Choosing Hats to appear with atheist Matt Oxley on Praxis Presup this weekend for informal debate

    Brian Knapp, Founder and Administrator of Choosing Hats and atheist Matt Oxley of RagingRev.com plan to participate in an informal debate consisting of interview, cross-examination, and discussion hosted and moderated by Chris Bolt of the Praxis Presup podcast this weekend. The event will not be live streamed, however the recording of it will be made available on the next episode of Praxis Presup right here on Choosing Hats around the beginning of next week, Lord willing. You won’t want to miss it!…

  • In Antithesis, Vol 1, No. 1 is now here!

    Included in this issue:

    An Introduction, by Chris Bolt
    The Doctrine of God in Reformed Apologetics, by Joshua Whipps
    Problems with Classic Proofs for the Existence of God, by Chris Bolt
    Autonomy is Hard Work: Human Autonomy as a Rejection of Christian Theism, by Ben Woodring
    Exposition of Romans 1:16-2:16 – The Knowledge of God, by Joshua Whipps

    We hope you enjoy reading it, and are both exhorted and encouraged thereby.

    (A big thanks to Brian Knapp for his yeoman’s work in getting this issue out for you all!)…

  • Brian Knapp Interviewed on "Goodness Over God" Podcast

    Brian Knapp of Choosing Hats was a guest on the counter-apologetics podcast “Goodness Over God” with Michael Long and Ben Wallis to discuss several topics related to whether or not there is good reason to believe in God. You can find the interview here.…

  • Wallis Responds to Knapp's Atheist Burden of Proof

    Recall that Brian Knapp recently wrote a post here on the subjects of atheism and the burden of proof.

    Ben Wallis has responded here.

    While I only skimmed Ben’s post, it looks as though he offers the same (toasty) objections that were addressed here and especially here.

    If not, then at least the readers have some background for the discussion. Hopefully Brian will have the opportunity to add more.

     

     …

  • The Atheist's Burden of Proof

    I was in a discussion today with an atheist, and the subject turned to the idea of burden of proof. It is a common claim that Christians own a burden of proof to prove that God exists, but that atheists do not own any burden at all.  Here’s my response, that outlines the reason I disagree with this:

    Many (and probably most) atheists will say they have nothing to prove at all, because atheism (a-theism) is merely being without a belief in the existence of any gods. Therefore, the only *positive* explicit assertion they are making is about their belief,

    …

  • Various and Sundry Issues to Recap

    Last week, my comment at Aporetic Christianity resulted in a bit of a firestorm – of posts, and sometimes fiery discussion. I’d like to use this opportunity to make a few comments on this exchange, and exchanges in general. In the exchange between Paul, myself, and BK, some might consider the “tone” in places to be overly harsh. While I think Paul may have thought at one point that I was objecting to the tone, I think we’ve come to at least a partial understanding of the other’s goals. That being said, there’s a balance to be had in the …

  • Bahnsen, Van Til, TAG and Deduction

    The past few days have seen a flurry of activity over at Aporetic Christianity on a variety of topics. The most recent has been a discussion as to whether TAG is deductive or not. Up until now I have replied to PM (Paul Manata) through comments, but I feel the need to stretch out a bit here, and so I will reply via a post rather than in comments. I hope PM doesn’t mind the change of venue.

    After reading and responding to PM’s latest post there are two issues that I would like to lay out clearly here.  First, …

  • Reminder and Resource

    Based on some of the comments we have received lately, I feel it is necessary to remind folks that the purpose of this blog is educational, and is not intended as a forum for debate.  While we may make exceptions to this rule from time to time if we feel there is educational benefit to be seen, in general we will not allow comments through which will end up initiating a debate-through-comments.  This is one of the primary reasons we set up a chat channel, which we encourage everyone to take advantage of. We will be more than happy …

  • A Paradigm Shift

    As we enter into a discussion of apologetics, the very first thing we must contend with is the fact that the apologetic methodology set forth in scripture is at odds with the way in which we typically reason. This fact entails that we must prepare ourselves for a paradigm shift in the way we approach the apologetic task, and is therefore by no means a trivial a matter. The Biblical method of apologetics requires that we reason in a way that is quite unfamiliar to the average person, yet is wholly consistent with a Biblical anthropology. In other words, the …