Shutting ‘er Down

It is with some sadness but great relief that I announce today that I am shutting this blog down—hopefully permanently, but perhaps temporarily. Continue reading

PhDs, Accreditation, and Social Media Childishness

How often do we hear people saying, “Well, this guy has a PhD, so he must know what he’s talking about.” This is a remarkably fallacious argument (i.e., just because somebody has a PhD doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about). But what happens when people do it with themselves? What if someone says, “I have a PhD; I know what I’m talking about.” This has happened recently on Twitter with a major college professor and theologian, and it deserves a brief response. Continue reading

Rushdoony on Why People Hate Van Til

I have been given the privilege of teaching a four-part series on apologetics at my church during the next month. Because of this, I have been catching up on some reading in order to solidify my thinking in the specific area of presuppositional apologetics. The two books I am reading are Greg Bahnsen’s Van Til’s Apologetic[1] and R. J. Rushdoony’s By What Standard?[2] Throughout my year-long study (give or take) of presuppositional apologetics, one lingering question I have had is this: Why do people—even many Reformed Christians—hate Cornelius Van Til[3] so much? Those who are not privy to the “ins and outs” of presuppositionalism (not that I am an expert) will be aware of the debate within the Reformed community over different methods of apologetics—e.g., presuppositionalism vs. evidentialism vs. classical apologetics vs. Reformed epistemology, etc. But what seems to be a common thread in the debate among non-presuppositonalists seems to be a united aggression toward Van Til. I would think Van Til would be a hero of the faith for every Reformed believer, but this simply does not seem to be the case, and I don’t understand it. Continue reading

Ryle on the Danger of Ignorance of the Scriptures

My pastor a few Sundays ago finished an excellent sermon series on the Book of Revelation. A major theme of the imagery contained within this book is that of what is seen versus what is heard. A good example of this is when John describes the second beast in Revelation 13:11—”he had two horns like unto a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.”[1] The point is that it looked innocent, but what it said was deadly as dragon’s breath. It is not what we see that is important, but what we hear. False teachers always look good, but it is what they say that is so dangerous. Continue reading

None Are So Bad That Christ Will Not Receive Them

There are some days where I feel the great weight of my sin. In all honesty, those days are far too rare. This evening, I was reading from J. C. Ryle’s Old Paths. Within, there is this marvelous piece on repentance. For those who, like me, often struggle with repentance, particularly in that they feel as if they are too wicked and sinful to be received by Christ, read these words and be encouraged. Continue reading

Edwards Gets A(nother) Pass

An article published by The Gospel Coalition today (February 27, 2019) is entitled “Jonathan Edwards and His Support of Slavery: A Lament.” The article is actually fairly commendable. This blog post is in substance not a response to that article, though. Rather, I  am writing because of a recent exchange I had with Daniel Kleven of Desiring God (see this post for my most recent response) because the publishing of this article is clear evidence that supports my claim that modern-day evangelicals treat men like Edwards with an altogether lighter standard than those imposed upon men like Robert Lewis Dabney and James Henley Thornwell. Continue reading

Atheism: “It’s Not a World View”?

I’ve heard it often. “Atheism is not a worldview.” “Atheism is not a belief system.” “Atheism is a lack of belief.” Atheists, in my view, tend to claim these things for the purpose of evading critical assessment from astute opponents, especially Christians. After all, how can one critique a belief system that claims not to be a belief system? Greg Bahnsen encountered this exact ploy in his discussion with George Smith. Is it true, however, that atheism is a system, a “non-worldview,” based on “non-belief”? Let’s find out. Continue reading