Favorite Reformed Apologist

[Christiangal01]

Who's your favorite Reformed Apologist and why?

 

[Iosias]

Who's your favorite Reformed Apologist and why?

I have more than one!

1. St. Augustine because he defended the truth against the Pelagian heresy.
2. John Calvin because he developed upon the work of St. Augustine.
3. Thomas Watson because he sets for Reformed truth simply.
4. Herman Hoeksema because of his development of the doctrine of the covenant and his stance against Common Grace.
5. Herman Bavinck for his keen theological insight.
6. Caspar Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus for the Heidelberg Catechism.
7. Thomas Cranmer for his work on the Book of Common Prayer.
8. Heinrich Bullinger for begining the development of Covenant Theology and the Second Helvetic Confession.

 

[Beoga]

I have probably been most influenced by Gordon Clark. I have also learned much from James White.

 

[Christiangal01]

I have probably been most influenced by Gordon Clark. I have also learned much from James White.

I've enjoyed reading Clark's work and those of his followers, though I am a VanTillian

 

[Iosias]

I've enjoyed reading Clark's work and those of his followers, though I am a VanTillian

Why?

 

[Christiangal01]

Why?

I must add that cautiously..
I enjoyed books like A Christian Philosophy of Men and Things and Robbin's political insight,
HOwever I am not in total agreement with everything, such as some of his follower's avid desire for Scripturalism and their philosophy of science

 

[Imblessed]

I haven't read too many Reformed apologists, but as for writers(apologists or not) I like RC Sproul because he was the first reformed writer I read, and his book Grace Unknown really helped me get off the fence regarding reformed theology. I also enjoy John Piper. Desiring God was a real eye-opener for me.

 

[JM]

Cheung! He makes me laugh.

James White is solid, and he makes me laugh as well.

As for Clark, Robbins and Cheung's Scripturalism, etc. I agree with them. Our axiom is the Bible. God is totally sovereign in all aspects from soteriology to our epistemology.

 

[Christiangal01]

I haven't read too many Reformed apologists, but as for writers(apologists or not) I like RC Sproul because he was the first reformed writer I read, and his book Grace Unknown really helped me get off the fence regarding reformed theology. I also enjoy John Piper. Desiring God was a real eye-opener for me.

I like RC Sproul, though I am cautious with his classical apologetics...

 

[Christiangal01]

Cheung! He makes me laugh.

James White is solid, and he makes me laugh as well.

As for Clark, Robbins and Cheung's Scripturalism, etc. I agree with them. Our axiom is the Bible. God is totally sovereign in all aspects from soteriology to our epistemology.

I like Cheung too, but are you also going to accept his occasionalism as well?

 

[JM]

I like Cheung too, but are you also going to accept his occasionalism as well?

One does not need to accept all of Vincent Cheung's views to find him funny...that said, I don't necessarily disagree with him either.

I'm still working these things out so I'm more then willing to read what you have to say. Have you read Cheung's "Captive to Reason?"

Maybe you could help me understand, "Indeed, not even an abundance of bread would benefit us in the slightest unless it were divinely turned into nourishment." Does this sound like a statement made by someone who believes occasionalism is true?

j

 

[Christiangal01]

One does not need to accept all of Vincent Cheung's views to find him funny...that said, I don't necessarily disagree with him either.

I'm still working these things out so I'm more then willing to read what you have to say. Have you read Cheung's "Captive to Reason?"

Maybe you could help me understand, "Indeed, not even an abundance of bread would benefit us in the slightest unless it were divinely turned into nourishment." Does this sound like a statement made by someone who believes occasionalism is true?

j

It has been a while (or at least alot of books since I've read Captive to REason)
but I think he has a chapter in there that actually is titled Occassionalism
While I do believe God holds all things together, what I'm worried about specifically is so called 'scripturalism', that only things from the Word and things deduced from the Word of God is 'true';
I agree that things from the Bible and deduced from the Bible is truth, but it is not only way to find other truths in God's revelation (General)

For instance, how do you know that you exist? Or how do you know the laws of Identity (A=A) is true? Was it from Scripture that says "JM exist"?

 

[Beoga]

I may have missed the point, but I think the thought only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or can be deduced from Scripture can be known. I do not believe it is affirmed by Clark that only what is in Scripture is true. I think he affirms, or would affirm that that things outside of Scripture can and are true, however, we cannot know that they are true.
At the very least, that is what I affirm.

 

[JM]

It has been a while (or at least alot of books since I've read Captive to REason)
but I think he has a chapter in there that actually is titled Occassionalism
While I do believe God holds all things together, what I'm worried about specifically is so called 'scripturalism', that only things from the Word and things deduced from the Word of God is 'true';
I agree that things from the Bible and deduced from the Bible is truth, but it is not only way to find other truths in God's revelation (General)

For instance, how do you know that you exist? Or how do you know the laws of Identity (A=A) is true? Was it from Scripture that says "JM exist"?

Good question, I'll need to think on it.

But how do you know you exist? Based on your senses? How do we get from sensation to perception? If your perception is the same if you exist or do not exist, how can you reliably prove you exist?

Beoga, I think you got it. We can confirm what we perceive in the senses by Scripture.

I could be wrong and often am...I'm new to philosophy.

j

 

[Christiangal01]

I may have missed the point, but I think the thought only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or can be deduced from Scripture can be known. I do not believe it is affirmed by Clark that only what is in Scripture is true. I think he affirms, or would affirm that that things outside of Scripture can and are true, however, we cannot know that they are true.
At the very least, that is what I affirm.

I also don't think Clark believes that only things from Scripture can be known...
I think, in light of a Christian foundation, other things can be known such as science, etc

Some of his followers, such as Cheung would say we can only know things from Scripture, and that's it..

 

[Christiangal01]

Good question, I'll need to think on it.

But how do you know you exist? Based on your senses? How do we get from sensation to perception? If your perception is the same if you exist or do not exist, how can you reliably prove you exist?

Beoga, I think you got it. We can confirm what we perceive in the senses by Scripture.

I could be wrong and often am...I'm new to philosophy.

j

I hope everyone understand I'm not against what the Bible tells us and what logically follows from the Bible..

All I'm saying is that Scripture is not the only way we know things, we also know because of our experience...but the Word of God is ultimate and interprets those experience...

If we say only the Bible is the only way we know things in the world,
how then, does Vincent Cheung change a flat tire when the Bible does not tell us how?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-cheung-change-flat-tire.html

 

[Christiangal01]

Good question, I'll need to think on it.

But how do you know you exist? Based on your senses? How do we get from sensation to perception? If your perception is the same if you exist or do not exist, how can you reliably prove you exist?

Beoga, I think you got it. We can confirm what we perceive in the senses by Scripture.

I could be wrong and often am...I'm new to philosophy.

j

I hope everyone understand I'm not against what the Bible tells us and what logically follows from the Bible..

All I'm saying is that Scripture is not the only way we know things, we also know because of our experience...but the Word of God is ultimate and interprets those experience...

If we say only the Bible is the only way we know things in the world,
how then, does Vincent Cheung change a flat tire when the Bible does not tell us how?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-cheung-change-flat-tire.html

 

[JM]

This all comes down to VanTillian vs. Scripturalism. Triblogue supports VanTil and Cheung is more in line with Scripturalism but by his own admission not a toe the line, just in the line.

One of the strong points of classic Gordon Clark presuppositionalism is his rejection of proving something "inductively." This problem is highlighted by Brian Bosse on his blog.

That posted, I enjoy Cheung's work, it's worth a read.

j

 

[Ceridwen]

I like Francis Schaeffer, although his son Frank said that Francis had a horrible temper and read pornography.

 

[Christiangal01]

I like Francis Schaeffer, although his son Frank said that Francis had a horrible temper and read pornography.

what?
Where did you get this information by Franky Jr. ?