Favorite Reformed Apologist

[Christiangal01]

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

I am working on the issue of induction right now and I do see the problem that arises

However, will you agree that given a deductive argument, there can be premises that are true, and does premises are not from scripture (but not against Scripture either) and is still logically valid?

 

[JM]

I am working on the issue of induction right now and I do see the problem that arises

However, will you agree that given a deductive argument, there can be premises that are true, and does premises are not from scripture (but not against Scripture either) and is still logically valid?

I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...

How do we know if the conclusion is valid?

A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, I’ll die. (true)
Premise: I won’t be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I won’t die. (alas, false)

A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?



I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.

Peace,

j

 

[Christiangal01]

I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...

How do we know if the conclusion is valid?

A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, I’ll die. (true)
Premise: I won’t be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I won’t die. (alas, false)

A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?



I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.

Peace,

j

Hey there BRother JM,

Thanks for the interaction

THe example you post is a good example of an invalid deductive argument; what in particular, is called the logical fallacy of denying the anticedent.

A good deductive argument would be:

Premise 1: If I am decapitated, I’ll die.
Premise: 2 I would be decapitated.
Conclusion 1: I would die.

Assuming both premise are true of course.

Think of all the people in the French revolution that was killed in this manner...

I would say the above is valid and true...even though Scripture does not show Premise 2 as true (because the Bible does not record your present life) and is determined as true on the basis of your life right now, the context (jihadist videotaping you in iraq, for example), etc

My point is that Scripturalism (truth determine only by Scripture and nothing else) would fail to account for the above as 'true',

Again to re-iterate, I believe everything the Bible is true (I hold to the whole counsel of the Word of God), but I'm saying there are other ways we know truth (that does not contradict or undermine the proposition of scripture) that is not from the Bible

 

[Christiangal01]

I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...

How do we know if the conclusion is valid?

A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, I’ll die. (true)
Premise: I won’t be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I won’t die. (alas, false)

A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?



I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.

Peace,

j

I think you are a wise older Brother in the Lord!

 

[JM]

link

Some will object, "But don’t we know that we are in this room, or that 2 plus 2 equals four, or that grass is green?" To answer that objection, we must define the words "know" and "knowledge."

There are three sorts of cognitive states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of ideas. Complete ignorance is the state of mind that empiricists say we are born with: We are all born with blank minds, tabula rasa, to use John Locke’s phrase. (Incidentally, a tabula rasa mind – a blank mind – is an impossibility. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism rests on a contradiction.) At the other extreme from ignorance is knowledge. Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth. We do not say that a person "knows" that 2 plus 2 is 5. We may say he thinks it, but he does not know it. It would be better to say that he opines it.

Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We "know" that we are in Pennsylvania; we "know" that Clinton – either Bill or Hillary – is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, "I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets." Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.

It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it. I can, however, prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That information is revealed to me, not by the dubious daily newspaper or the evening news, but by the infallible Word of God. The resurrection of Christ is deduced by good and necessary consequence from the axiom of revelation.

 

[edie19]

Who's your favorite Reformed Apologist and why?

Michael Horton

James Montgomery Boice

J.I. Packer

C.S. Lewis

James R. White

R.C. Sproul
​

 

[Defcon]

4 off the top of my head (modern )

John Piper
Greg Bahnsen
R.C. Sproul
J.I. Packer

 

[Iosias]

C.S. Lewis

Reformed?

 

[edie19]

Reformed?

No - and I knew someone would comment on my including Lewis on my list - but he is/was an excellent Christian apologist. Don't think it gets much better than Mere Christianity.

edie

 

[Iosias]

No - and I knew someone would comment on my including Lewis on my list - but he is/was an excellent Christian apologist. Don't think it gets much better than Mere Christianity.

edie

I am not so sure:

"Lewis taught and believed in purgatory (despite the fact that Article 22 of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Thirty-nine Articles [/FONT]of the Church of England describes the doctrine of purgatory as "repugnant to the Word of God"), said prayers for the dead, believed in the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine, a sacrament that he came to call "Mass," practiced and taught auricular confession, believed in baptismal salvation, and free will. As we have seen, he rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone, as well as the doctrines of total depravity and the sovereignty of God."

​

​

​

Did C. S. Lewis go to Heaven?

 

[Ceridwen]

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

Frank wrote about his life and his father in the semi-autobiographical novels Portofino, Zermatt, and Saving Grandma. These details are in these books. This is what Frank says about the books:

In 1947 my mother and father moved to Europe. They were American Protestant, Reformed, Calvinist missionaries. I was thus part of an experiment in radical Christian living "by faith alone" in the commune of L'abri in Switzerland where I grew up. I've been exploring this childhood in my semi-biographical novels of the Calvin Becker Trilogy---Portofino, Zermatt and Saving Grandma.
​

 

[Ceridwen]

C S Lewis was a universalist who denied the atonement and admired pre-Christian pagan religion. It is questionable whether the man was even a Christian. He was much more interested in Platonic theology than Biblical theology. He was certainly no Reformed Christian.

 

[JM]

Does anyone know what Phil Fernandes believes? Before I start downloading his lectures/debates [link] I'd like to know if he's Reformed, Amyraldian or Arminian, etc.

Thanks,
j

 

[Christiangal01]

Does anyone know what Phil Fernandes believes? Before I start downloading his lectures/debates [link] I'd like to know if he's Reformed, Amyraldian or Arminian, etc.

Thanks,
j

I don't know his theology, but I know he's familiar with Clark and Van Til, if that means anything...

I've seen his debate a while ago, and in regards to apologetics, he combines his approach with classical argument for God's existence...

I notice your link also include his teaching on Romans! Maybe those would give some indication?

 

[Christiangal01]

Frank wrote about his life and his father in the semi-autobiographical novels Portofino, Zermatt, and Saving Grandma. These details are in these books. This is what Frank says about the books:

In 1947 my mother and father moved to Europe. They were American Protestant, Reformed, Calvinist missionaries. I was thus part of an experiment in radical Christian living "by faith alone" in the commune of L'abri in Switzerland where I grew up. I've been exploring this childhood in my semi-biographical novels of the Calvin Becker Trilogy---Portofino, Zermatt and Saving Grandma.
​

DO you have the book?
Is there an actual quote you might have?

 

[cygnusx1]

Who's your favorite Reformed Apologist and why?

Greg Bahnsen .

Because he smashed into pieces an Atheist arguement live , and he did it with humility!



http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/

The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein by Greg L. Bahnsen [Debates]

 

[Christiangal01]

Greg Bahnsen .

Because he smashed into pieces an Atheist arguement live , and he did it with humility!



http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/

The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein by Greg L. Bahnsen [Debates]

Amen about Greg Bahnsen!
Veritas Domain, to which you link, is a great website, I've enjoyed visiting it from time to time myself!
Be sure to also check out one of the contributer's website at http://teamtruth.com/articles/articles.htm

 

[No Swansong]

I just want to re-state I'm new to philosophy, just getting my feet wet...

How do we know if the conclusion is valid?

A quote fron the net:
Premise: If I am decapitated, I’ll die. (true)
Premise: I won’t be decapitated. (very probably true)
Conclusion: I won’t die. (alas, false)

A logical conclusion is valid or invalid but not true or false...does that sound about right?



I don't believe a true premise will guarantee a valid conclusion...but I could be wrong and often am.

Peace,

j

I believe that you are correct (If I remember back that far) a deductive argument is either valid or invalid which has nothing to do with true or false.



Favorites:

Sproul "Faith Alone" was my first Reformed Theology read.
Bavinck "Doctrine of God" Difficult but worth the effort.

 

[JM]

Ahhhhh Bavinck! Can't wait for vol. 4.

 

[Christiangal01]

I believe that you are correct (If I remember back that far) a deductive argument is either valid or invalid which has nothing to do with true or false.



Favorites:

Sproul "Faith Alone" was my first Reformed Theology read.
Bavinck "Doctrine of God" Difficult but worth the effort.

But a valid argument, if the premises are true, must indeed have a true conclusion