I’ve gotten several questions in my email box and phone line about some terminology that has been bandied about as of late resulting in some serious confusion. It’s not the fault of the person listening to the terminology either since, I think, the terminology has been employed in such a way that it sneaks extra information into the discussion without proper cause.
Tags: semantics, terminology
Posted in apologetics | Comments (8)
I was listening to John Frame a while ago and he made a case for homeschooling that I’ve heard some variations of but not with the undergirding that makes Frame’s view understandable (maybe even plausible).
Tags: homeschooling
Posted in apologetics, current affairs | Comments (2)
Quiet now, everyone. Take your seats. Let’s give a warm round of applause to Aunt Matilda and the cake she has walked out on stage with. Thank you for being with us today Aunt Matilda; what a delicious looking cake next to you! One must wonder what is under that icing, or even why it’s there! But as it were, the reason for Aunt Matilda and the cake being on stage has very little to do with the taste of the cake but everything to do with you, Audience.
This is all about you.
You see, as Aunt Matilda entered the stage pushing that cart with the delectable treat, you made several conclusions: that Aunt Matilda is important for our discussion; that the cake is too; but also, that Aunt Matilda and the cake have some sort of relationship. Perhaps she baked the cake. Perhaps it is Aunt Matilda’s birthday. Perhaps it’s the birthday of someone in the audience—maybe Aunt Matilda’s nephew . Even as I “speak”, you are searching for clues as to the connection.
Tags: presuppositionalism, theology, van til
Posted in apologetics | Comments (0)
I’ve been noticing this Bavinck quote come up on the internet and it’s really annoying since people seem to be using it to support the old argument that at least Catholic works-righteousness is productive whereas the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith falls short. The quote already had me wondering how honest it was since it starts off mid sentence. Turns out, Bavinck is arguing against the position that posters have been using the quote online.
Anyway, here’s the quote that’s appearing on the internet (here are a few places I’ve seen it); after the jump I’ll post the context (Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith-PDF):
‘[W]e must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride. Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentance, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians. The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.’
But now, for what Bavinck was really saying and then what he continues saying even about paganism.
Tags: bavinck, faith, misquotes
Posted in apologetics, history, religion, salvation | Comments (0)
Admiral Ackbar knew the battlefield, always wise to look out for his opponents tactics. The arsenal at the Empire’s disposal was wide, and sometimes includes indirect thrusts in the form of a trap—things he knew well. Not a lot of thought has to go into setting up a booby trap since the tactic is fairly static. You set it up, you leave it there, and you let the rebel scum do all the work. The same thing applies in argumentation (in the classical sense).
Tags: ackbar, argumentation, boobytraps, logic
Posted in apologetics | Comments (1)
