Dan Chapa

Recently I had separate conversations with Steve Hays and Turretinfan both of which got down to the charge that "you're using philosophical speculation, I am using scripture".  A serious charge, this; one wants his theology to be grounded in scripture rather than floating away via the levitating power of thin air. However, faith and reason are often intertwined; can you even trust scripture's words without trusting your eyes, ears and brain more than some philosophers are willing to do? We all have philosophies whether we are aware of them or not. My comments in blue; Steve and Turretinfan's comments in red. ------------------------------ http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/12/outside-camp.html Steve: Then I read a book by Jerry Walls and David Baggett which says my God could command people to torture little children for the fun of it. When I read that, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. It doesn’t offend me. But it does alienate me. It instantly dissolves an...

Jamin Hubner, a member of the AOMIN blogging team, is involved in a debate regarding the definition of KJV only. He notes: Dr. White identifies at least 5 kinds of King-James Only advocates p. 23-28): 1. "I Like the KJV Best" 2. "The Textual Argument" - Group A (Majority Text advocates), Group B (TR Advocates) Group C (others) 3. "Received Text Only" - TR is inspired or is inerrant by providence of God. 4. Inspired KJV Group - KJV itself is inspired and inerrant (some would also affirm inspiration and inerrancy of TR, and thus also hold to group 3); KJV Alone = Word of God Alone 5. "The KJV as New Revelation" - God re-inspired the AV 1611 text rendering it in English language (thus, Hebrew and Greek texts should actually be changed to reflect KJV readings) ( link ) However, as a counter-point, I should be noted that James White also says the following: One group that would strongly reject the term KJV Only but believe that the Greek...

Aristotle places great emphasis on understanding causes. " For Aristotle, a firm grasp of what a cause is, and how many kinds of causes there are, is essential for a successful investigation of the world around us ."  Aristotle uses the famous four causes to explain why questions: •The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue. •The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue. •The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child. •The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools. Understanding these four causes is vital: an explanation which fails to invoke all four causes is no explanation at all.  Many causal analyses today look mainly to efficient causes and see final cause...

Not really, there are no passages teaching that doctrine. In fact, scripture gives us several examples of infallible oral teachings, including the Prophets, Christ’s earthly ministry, and even the Apostles. But sola scriptura is about the post-apostolic age! Well there are yet future examples as well, such as the two witnesses in Revelations and Christ Himself when He returns. Now don’t get me wrong, the bible declares itself to be authoritative and sufficient for salvation. The bible says “Scriptura”; it’s the “sola” part that it doesn’t say. So why then, do I believe in the Sola of Sola-Scripture? For the same reasons Luther gave at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason " I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." Popes and councils have contra...

Steve Hays responded to my comment on idealism . One needs to distinguish between epistemological idealism (e.g. Blanshard) and metaphysical idealism (e.g. Berkeley, McTaggart). Yes, epistemological idealism isn't as problematic.

Steve Hays responded to my post on Van Til. This is Van Til’s way of indicating that if you take the unbeliever’s position to its logical extreme, the unbeliever negates his knowledge of God (or anything else). In principle, the unbeliever knows nothing. ...Van Til does think that unbelievers retain some true knowledge "Common ground" could stand for common beliefs. What believers and unbelievers both know about God, at a conscious or subconscious level. Or it could stand for common standards. Do believers and unbelievers share the same methods and assumptions? If this is what Van Til meant, then I don't have a problem with it. But at lest in this respect, his view doesn't seem different than Clark's.

RazorsKiss at Choosinghats was kind enough to respond to my post on James White and Presuppostionalism . While I will respond to his other points as well, my main concern was to respond to his use of certain passages of scripture.

James Anderson responded to my post on James White and Presuppositionalism by providing a link to an article he wrote defending Van Til. ( link ) Before getting into specifics on Anderson's article, I wanted to make some general comments. Undoubtedly, Van Til stated what I said he stated: 1) unbelievers don’t have true knowledge, 2: Christians and non-Christians have no common ground, 3) we should embrace apparent contradiction and circular reasoning and 4) our knowledge doesn't conincide with God's (i.e. scepticism). I will document this below. But it's also true, as Anderson's article points out, that Van Til at times said the opposite of these points or claimed to be misunderstood. Van Til's harshest critics (Clark & Robbins) simply accuse Van Til of contradiction himself. On the other hand, James Anderson (and other Van Til advocates such as Frame) seem to indicate that Van Til was not contradicting himself but rather had some deep, insightful meaning. H...

James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. ( link ) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject. What caught my attention was James White's denial that unbelievers can have 'true knowledge' and his objection to the approach of starting from common ground between believers and unbelievers to show the reasonableness of believing in the God of the Bible and other Christian doctrines.

In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination ( link ), he disagrees with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism about 90% of the time, so we get very few glimpses of what he actually believes. I went through the article and pulled out all the positive statements by Bavinck about predestination. I came out with 10 statements. Upon examining the statements, I noted that the majority of them are either in tension with each other or leave a major term undefined. Statements in tension with each other (i.e. that seem to move in opposite directions - although they don’t formally contradict each other, no reconciliation is provided): (statement) On the one hand, both election and reprobation presuppose sin, and are deeds of mercy and of justice, Rom. 9:15; Eph. 1:4; (counter) on the other hand both [election and reprobation] are also deeds of divine right and sovereignty, Rom. 9:11, 17, 21. (statement) At times Scripture expresses itself so strongly that reprobatio...

testing ways to organize tags into a tables of contents 1 PROLOG, 2 GOD, 3 CREATION, 4 PROVIDENCE, 5 PREDESTINATION, 6 THE LAW, 7 THE GOSPEL, 8 SOTERIOLOGY , 8.a Conditional Election, 8.b Depravity, 8.c Christ's death, 8.d Resistible Grace, 8.e Perseverance, 9 THE CHURCH, 20 HISTORY, 30 DEBATES, 40 COWBOYS, 99 ABOUT ME