Cave To The Cross Apologetics

We briefly introduce the two horns of apologetics in which Oliphint says that Christians can engage in. The idea is that we don't have to wait for objections but our apologetic system can be in place to confront them when they arise. However, one must remember that we don't pull our methodology from the ether but we have a scriptural mandate to be apologists and not to pretend we're atheists when we do so. A quick ending to this episode occurs that will be continued next week.

We finish up this chapter taking the second and third trivium road of persuasion with that of the pathos and the logic of persuasion. We ascend to Mars Hill again and see how Paul used arguments of the heart as well as logic to do his apologetics. This becomes our model in our covenantal apologetics.

Now that we have introduced the Trivium of classical learning, we walk down the path and come to another trivium - one of persuasion. Here we cover the ethos of persuasion and turn once again to Paul on Mars Hill to see that we must remember there is another Person in the audience we have to impress when we engage in our apologetics.

The cry for evidence, evidence, evidence is the usual driving factor of apologetic conversations. However, people are more than complex machines that take in just brute facts and out spits the right answer. Here, Oliphint argues for Christians to embrace the theology of persuasion and uses the classical model trivium as building blocks to promote a robust and a full "to-the-man" apologetic.

At the start of this chapter Oliphint takes us down the trivium path as he lays the foundation to talk about persuasion. Classical education has seen a resurgence in homeschool communities and private schools alike. The molding students for a career is finally using up all the investment that classical education made before World War II. Now with a resurgence of the liberal arts, classical education, and the trivium we look at how best to persuade people to believe in the God of The Bible.

We conclude our chapter by talking about proving God by looking at how Christians can have the theological grounding to present proof to all people and how that's possible if we are corrupted by sin. We also look at the issues with the idea that one needs to provide proof for every aspect to know things and that the idea of burden of proof isn't as clear-cut as some people want to make it out to be.

Now that the terms are defined and we understand what covenantal apologetics means, we turn to understanding what offering proof entails. Oliphint centers his giving of proofs on top of Mars Hill in Acts 17 and point to two areas of how all people can be given proof. In this episode, we talk about how the fact that the Imo Dei reflected in humanity is the primary reason we can offer proof and also be in the fickle state we find ourselves.

How that Oliphint has made his case for why we need to hang our apologetic entirely on Christ as Lord, we apply that to two different critiques. An internal one levied at Dawkins and rationality alone and an internal one made by an atheist against Christianity. Which side is about to survive critique?

Now that we've got a proper understanding of the term covenant apologetics, Oliphint looks at the necessity of seeing Christ as Lord in order to do apologetics as prescribed in The Bible. Without that understanding, we'd be a confused Kant! And we impact that here as well.

We welcome back to the show from Revived Studios Troy Frasier and his cohost Mark. They've launched a new show on their network called "Christian or Not" where they look at people in Church history who have claimed or others have claimed to be a Christian. Doing a deep dive on the person's life, they evaluate their lives, writings, and actions in life to see if we are able to tell if the person has walked in the footsteps of Christ.

Here we talk about how Scripture gives us the ability to ask the question, "Christian or...

Finishing up chapter 1, Oliphant makes the case for the transition of presuppositional apologetics to the more accurate and more biblical name covenant apologetics. The Christian Covenant Of Apologetics is grounded in the Scripture and nature of God. How, then, can the Christian carry out apologetics? Oliphant gives ten tenants that guide us to properly carry out the command of being apologists to the world under the same covenant.

Starting out with chapter one, Oliphint does what we love around here - defining his terms. Here he covers what is apologetics and that all humanity has a covenantal duty to believe in God and follow Him. The Christian apologist, then, is to always be ready with Christian truth - not general theism with a sidestep to Jesus.

We dive into Oliphint's intro where he wants to get into reorienting presuppositional apologetics. This is a focus less on the philosophical but more on the practical, Christian aspect of it. He wishes to "translate" Van Til for the common man and breaks down how his book will do that.

In the preface for the new book, William Edgar walks through a short history of 20th century apologetics and takes us from Athens to Indiana. We see the shaky ground that the 20th century landscape had Christianity in and the much needed resurgence that people like Kuyper, Van Til, and now Oliphint will guide us to let the roaring lion go forth - foundation and all.

Wow, book number 15! It only feels like yesterday we were on book 5.

Well, after The Great Debate that put presuppositionalism on the map - what's to be done after that? Well, you actually have to talk to people. Scary, yes, but how does one actually do that? Well, this book might be of help.

Concluding our book, we ask, how must Christians respond to atheists with all these different accountings for science and logic? If we're unable to agree how we provide a basis for our knowledge, is there some sort of area above science and logic we could point to - something transcendental in nature that accounts for science and logic? Well, I'm glad you asked.

Greg Bahnsen now starts to advance his main argument that because of the confusion within the basis for science and logic, one should attack the foundational worldview using one's own worldview and therefore Christians should do apologetics presuppoitionally. In this episode, we discuss why that's the case.

Before Bahnsen gives us the answer, he's going to give us a problem that can't find the answer within itself. There are two big philosophical camps that many, if not all, atheists hold to. The problem comes in when the two atheist worldviews come into disagreement, and you find both sides saying the other is wrong at this impasse; they can't get past each other. So, is there an answer? Find out the question first.

In the final part of the book, we cover Bahnsen's push to encourage all Christians to use the presuppositional apologetic approach. Bahnsen, true to form, pushes the antithesis between the supernatural Christian worldview and everything else. He starts with showing that all other worldviews have issues with change, unity, & diversity - a place where the Christian worldview can swoop in and provide the answer.

Don't worry, we'll be back to Bahnsen next week. But first, policy expert Jeff Park and Patrick have to encourage Christian fathers to take an active and central role in the education of their children - even if they're not the primary teacher, although they are primarily responsible.

It's now Patrick's turn to take a short vacation, so this week and next week will be two redux episodes featuring policy expert Jeff Park and the discussion of the Christian's responsibility to educate their children. In this, we talk about modern education, homeschooling, government policies, and why, ultimately, the Christian should fight to educate their children as they see fit.

The previous three episodes leads up to Bahnsen's claim that presuppositional apologetics is the only way to do apologetics. It's the best tool to show the split between Christianity and every other viewpoint. And the best part, it's biblical and it is found in the Christian message itself.

Bahnsen now moves to encouraging the Christian to engage in an apologetic method that attack worldview foundations first and foremost. There's nothing wrong in knowing the positive case for Christianity but when it comes to how one approaches proof and truth, why give up so much of your position to try and achieve a neutral starting point - it's not possible to have and it's not biblical to take.

Continuing Bahnsen's lecture on pushing the antithesis, we see Bahnsen make the case for a pushing the antithesis apologetics and provides the repercussions as seen in real, published literature on what happens if we give up that division between the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview.

We now cover a lecture by Greg Bahnsen included in our book that encourages the Christian antithesis to be pushed when comparing our lives to those of the world and also in our apologetics. Here Bahnsen shows the Van Tillian origin of this idea in apologetics but shows the presence of it from Genesis all the way through the Old and New Testament.

Christian TAG Solves It All

Finishing up the question, we see that a proper examination would have led Greg Bahnsen to present the transcendental argument that he was known for and how Christian TAG solves it all.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
00:15 – Question 7 – How Does The Christian Not Just Beg The Question As Well?
02:57 – Question 8 – Could This All Be An Illusion?
04:27 – Bahnsen’s Rebuttal With The Transcendental Rebuttal
13:33 – Conclusion

BOOK LINKS:

The Great Debate – Does God Exist? – Edited and Commentary by Joshua Pillows

Debate Transcript...

What The Atheist Should Have Asked

Here’s what Gordon Stein, the atheist, should have asked Greg Bahnsen in their debate instead of being caught off guard over what happened. Here, the editor steps into the role to pull out more context in the nature of the Christian worldview and why it provides the necessary basis for all knowledge.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
01:34 – Question 1 – Why Do We Need To Know The Laws Of Logic Before Coming To Our Theory?
03:52 – Question 2 – Why Can’t We Know Logic Is True Because It Works?
05:35 – Question 3 – Why Can’t Laws Of...

https://youtu.be/VXRRVnHb7ZA

Christianity Provides The Only Justification For Knowledge

Tony’s going to be out for a bit, so the next four episodes will be on the shorter end, but that’s ok.

Here, the editor of the book, Joshua Pillows, structures the debate on what might have been the case if Stein had been prepared to deal with Bahnsen’s actual argument. So this is how it should have happened, and we start with Bahnsen’s opening statement.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
04:03 – The Embarrassing Dr. Stein
05:34...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCgZKgw9TtU

Evil, Miracles, & Atheist Faith

Tony’s going to be out for a bit, so the next four episodes will be on the shorter end, but that’s ok.

Here, the editor of the book, Joshua Pillows, structures the debate on what might have been the case if Stein had been prepared to deal with Bahnsen’s actual argument. So this is how it should have happened, and we start with Bahnsen’s opening statement.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
04:03 – The Embarrassing Dr. Stein
05:34...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B570UPGXmhg

Evil, Miracles, & Atheist Faith

We finish off with the debate with the final four questions including evil, agnosticism, the nature of logic, belief, and show that an atheist faith is present and the atheist in this debate stumbles over himself and accidentally admits it – twice.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
01:27 – Question 3 – Why Is There Evil? Rebellion
05:27 – Dr. Stein Rebuttal – God Needs To Force Us Not To Rebel To Be Good & Real
07:34 – Question 4 – Why Not Agnosticism?
08:54 – Ut Oh! Stein Contradicts Stein!
11:18 – Dr. Bahnsen’s Rebuttal –...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvdYRjGqNS4

The Christian God & The Guy From Germany With A Funny Mustache

As we come down to the book’s debate proper section we are left with six questions from the audience. Here we cover two which involve asking why is the Christian God the answer out of all the other gods out there. Then we get to ask the question that takes all philosophers about 6 minutes to get to – how do we deal with ideas when it comes to that guy from Germany with a funny mustache. A real...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No0WAKSNxpA

Christians Have The High Ground

We all know what happens to those who have the high ground. Dr. Bahnsen ends his closing remarks with the key points being that atheist Gordon Stein doesn’t have a leg to stand on. In fact, he’s stealing the Christian’s leg to be able to claim all his worldview points on. So ends the Great Debate – but wait, there’s more!

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
01:35 – The Christian Does What The Atheist Didn’t Do
01:59 – Bahnsen Shows That Stein C...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN56A9ON7to

An Atheist Caught Stealing

Dr. Stein finished the debate in his closing in what appears to be on his back heel. Bahnsen has levied that an atheist caught stealing from the Christian worldview allows for the use of science and morality that an atheist doesn’t have justification for. Stein uses his last words to try to say that an atheist universe allows for the most moral system and a place where men can do science easily.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
02:01 – An Atheis...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t67_qR3ewTU

At Some Point We Have To Talk About TAG

Bahnsen uses the final part of his second rebuttal by letting Stein and the audience know that at some point we have to talk about TAG. The argument that Bahnsen is known for surprised and shocked the atheist who hand waves it away without dealing with any of the points. Maybe Stein can make his final case next week in his closing argument.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
00:15 – Bahnsen’s A Stickler For The Transcendental Argume...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w77WLEEF0Sk

Blind Faith Of Atheist Materialism

We’re breaking up Bahnsen’s 2nd rebuttal into two sections as we did with Stein, as there are two major sections both have covered. In this first half, Bahnsen makes the case of the use of blind faith of atheist materialism, in which the worldview has no ability to justify the use of logic or of science, as the issues that have been covered in the debate – that of the problem of induction and the non-material nature of logic leads to a d...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jne1-SW-z9M

How Does God Think?

Stein didn’t know what the laws of logic were, knows philosophers don’t agree what they are – but now he’s going to point the finger back at Christians and say they don’t know either. He wants to know how does God think and how do Christians even know that. We Christians have a textbook and meetings every week.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
00:15 – How Does One Know What God Thinks?
04:09 – If You Want A Why Did God Create – Her...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_RnYfXx9g

Atheist Admits He’s Trapped!

Stein has been stymied and this atheist admits he’s trapped when it comes to his inability to justify his use of the laws of logic within the confines of his atheistic materialism worldview. Next week, we’ll look at his attempt to heap that same outcome on Bahnsen and Christianity.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
01:37 – Atheist Can’t Understand Why Christian Wants To Talk About Logic
05:50 – Here’s The Deal
09:05 – The Issue With Falsification – For Atheists
15:30 – The At...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnKz4WrQfUw

Atheist Admits Atheism Can’t Justify Science

A slightly shorter episode due to sickness by the editor but nonetheless still an important part of the Great Debate.

Here, Stein, the atheist admits atheism can’t justify science especially when it comes to induction. This issue that David Hume identified the problem with not having justification that the future will be like the past was identified all the way back during the Enlightenment and those enlightened ones who wanted to shake off God also shook off the...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DANORxTwme4

What’s The Atheist’s Metaphysical Basis For Anything?

While this is supposed to be Stein’s 2nd cross-examination of Bahnsen, we see Bahnsen causes the atheist to stumble by trying to get him to provide the atheist’s metaphysical basis for anything – here specifically for math and the laws of logic. The Christian has a basis, one that the atheist doesn’t like, but that’s better than nothing or a lack of the ability to provide anything.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
02:09 – Is Math Theistic Or Atheis...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgF41a4tYXI

Atheist Logic By Experiment Or Agreement?

Finishing up Bahnsen’s attempt to help out his atheist opponent provide justification for his use of logic, we look at logic being shown through experimentation or agreement. And like the good Christian Bahnsen is, he provides a good overview and then sinks the foundation of the atheist to claim any grounding for logic.

TIMELINE:

00:00 – Introduction
01:47 – Atheist Logic From A Posteriori?
04:07 – Are Laws Of Logic Contingent Under Atheism?
06:29 – Why Do Laws Of Logic Work In Di...