Philosophy from a Christian Worldview

Some introductory lectures on Metaphysics and Epistemology 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeyAlQUS0aJZHjL8vY-nh7K7y5Q5n1cR2

NCT and Apologetics

Here is a video I stumbled upon by Dustin Segers.

Here is some notes to follow along as well. HERE

Fristianity Refuted?

An interesting article defending the sufficiency and necessity of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence.

Check it out HERE

\

Also check out Choosing Hats discussion on the subject HERE  

Biblical Apologetics

Here is a clear presentation of Biblical Apologetics by Jason Lisle.

Check it out HERE

As Jason illustrates, the necessary foundation for logic, science and morality is the Christian worldview. The unbeliever doesn't have this foundation, thus he is left with beliefs that he cannot account for given his worldview.

The unbeliever is not forthright in his assertions against the Christian worldview since he must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to even affirm or deny Christianity.

The issue is not about evidence. The believer and unbeliever has the same evidence. The issue is how one should interpret the evidence. By what set of presuppositions or world view ought we to interpret the evidence? By the Christian worldview that lays the necessary foundation for knowledge, science, logic, and morality. 

Book Recommendations

Book recommendations:

I strongly recommend Dr Jason Lisle's works below as a easy and concise introduction to Biblical apologetics.

Dr. Pratt Jr's wonderful work.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen's foundational work.

Robert Reymond's work offered for free Here

A Good Introduction to Propositions

Here is a old but good introduction to the nature of propositions. Here


It is written by Brian Bosse who is know for his thought provoking critique of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Here

I still think he is wrong in this critique but I figured I'd post a link since it is a good contribution to seek to better defend the faith.

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 3

   The blogger writes God is unfair, hidden, and narcissistic. The blogger continues to make moral claims about God. She says God is “unfair” and “narcissistic.” But can the blogger justify moral absolutes, such as fairness, and selflessness, given her atheism? I think not. It is as if the blogger has shot bullets with a gun, and both, she cannot have in principle, since her worldview cannot justify such things. However, it is on the basis of Christianity, she can make such claims, since moral absolutes are justified by the Absolute, omni-benevolent God of scripture. The blogger is made in the image of God although she continues in self-deception to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So we can take the bloggers assertions seriously only because Christianity is true. What do we make of her claims? First, no one is innocent, and therefore, God owes mankind only justice. To say that God is unfair is to bite the hand that provides and sustains the one that makes the claim. But more to the point, to make such a claim, one must be judging God by some moral standards that are rationally unjustifiable (e.g. moral realism, and moral relativism). Since the only necessary justifiable foundation for absolute moral standards is God’s absolute character. 

Is God selfish? No, since God is self-sufficient (in no need of anything) and morally perfect (doesn't lack any moral perfection).  Why then does he require man to repent and believe in him? Simply put, it pleased him to do so. He freely chose to condescend, and have communion with his creatures. He was not obligated to do so but he did. Mankind now is commanded everywhere to repent and trust in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for salvation.     

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 1

TXBlue08, an atheist, has written a blog post entitled “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” in which she argues why parents “ought” not to teach their children things about God. Link here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c2

I will quote her essay and then respond using the essay as a sample of how presuppositionalism is the most effective method of Christian apologetics. 

She says, “God is a bad parent and role model.” Since “Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Nor do “Good people… stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children.” She goes on to attack the free will defense on the grounds that good parents still intervene, guide, and protect their children regardless if they have free will.

How to respond? First, one must understand that as Christians we respond fully committed to Christ, so our answers will flow from our allegiance to God and His Word.  Scripture teaches God is not someone we should think of as our equal. He is God and we are his creatures. He made mankind in his image thus giving us intellects, wills, emotions, and dominion over creation. God gave mankind the sole responsibility to take care of his creation. This entails man is responsible over their children to be representatives of God to them. Teaching them the truth of God and protecting them from evil. God created Adam who was the first man and representative of the human race.   God gave mankind commandments/duties that reflect God’s character for the benefit of the creature and the ultimate good.  The first man Adam violated God’s commandment and brought forth punishment for both him and the whole human race. The punishment stemmed from Adam to all mankind. Man inherited guilt, and an inclination to sin. This defaced the image of God in man. Man is not born innocent, but guilty. He is born a rebel against God. We are all born as enemies of God. We love sin and hate God. Hence the blogger is quite mistaken to talk of “good parents and innocent children,” since there are no parents or children that are truly good. The blogger quite frequently appeals to moral absolutes. She uses moral terms such as “good” and “should” but given her atheism how can she make sense of morality. She cannot have moral absolutes (even in principle) given her commitment to atheism. But as Christians we can account for moral absolutes since God has given us his moral law both in Scripture (Ex. 20) and innately (Rom. 2:14-15). However, the blogger knows these truths and this is why she cannot help but make moral judgments. A man or woman made in God’s image and who lives in God’s world, but wishes to be an atheist cannot help but be inconsistent. The atheist will have to make absolute moral judgments but not be able to provide the worldview that can justify those judgments. Furthermore, notice the blogger took up the right to put God on trial. But who gave her the moral right to judge God? She attempts to reason independently from God’s truth only to find her self caught in a vicious circle. She judges God; she does so by the right she has given her self. She is utterly arbitrary, and question begging. And yet she has the nerve to say she’s logical.

I think even Christians with the free will defense can get out of the bloggers charges. However, I would revise the free will defense if utilized. But here is a typical example I think that is immune to the bloggers charges:    

More comments on this essay to follow.

Biblical Apologetics

Here is an excellent sketch on Presuppositional apologetics by Sye Ten Burggencate.

Some helpful material I compiled from Van Til, Bahnsen, Anderson, Lisle, and Cheung.

5 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to


make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;


yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15






As this verse says "make a defense" that comes from the Geek ἀπολογία which


means to give an argument or reasoned response. Thus as Christians we are to be


ready to give an argument for our faith with Christ at the center of it. Our


argument is to honor Christ's lordship and our actions are to exemplify


likeness of Christ. We are to be gentle and respectful to all who ask of us a


justification of our faith.






"2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach


all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's


mystery, which is Christ,


3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col 2:2-3






"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and


instruction." Proverbs 1:7






"1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do


abominable deeds, there is none who does good. " Psalm 14:1






Biblical Guidelines

"1. That we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology: the


self-attesting, self-explanatory Christ of Scripture.


2. That we no longer make an appeal to "common notions" which Chris- tian and


non-Christian agree on, but to the "common ground" which they actually have


because man and his world are what Scripture


says they are.


3. That we appeal to man as man, God's image. We do so only if we set the


non-Christian principle of the rational autonomy of man against the Christian


principle of the dependence of man's knowledge on God's knowledge as revealed


in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.


4. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to


hold. It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of


Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of "chance."


5. That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition." The Christian, as did


Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The


only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself.


6. That we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of


Scripture by sinners who, being alienated from God, seek to flee his face, comes


about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably clear evidence, opens


their eyes so that they see things as they truly are.


7. That we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as


clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is,


the non-Christian will be able to under- stand in an intellectual sense the


issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him what


he "already knows" but seeks to suppress. This "reminding" process provides


a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the


non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is life eternal. "[1]





An easy apologetics outline: AIM

A- Arbitrariness=Expose the unbelievers assertions that have no justification.

I- Inconsistencies= Expose any inconsistencies in what the unbeliever says.

M- Mistaken foundations for knowledge. One must demonstrate only the Christian
worldview can provide the necessary foundations or presuppositions for knowledge. Only from the Christian worldview can one claim to have knowledge (i.e. justified true beliefs) for two reasons:(1) The absolute triune God has
revealed truth to us in His Word and continues to illuminate our minds by His Spirit (2) Scripture tells us all mankind are the image bearers of God and hence possess intellects and wills that can reliably acquire knowledge.[2] The goal is to show the unbeliever must assume the Christian viewpoint to know
anything with certainty. If any unbeliever claims to have knowledge of anything, he can never be certain since one must either be God or know God to have knowledge of anything. That is because one must be everywhere at once, be outside of time and control everything in order to know something. Since all facts are related to each other. And in order for one to know a fact in its proper context one must know them all.









   Unbelievers either reason in a circle putting human reason or experience on the


throne as ruler and ultimate standard of their knowledge. We must show only God


and His Word can rightly be the ultimate standard and authority. Only God can


give us knowledge. Christians, too, argue in a circle. But our circle from God’s


Word provides the necessary foundations/assumptions for knowledge. Moreover, the


circle is rational since the authority appealed to as ultimate is in fact


Ultimate, namely God. Unbelievers are forced into skepticism and/or fideism.[3]





  If a Christian gets stumped he can always resort to these questions that can


be phrased in different forms.



“1. Why? A question that demands reasons for whatever is asserted by the


unbeliever so the mistaken foundation can be exposed.


2. So? This question seeks to counter irrelevant things the unbeliever asserts.


3. Really? The question exposes the fact Christianity is the truth and the


unbeliever ought to reexamine his view. But most of all it gives Christians


opportunity to show the unbeliever the necessity of presupposing the Christian


worldview in order to have knowledge.”[4]








   [1] Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. rev. (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), pp.298-99.




[2] I made my own acronym from Jason Lisle. The Ultimate Proof Of Creation. (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009),pp.84-95.




[3] James Anderson via email




[4] Vincent Cheung. Students in the Real World. http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf p.76.