Countercult Apologetics

Click here to enter.

[Note: For some reason, I ended up with the two fingers above Dr. White's head] Dr. White is very gracious to allow me to be a part of this team (not sure why) and I’ve neglected my duties (frankly I’m not sure I have any real substance to add). Lord willing, I will begin posting more.

Well, it is about time that I shut down posting on this blog. I’m coming up on the end of my second semester (first year) of seminary in which exams are in a few weeks.

This semester has been a blast as I’ve struggled my way through Hebrew (but enjoy it very much), I’ve pulled off A’s on mid-terms for both NT Introduction and Apologetics. I am also taking logic but was able to bring in credits from another institution and so I’m only required to audit it. Well, I also have to participate in a debate, in which I have to take the evidential apologetic side (aahhgg!).

Lord willing I will have OT Intro. with Dr. Shaw this summer, plus continuing to work through Greek and Hebrew - in preparation for the fall semester. In the fall I’m hoping to take: Ancient Church History (Dr. Willborn); Hebrew 2 (Dr. Shaw); Reformed Evangelism and Missions (Dr. Curto); Hermeneutics (Dr. Curto) and Prolegomena & Theology (Dr. Smith).

If there is anyone out there interested in supporting our family through seminary, we certainly could use the help at this time. You can either contact me, contact the church we are attending or contact the seminary.

Lord willing, when I am finished with my apologetics paper I will post it over at AOMin.org, which is also where you find me (not that I’ll be posting that often).

I am also starting (next week) to teach a class on the cults at Trinity, PCA which I do hope to post the audio online. Again the links will be found over at AOMin.org.

I will keep the blog up (because of the resources), but will not be posting.

Thanks for hanging in there with me.

Dr. C.N. Willborn is one of my professors at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Lord willing I will have Ancient Church with him during the fall 2008 semester.

Dr. Willborn expresses some of the same thoughts that I have had over the years regarding the issue of training for the ministry. The difference is, he is professor at a theological seminary. Read his article titled Thoughts on Ministerial Education and Preparation. Here is a taste:

This, of course, will require pastors to become manly again—men who take their calling seriously and exercise it fully. Committing what they know and believe “to faithful men” (2 Tim 2:2). Pastors should be men who minister rather than administrate; disciple rather than manage. They are to avoid becoming entangled in anything less than that which will bear generational and eternal fruit. Where is the Calvin and the Chalmers who gave themselves to shepherding flocks and discipling the next generation of pastors?

Even though I’ve only sat under Dr. Willborn for one class thus far, I have benefitted greatly from this man, academically, but much more on a pastoral level.

I will have to say something to him though regarding his post on a blog, since he has been critical of blogging.

Listen to the two Castle Church broadcast on Van Til.

The first addresses Van Til and his apologetic click here to listen.

The second addresses Van Til and his critique of Karl Barth. Click here to listen.

Visit the Castle Church by going here. There are many other programs worth listening to.

Pastor Howard Sloan has been putting scripture to Hymns. Here are three so far:

1 Peter 1:3-9

Ephesians 1: 3-14 and

Philippians 2:5-11.

Stay tuned to this site for further updates.

Howard is the pastor of St. Paul’s Reformed Church in Bedford, PA. I would love to go back to PA after seminary and minister in this area.

What (or perhaps it would be better to ask, who) is Paul referring to in Acts 17 when he states “In him we live and move and have our being”? As you know Paul was quoting a pagan poet at this point.

If the a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness or any other member of the various cults or world religions made such a statement, “In him we live move and have our being,” could we join with them and say yes, you are correct?

Or, is something else going on (in Paul’s mind) throughout Acts 17 and particularly in this verse?

Paul Manata reviews the new biography of Van Til. Well done, Paul.

Click here to read.

NOTE: Paul even mentions that the book smells good.

The teleological argument basically states that the universe is designed. And because the universe is designed there must be a designer. Now I know there are those that claim they do not believe the universe is designed, but we also know that these individuals not only do not, but can not live life as there is no design to the universe. In his chapter titled “The Design Argument” Miduel Endara defines the teleological argument when he states “Thomas Aquinas gives us a good example of the first mode, arguing that many diverse things in the world work together in harmony, thereby necessitating a Power to account for this design quality of hte world. This Power we call God” (bold is mine).[1]

Now as one who has a deep interest in understanding idols of the heart (in particular, the cults of Christianity) and presuppositional apologetics, I spend at least some of the time, during any given day, thinking about how we can or should address the ideas of these idols.

I mentioned before on this blog that Christians should not be double minded. Specifically, our biblical theology should (and it does) dictate the way view how we know what we know, what is real and how we are to live our lives. Or as James White is frequently heard saying “theology matters.” And it matters in everything we believe and do.

When I look at the teleological argument on one hand, and the cults on the other, there is only one conclusion I come to. The teleological argument is not a good argument in reference to the cults of Christianity. In fact, you can pick up the Jehovah’s Witnesses publication Mankind’s Search for God, pages 335-41 and read the same teleological argument put forth in defense of their idol (god).

When the Christian has an encounter on their doorstep with these individuals, we defend nothing less than the particular triune God of Scripture. The one who created the heavens and the earth, and who continues to sustain the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1; John 1; Acts 17; Col. 1, etc.).

So the question is, why would we use an argument (the teleological argument in particular) to contend for the Faith once delivered, when it posits an unknown god?

Illustration
Mind you, I am not an abstract thinker and so coming up with analogies for me, is hard work. As I was thinking about the above matter this past weekend, I looked up at a painting in my home and thought, perhaps this is a good illustration for a point I want to make regarding the above.

I’m certainly aware that this analogy breaks down at points, but just because it breaks down, doesn’t mean there’s no truth to the points it’s making.

My wife and I would certainly not deny that there is a painter behind the painting on my wall. This painting is nice. It’s simply a cottage in the background with water in the front and trees on either side. Beautiful colors, etc. Neither my wife nor I know who the painter is/was, so while it sits above our fake fire place, there’s really not much meaning to it (except that it is “nice” painting). Since we do not know the painter, the real meaning behind the painting is lost in our own interpretation. So, while the painting is designed, the designer is unknown. It could be anyone, or any thing (i.e. computer). In some circles, not knowing who the painter is, makes all the difference in the world (i.e it could render the painting worthless). To put it positively, when a certain painter paints and he puts his name upon it, it could be worth millions of dollars and it means such much to people.

The meaning of the painting is worth it’s weight since the particular painter not only makes himself known, but his name on it also tells us how he or she designed the painting, what their motivations were and what they wanted to communicate in the painting. The point being, knowing the artist makes a difference. It adds his meaning and value.

For the teleological argument, there isn’t much meaning to it when we don’t know who the particular designer is. Obviously I agree with Van Til when he states “We are not interested in discussing the existence of a God the nature of whom we do not know. We must first ask what kind of God Christianity believes in before we can really ask with intelligence whether such a God exists. The what proceeds the that; the connotation precedes the denotation; at least the latter cannot be discussed intelligently without once considering the former” [2].

In light of the fact that your apologetic and theology should coincide, do you think the teleological argument is beneficial, .
—
[1] Norman Geisler & Chad Meister, Eds. Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007, 217.
[2] Cornelius Van Til Christian Apologetics (2nd ed.) Ed. William Edgar. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003), 24.
===

UPDATE: I do disagree with some of the comments made so far, although there are some I certainly agree with. But at this time I’m not going to make any further comments in this thread. My thoughts will come out in additional subsequent posts.

Scott Oliphint spoke at Mount Calvary PCA Walnut Grove, SC back in October of 2007. The audio is online for you to listen and download.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3 (Note: This was a Sunday School class. The link does not work. If I can get the right link I will correct it)

Part 4

Books authored or co-author by Dr. Oliphint:

Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics. Ed. K. Scott Oliphint & Lane G. Tipton (P&R, 2007; ISBN#: 9-78087-55259-69).

Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. K. Scott Oliphint (P&R 2006, ISBN#: 0-8755-2645-4).

The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith. K. Scott Oliphint (P&R, 2003; ISBN#: 0-8755-2561-X).

Here are some of Dr. Oliphint’s writings.

Don’t miss the new site Classic Works in Apologetics.

Here is a bit about the collection.

What do we mean by “classic”?

By “classic” we mean:

Belonging to the highest rank or class.
Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture.
Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
….as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary.

The works on this site provide answers for those investigating the claims of orthodox Christianity. They address the centuries-old arguments from skeptics, and demonstrate the intellectual and historical foundations of Christianity.

Most of these works are in the public domain. For those that aren’t, we have secured permission to post them here for personal, scholarly, non-commercial use. We also link to other sites that possess the material, such as Christian Classics Ethereal Library If there is no link, these are “recommended reads” which we hope to be able to post someday or else are “coming soon.”

We hope you enjoy these works and learn from them as they form an essential part of our apologetics heritage. More will be added as we seek permission or find more material.

How to use the collection.

Works are indexed by author last name. We also have a Special Collections section where items are arranged by topic.

Discussion? Corrections? Contributions?

We have a thread on the TheologyWeb forum where you can post questions, make recommendations, or otherwise note issues with the site.