An Apologetics Quiz

Who said this:

"Thus, the highest proof of scripture derives in general form the fact that God in person speaks in it. The prophets and apostles do not boast either of their keenness or of anything that obtains credit for them as they speak; nor do they dwell upon rational proofs. Rather, they bring forward God's holy name, that by it the whole world may be brought into obedience to Him."

"Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolish or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent that all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of Himself in His Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit."

"Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught, truly rests upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning."

A) Van Til
B) Edwards
C) William Lane Craig
D) Calvin
E) Platinga

Still Not Afraid :-)

As I've made more progress into my new read pictured a post or two back, I've discovered two things: 1) The book probably isn't as "laymen" friendly as the author would like to think (in the first few pages alone, he uses the terms zeitgeist and demythologize--but hey, PCA laymen are probably more broadly read than most). And 2) Where my affinity for postmodernism came from - namely, presuppositional apologetics. Smith argues that this approach to apologetics rests on an epistemological approach that is shot through with pomo (i.e. no such thing as a brute fact, all evidence is interpreted, etc.). I couldn't figure out why or where I began to enjoy postmodernism rather than decry its evils. Smith helped me to see that I began the postmodern turn back with my boys Bahnsen and Van Till (who are both likely either rolling over in their graves or rejoicing in the presence of angels as I type this). Anyway, the more I read, the more I commend the book!

Carson on Wright

If you haven't seen it yet, you can read D.A. Carson's review of Tom Wright's Evil and the Justice of God here. While I haven't read it all yet, I read the conclusion posted on Justin Taylor's blog here and think I may understand the gist. Just as a further teaser, here's the opening paragraph:

"Tom Wright has done it again. He has written a book characterized by his usual verve and 'big picture' thinking. He says some things so wonderfully well one cannot but be greatful for his contribution. And, as usual, he reserves a place for a few things that are doubtful, mistaken, or (at best) out of proportion, or just plain annoying."

Ouch. I'm starting to think Carson has a beef with Wright. But hey, It's nice to see I'm not the only one who can't resist cheesy puns with Wright's name :-)

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

McGrath Takes on Atheism

If you haven't seen this yet, it should be worth watching: Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, debating Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, well-known atheist and supporter of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has created quite a stir in recent popular media bringing back the glory days of secular atheism. It's ironic that his modernistic approach (leaning very much on logical positivism from the snippets I've read) gains a hearing in our current post-modern culture. Anyway, McGrath has been an outspoken critic for some time now and it should be interesting to see two Oxford boys going at it. I haven't watched the video yet, in fact I haven't been online much at all in the last week, so I apologize if there are any techincal difficulties, but you can stream or download the video here.

(HT: Justin Taylor)