Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
The rC Campaign Presses Downward
04/19/2007 - James WhiteEver intent upon demonstrating that the "r" part of "rC" is a meaningless addition, the boys of the oxymoronic blog have provided some hum-dingers of late. Both Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe have used the "post something that is ultra nasty and names names and demonstrates we are as sectarian as they come and detest conservative Calvinists with a passion but then pull it so you have some kind of deniability but make sure it is up long enough to get noticed anyway" ploy of late to go after yours truly and others of my "ilk." Enloe continues to seethe in his detestation of his former allies and friends, a sad state of affairs that many of us had hoped time, marriage, and family, would at least minimize if not alleviate. We were wrong. Just a few days ago Enloe posted a long diatribe that included these paragraphs (which I had in the logs of our chat channel: the post disappeared later in the day):
Note: I know we’re all trying to let this sort of stuff go, but it seems best to put it up here, where I know it will be seen. Comments on this post will remain closed, because there’s no sense in inviting another spontaneously-degenerating non-discussion with White’s followersWow, can you feel the love? The "catholic spirit"? I sure can. The rest of the post was just as bad. That warm, "catholic" spirit was exemplified just a few weeks ago by Kevin Johnson, the coffee maker who has spent his recent years dogging Douglas Wilson, and now John MacArthur and Phil Johnson, when he posted this winner:
In the name of accountability for myself, I want to modify one thing I recently said about White in a comment thread on Crimson Catholic’s blog. I said that White seems unacquainted with intellectual alternatives and gives very simplistic presentations that lead his puppy-dog like Internet followers astray. I even went so far as to say that in many ways White and his like-minded followers “are, as a general rule, a blot on the serious discipline of Christian theology and apologetics.”
Instead, you will find 8 in 10 who appear to suck up every simplistic thing White says as if it’s gospel-truth itself–and then rush vigorously to his defense on message boards all over the Internet anytime anyone says something against him. Of course, it is the responsibility of these lemming-like people to do some serious work for themselves, but it’s exactly the point that they don’t do any serious work for themselves.
I listened in horror today to James White and Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega "Ministries" cackling over an errant suicidal man who called their ministry offices ( you can listen here, the comments were made somewhere after 47min). I don't normally listen to this broadcast anymore but I caught someone linking to it in agreement about something else. After listening to the mocking tone and carelessness with which these guys talked about this suicidal institutionalized man that dared to try to reach out to these so-called apologists, I just sat dumbstruck wondering whether it would be better to describe these guys as the Beavis and Buttheads of the apologetic world or the sort of cackling witches mentioned in Macbeth I've mentioned elsewhere in noting what I considered to be ministerial abuse. The care of errant souls outside the purview of proper apologetic concerns. Hmmm.
Again, isn't it wonderful to experience such an open hearted ecumenism? Johnson pulled the paragraph a few hours later, just like Enloe. I guess for the rC's, it is their loving, open-hearted form of unity, or none at all.
Meanwhile Paul Owen has been demonstrating how far off the radar screen from where he once claimed to be he currently is. Nothing new there. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
C. Gordon Olson and Ephesians 1:11
04/18/2007 - James WhiteC. Gordon Olson needs to be held to the standard his own writings have placed upon him. As we have begun noting, Olson seems to view himself as one with sufficient basis to overthrow the consensus translations of all major English translations of the Bible as long as it fits into his "mediate theology," i.e., his particular brand of synergism. Should someone say he is merely suggesting these translations and understandings as a mere possibility, a quick glance at his writings will disabuse you of this very quickly. Note this paragraph from page 63 of his larger work, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism:
Augustinian theology is an extreme extrapolation of the biblical data: it is not only risky but dangerous. Since the Old Testament says so little about God's decrees and the New even less (zero), the decrees of Calvinistic theology are pure speculation. All discussion about the logical or chronological order of God's decrees in eternity past is absolute nonsense. It is worse than the medieval theologians' discussions about the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.He then goes on to say that "Ephesians 1:11 has been grossly pulled out of its context and extrapolated to make it a reference to an all-inclusive decree(s), when the subject at hand is God's gracious plan of salvation, planned by the Father and implemented by the Son of God." Before examining his incredible re-translation of Ephesians 1:11, let us note that to argue that there is little to nothing about God's "decrees" based upon the usage of the single term "decree" is without merit. I have no idea how Olson can read through the trial of the false gods in Isaiah 40-48 and not see that terms like purpose and intention intertwine with the theme of creatorship to lead us directly to the concept of God's decree, but he manages to pull it off. Contrast his presentation with material such as this.
How to Misuse Scholarly Resources
Let's begin with a few of the standard English translations of Ephesians 1:11:
NASB also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,...
ESV In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
NET In Christ we too have been claimed as God's own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will
ASV in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
CSB In Him we were also made His inheritance, predestined according to the purpose of the One who works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will,
ERV in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
KJV In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
NIV In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
NKJ In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,
NRS In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will,
RSV In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will,
And let's throw Tyndale in for good measure:
that is to saye in him in whom we are made heyres and were therto predestinate accordynge to the purpose of him which worketh all thinges after the purpose of his awne will:
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
C. Gordon Olson on John Calvin and the Gift of Faith
04/17/2007 - James SwanC. Gordon Olson presents a fair amount of historical analysis in Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism. Coming under scrutiny is none other than John Calvin. One curious historical tidbit by Olson is the implication Calvin did not believe faith is the gift of God given to a specific chosen people. Of Calvinists believing faith is a gift from God, Olson says, "Contemporary Calvinists have gone far beyond Calvin in this area and show a serious lapse into a scholastic deductionism rather than giving preference to direct Scriptural inductive study" (p. 228).
Olson notes inductive Biblical study proves faith is not "...the immediate, direct gift of God..." (p.228). Olson says, "...God is never represented in Scripture as striking people with faith as a direct gift...". He then offers a number of proofs. A subcategory in this section is entitled, Faith is always ascribed to man, not God. Olson then quotes Calvin for support:
"The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.... When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ" [Calvin's Commentary on Ephesians 2:8, bolded text by Olson).
From Olson's quote, it would appear Calvin is right with him. Olson is intent on showing faith is something man has the ability to muster up without it being given by God. He molds Calvin's quote to say this. But notice the "..." (indicating he left some of Calvin's words out). The section missing is pertinent. Calvin says,
"Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain undiminished."
The act of faith would be the direct consequence of free will, and it would indeed be something man could contribute to his salvation. But even more troubling with Olson's interpretation of Calvin is his lack of research into Calvin's view of the gift of faith throughout his writings. If Olson is correct, I shouldn't be able to find clear affirmations Calvin believed faith is the gift of God, statements from Calvin like these:
"[Paul] exhorts the Ephesians to remember (Ephesians 2) that they were saved by grace, not by themselves nor by their own works.... Faith, moreover, precedes justification, but in such a sense, that in respect of God, it follows. What they [Roman Catholics] say of faith might perhaps hold true, were faith itself, which puts us in possession of righteousness, our own. But seeing that it too is the free gift of God, the exception which they introduce is superfluous. Scripture, indeed, removes all doubt on another ground, when it opposes faith to works, to prevent its being classed among merits. Faith brings nothing of our own to God, but receives what God spontaneously offers us. Hence it is that faith, however imperfect, nevertheless possesses a perfect righteousness, because it has respect to nothing but the gratuitous goodness of God" [John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent With its Antidote, (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 110].
"Now we understand that we are made partakers of all his blessings by means of faith; for this it is which brings us into communication with Christ, in order that he may dwell in us, that we may be ingrafted into him as our root, that we may be members of his body, that we may live in him, and he in us, and possess him, with all his benefits. And that it may not be thought strange that we attribute such virtue to faith, we do not take it fox a fleeting opinion, but for a certainty which we have of the promises of God, in which all these blessings are contained, and by which we embrace our Lord Jesus Christ as the surety of all our salvation, and apply to our own use what he has received of God his Father to impart unto us. This faith we likewise know that we cannot have if it be not given us from above, and as Scripture declares, (Ephesians 2:9; 1:18) till the Holy Spirit enlightens us to comprehend what is beyond all human sense, and seals in our hearts what we ought to believe" [John Calvin, Selected Works of Calvin Volume 2 (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 138].
"Since, therefore, Abraham is at this time the father of all the faithful, it, follows that our safety is not to be thought otherwise than in that covenant which God established with Abraham; but afterwards the same covenant was ratified by the hand of Moses. A difference must now be briefly remarked from a passage in Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 31:32) namely, because the ancient covenant was abolished through the fault of man, there was reed of a better remedy, which is there shown to be twofold, namely, that God should bury mens sins, and inscribe his law on their hearts: that also was done in Abraham's time. Abraham believed in God: faith was always the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore God inscribed his covenant in Abraham's heart. (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Ephesians 2:8)" [John Calvin, Commentary on Ezekiel (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 574].
"Dearly beloved brethren we must not be amazed if the article of the everlasting predestination to God, be so assaulted and fought against by Satan's maintainers, seeing it is the foundation of our salvation, and also serveth for the better magnifying of the free goodness of God towards us. On the other side those Dogs which bark against it thinking to have a good and favorable cause are therein more hardy: as in very truth there is nothing more contrary to man's understanding, than to place the cause of our salvation in the good will of God, in saying, that it belongeth to him alone to choose us: without finding of anything in us wherefore he should choose us: and after he hath chosen us, to give us faith through which we should be justified" [ John Calvin, Sermon on Election and Reprobation, (The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, Ages Digital Library, 1998), 225].
One of the primary sources Olson used for his Calvin reseach was R.T. Kendall's book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Like Norman Geisler, Olson uses the phrase extreme Calvinists in a less-than-charitable fashion. Perhaps designating Olson an extreme-Kendall-ist is appropriate. He has gone beyond one of his sources for Calvin research by attributing a position to Calvin that he did not hold. Kendall explains Calvin: ..."We cannot turn to God or do anything that pertains to obedience until first we have been given faith" (Kendall, p. 26). For C. Gordon Olson to use any comment from Calvin to prove faith is not the gift of God is simply historical sleight-of-hand.
Jerry Falwell Identifies Calvinism as Heresy
04/16/2007 - James WhiteThe irony, of course, is that not only does Falwell demonstrate tremendous inconsistency in his own presentation, and in reference to his statements of the past, but he does so at an institution that is constantly attacking Reformed theologians as "hyper-Calvinists," while he himself is the one illustrating the nature of what it means to be "hyper" by identifying the views of men like Edwards or Hodge or Spurgeon as "heresy"! Sorry for the quality, or lack thereof, of this clip, but nothing else would work. This is from Friday, April 13th (ironically):
At some point in the past Falwell knew the historical fact that substitutionary atonement is a Reformed doctrine, rejected by Arminians. I do not pretend to understand the process that wipes inconvenient historical truths from the mind, but here you have a good example of its result. What will happen, I wonder, when those high school students keep running across passages like, "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies" (Romans 8:33), or one of my favorites, "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen (NIV: "the elect"), that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Timothy 2:10)? Will C. Gordon Olson come up with a new rule of Greek grammar that precludes the translation of the term evklekto,j? Or will Ergun Caner stand on his hands on a stump and yell "whosoever will" loud enough to banish all contemplation of what the term means? One is left to wonder.
Now, of course, Falwell is unclear as to whether he is identifying as heresy only the view that Christ's death is substitutionary and a true propitiation and actually accomplishes God's intention in it (that's called "particular redemption" or "limited atonement"), or all of Calvinism, since he sort of went back and forth and did not use very specific and clear language. But given that his #1 right hand man, Ergun Caner, has refused to apologize for asserting that Calvinists are worse than Muslims, we don't need to worry too much about the details.
In contrast with this, I post again the message for the students of Liberty University from back in November, here. Enjoy!
C. Gordon Olson: Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism
04/15/2007 - James SwanC. Gordon Olson's Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism (New Jersey: Global Gospel Publishers, 2002) hasn't sold as many copies as other books against Calvinism. Since the book appears to be self-published, those in New Jersey have more copies than most other regional locations. The author lived in New Jersey when the book was released, and gave lectures in local churches based on the book. Many local NJ churches sold it in their bookstores. The book is now out-of-print. Copies on Amazon start around $79 and top out at $169. The book is 500+ pages. Quite frankly, it is an awkward read and in need of editing. Currently, it looks as if the material has been scaled down and repackaged in a book entitled: Getting The Gospel Right: A Balanced View Of Salvation Truth.
Olson took many of the anti-reformed arguments of Norman Geisler and Laurence Vance, combining them with his allegedly "inductive" and exegetical Biblical work. Olson also engages in historical examinations. At one point, he credits Dave Hunt's book, What Love Is This? as presenting "devastating chapters" of historical work on Augustine and John Calvin. Olson views Calvinism as a theology not based on clear exegetical Biblical work, but rather upon "abstruse philosophical reasonings." He says,
"There is an intellectual appeal of a difficult and labyrinthian system of theology which seems to be based upon the subtle nuancing of certain Scriptures not obvious to the simple reader and upon abstruse philosophical reasonings. This is a point which Dave Hunt makes repeatedly in his recent refutation of Calvinism, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. This is why Calvinism has attracted some of the most brilliant minds over the centuries and currently tends to be at the forefront of evangelical scholarship. Many of these subtleties are not accessible to the simple reader of Scripture, nor is their gospel the simple gospel accessible to the babes. Those of us who don't have that intellectual brilliance can take comfort in the prayer of the Lord Jesus: 'I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight' (Mt. 11:25-26). It is not mere fideism to give priority to biblical exegesis and leave the abstruse reasonings to the philosophers.It is being responsive to the warnings of Christ and His apostles" (p.520).
These are strong words. Read Dr. White's recent examination of Olson's exegetical work on Romans 3. This is but one example of the untrustworthy nature of Olson's book. Many others can be documented. For example, Olson offers this interpretation of Philippians 1:29. Note how the interpretation is not based on an exegesis of the verse:
"Calvinists also use Philippians 1:29 (For to you it has been granted for Christs sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake...) to prove their point, but it is clear that we are given faith only in the same sense in which we are given suffering, that is, mediately through circumstances. No one would argue that suffering is an immediate and irresistible work of grace. As in the two Acts passages above [Acts 5:31 and 11:18], Paul is referring to the privilege and opportunity given to the Philippian Christians to believe, while alerting them to the fact that suffering for Christ comes with that privilege (p. 222)."
"Mediately through circumstances" is theological jargon from Olson's interpretive paradigm. He means that God uses means in offering the Gospel to a man with the ability to choose. Olson says, "God has a mediate role of carrying out much of His plan in this present world- through His agents" (p.29). What Olson is saying about Philippians 1:29 is simply that God is giving people the opportunity to have faith through the preaching of the Word. In other words, we're really not given a supernatural gift of faith via God's grace; were given situations like preaching in which we can express our faith in Him. Olson's wording is tricky, since he says "we are given faith." He definitely does not mean this- he explicitly states that "repentant faith" is within the means of spiritually dead men (chapters 4, 9, 10).
Olson says, "As in the two Acts passages above [Acts 5:31 and 11:18], Paul is referring to the privilege and opportunity given to the Philippian Christians to believe, while alerting them to the fact that suffering for Christ comes with that privilege." Olson arrives where Dave Hunt does: inserting the word "privilege" into the text of Philippians 1:29. He also adds "opportunity." The striking thing about these two words is that throughout his book, Olson accuses Calvinists of reading their theology into the Bible, rather than doing inductive study, verse by verse. Here is a striking example of just that: neither "privilege" nor "opportunity" are in the text of Philippians 1:29 (think of how many times you actually "choose" to suffer!). Suffering is more than a mediate opportunity to be either accepted or rejected. It is related to our sanctification. As the Biblical text clearly states, belief and suffering are gifts of God, used to conform Christians to the image of Christ.
Remember, Hebrews 12:2 says, "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith." You can't read Olson's inductive study of this verse, because I don't think he analyzes Hebrews 12:2 in his 500+ pages. Olson's book demonstrates once again the distinction between monergism and synergism. In monergism, the Biblical text is left to say what it says. With synergism, words and concepts need to be inserted to make the text say what it must say according to one's tradition.
C. Gordon Olson and the Many "Mistranslated" Texts on Calvinism
04/15/2007 - James WhiteC. Gordon Olson is one of the better known opponents of Reformed theology today. He is an instructor at Liberty University. This past week a student contacted me (and I assure you, I will not be divulging the student's name, for obvious reasons) with questions about the things Olson is teaching in class, and in particular, his claim that many of the key verses that relate to issues central to the gospel have been "mistranslated" not just in some versions, but in almost all versions. This caught my attention, and so I have taken some time to look into the passages noted by the student. The results have been most troubling.
I note in passing that a little net search brought up reference to Olson making a presentation at the "Grace Conference" in 2005. For those unfamiliar with the title, this would be the Hodges/Wilkin cheap-grace, anti-Lordship, anti-God has any purpose in salvation movement that is so destructive to sound theology, Christian life, and the proclamation of the gospel itself. The fact that the Reformed faith is so opposed to such falsehood should explain the constant attacks coming from that quarter.
The first argument that caught my attention was that we have missed the point of Paul in Romans 3 because Romans 3:11 should be translated "no one diligently seeks God." Now before even quoting Olson, I must say I was struck by the argument. How is this relevant to one who wishes to defend a man-centered gospel rather than the gospel of the free and powerful grace of God? This point is very useful in evaluating all such writings, whether those of Olson or Hunt or Geisler or Bryson or whoever: so often we get hung up on the details ("Oh, do the lexical sources support that rendering? Ooh, he's using Greek! He must be right!" etc.) that we fail to step back and ask the big questions first, "Does this make any sense in the over-all scheme of things?" When we step back and consider the context of Romans 3 and Paul's entire point, it is very obvious that whether this is "diligently seeking" or just "seeking" is utterly irrelevant to the role of the text in the context of Paul's apologetic for the universal sinfulness of man, let alone the role it plays in Reformed theology.
Consider: Is Paul saying "there is none really righteous (but some who are sorta-righteous)" in verse 10? Is he saying there is none who understand really well, but some who sorta understand, just enough," in verse 11? And since he latches on to the present participle, how about verse 12? "There is none who regularly does good (but there are some who do good once in a while in and of themselves)"? Have all turned aside, or just most? Have they become useless, or just mainly useless? You truly have to wonder if Paul's point is going to be sacrificed on the altar of the defense of human autonomy. How much plainer can Paul put it? The conclusion of his series of citations is not "Mankind is really sinful...though...not so bad as to be unable to do some good, have some fear, do a little seeking, etc."
But the first thing that caught my attention was a more simple point. "What, less diligent seeking will bring you salvation anyway?" This is supposed to be a defense of libertarian free will? And so I wondered, what does the text in Hebrews 11:6 say? I had to chuckle just a bit when I saw that it is the very same verb, "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. If Olson is consistent, then this would be "diligently seek Him," and so, the standard remains the same: God requires diligent seeking (Heb. 11:6), and there is none who does that (Rom. 3:11), therefore, we are back to the necessity of the work of God in the heart by the Spirit. We've taken a completely useless trip around the bend and arrived right back where we started.
Having noted this, let's still do the work required to give a proper response. Let's start with his statements regarding lexical and grammatical issues:
Most extreme Calvinists base their view on the English of Romans 3:10-11: There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God." In Paul's paraphrase of the Septuagint of Psalm 14, he was careful to use the intensified verb ekzeteo, rather than the simple zeteo. From its usage in Acts 15:17; Heb. 11:6; 12:17; and 1 Pet. 1:10, it is clear that Paul is not referring to an indifferent seeking, but a 'diligently seeking' for God. (The verb has an even more intensified force in Luke 11:50, where it is rendered 'require.') So Paul was not affirming that no one ever seeks God at all, but rather that no one diligently seeks God. It might also be significant that this verb is a present participle, which could be either gnomic or customary. It it is customary, it would refer to a regularly recurring action, and thus, could be rendered, "no one customarily and diligently seeks God." Otherwise, if neither of the above were true, Scripture would be in contradiction with itself. I could only find about fifty verses which contradict a superficial reading of Romans 3:10-11! Why do extreme Calvinists ignore the fifty and focus on the one? William A. Butler, that "brilliant and profound thinker," probably got it right: "We hold a few texts so near the eyes that they hide the rest of the Bible." In this case, it is just one text! (Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, pp. 102-103.You can make the argument that ekzeteo should be translated in an intensified fashion, however, the mere fact that it is an intensified form is not sufficient grounds for pressing the point. The context is what would cause us to go beyond the normative translation and emphasize a particular aspect of the term's semantic domain. Is there reason to do this in the text? The vast majority of translation committees working on English translations have said "no." There is nothing in the context that would suggest a "diligent seeking" versus "a less diligent, careless seeking" concept. Further, while this is, in fact, a participle, it is a substantival participle, with the article, and since it is naming a particular type of person that the apostle is negating (i.e., there is none of these folks), the person seeking to invest weight in the syntax of its present tense has to explain how any other tense of a substantival participle would have impacted the meaning. Olson simply throws these issues out, but does not substantiate them. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]
OK, This is Just Cool
04/14/2007 - James WhiteI was just about to head out for the night after finishing up the Olson blog article (above) when someone said, "I just watched this clip on GodTube, and you might find it interesting." So I clicked on it. And I sat there watching, with this odd feeling. "Man, that sounds...familiar." And the more I watched the more I realized...I was being quoted. Yeah, took me about five minutes to realize that "Dave" is Dave Hunt, and JR is yours truly (JW would confuse people!), and the script is taken from my open letter to Dave Hunt found here. Search on some keywords and you'll find the relevant portions. Now where do I get a cool looking nuclear carrier radar control fire center backdrop for my future debates?
Augustine, Schaeffer, Van Til
04/07/2007 - Jeff DownsThose names don't exactly go together, but in this post they do. You might enjoy (a break from the "nasty boys") the following...
Ken Samples Lectures on St. Augustine
Part 1 - St. Augustine's Spiritual Quest
Part 2 - Apologetic Factors in Augustine's Conversion
Part 3 - Augustine as Bishop and Theologian
Part 4 - Augustine: Philosopher and Saint
Kim Riddlebarger Lectures on Francis Shaeffer
Part 1 - The Life and Significance of Francis Schaeffer
Part 2 - Sources of his thought (Old Princeton)
Part 3 - Sources of his thought (Van Til)
Part 4 - Apologetic Methodology (Epistemology)
Part 5 - Taking the Roof Off
Part 6 - A Critical Evaluation
Also, if any of you are wondering, from my previous post, who K. Scott Oliphint and Lane Tipton are, both teach at Westminster Seminary (East) and both have some of the sharpest minds when it comes to Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics.
Here are two lectures from Lane Tipton: Implications for Human Knowledge (discusses the covenantal aspect of Van Til's apologetic), and Biblical Theology & Apologetics (this is an exposition of Acts 17:30-31). I'm assuming that most of what you'll hear in this lecture, is what you will read in his chapter titled "Resurrection, Proof, and Presuppositionalism: Acts 17:30-31" in Revelation and Reason. Tipton's doctoral dissertation, dealing with Van Til's Trinitarianism, should be published (P&R) in the next year or two. You will want to get a hold of this very important work.
Here is a lecture by Scott Oliphint titled Something Much Too Plain to Say and here is the text version. This is a critique of (atheist) Michael Martin and his Minions.