• Be Prepared Article by R.C. Sproul

    FROM TABLETALK | November 2010

    Never argue with the man with the microphone. On several occasions, I’ve been invited to appear on radio or television programs for interviews by controversial hosts. For the most part, I have declined these interviews because of the format in which they are structured. Though they promise the opportunity for open debate, such debate is rarely forthcoming. There are certain hosts who are ruthless in their treatment of their guests and get away with it because of the power of the microphone. Whoever controls the microphone controls the game. If the host makes a particular statement, the guest must rely … View Resource

  • J. Gresham Machen: The Politically Incorrect Fundamentalist Article by D.G. Hart

    FROM TABLETALK | March 1992

    One of the lesser-known aspects of J. Gresham Machen’s (1881–1937) brilliant and stormy career was his nomination in 1926 to be Princeton Seminary’s professor of apologetics. Since 1906, Machen had taught New Testament at Princeton and distinguished himself as the foremost conservative biblical scholar of his generation through books on the apostle Paul and the virgin birth of Christ. Yet, the field of apologetics was not foreign to Machen, as evidenced by his popular book Christianity and Liberalism (1923), a work that forcefully defended traditional Christianity. Nevertheless, what made Machen’s nomination to the chair of apologetics unusual was not his … View Resource

  • The Politization of Truth: The New Sophism Article by R.C. Sproul

    FROM TABLETALK | March 1992

    In October of 1991, the American people were riveted to the drama of the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. Then, a twist of biting irony took place when Anita Hill emerged with allegations of sexual harassment. After Professor Hill testified before a watching world, Clarence Thomas reappeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But something had changed. A marked contrast appeared in the demeanor of Judge Thomas from what he described as his “real” confirmation hearing. Thomas was angry. Sensing that his appointment to the Court was lost and that he had nothing else of a political nature to lose, … View Resource