A Presuppositional look at Mormonism

Mormonism and Moral Absolutes. The Mormon god is an exalted man of flesh and blood. He not eternal, nor is he absolute. Thus, he fails as the absolute personal, precondition for the obligation men feel to be moral. Mormonism and Laws of Logic. Since the Mormon god is not eternal, that means he can’t account for invariant (i.e., unchanging) laws of logic. If they are not based on an unchanging eternal nature, their invariance today is inexplicable. ~ Keith Thompson This is sufficient refutation, but it isn’t as robust as it should be. The ethical issue for Mormonism is that … Continue reading A Presuppositional look at Mormonism

Paul and James on justification

James 2 is often used to undermine what Paul has said in his epistles. Does James reject Sola Fide? Reformed Apologetics Ministries: James 2 DOESN’T Refute Faith Alone Triablogue: Paul and James on justification The prince and the pauper Repentance, remission, and justification Are we justified by faith and works? Faith & works Justification & sanctification TheCouncil: Sola Fide Continue reading Paul and James on justification

Hunter Avallone on Islam

Often, we see an individual that uses politics as a means of becoming prominent and almost as a new religion. I think an individual named Hunter is like that. He seems to just wish the government would become more conservative. I think we have much agreement on that, but for different reasons. He has become apostate and has accepted a rather simplistic view of naturalism. He complains about the attack in Barcelona and yet has no basis for doing such. The events of Barcelona are just matter in motion in his worldview. We reduce to atoms in a cosmic accident. … Continue reading Hunter Avallone on Islam

An Example of Apologetic Conversation On Moral Antirealism

    Recently an unbelieving buddy of mine, with whom I chat over the net rather frequently, invited me to a thread over on The Thinking Atheist. The topic reads, Challenge to proponents of objective morality, and the OP sets up a trifold “challenge” for proponents of moral realism. Based on the contributing minds over at The Thinking Atheist forums as well as comments following the OP, it remains dubious to me whether anyone has a clear idea what is even meant by “objectivity” under the topic of (meta-) ethics, but nevertheless, my buddy convinced me to throw in two cents as … Continue reading An Example of Apologetic Conversation On Moral Antirealism

Thayer’s Strikes Back

In discussion with fellow Christians that are committed to their traditions will use outdated materials to defend their beliefs. These desperate maneuvers to preserve a position is quite bad. I’m not directing this at anyone, but I’m leaving that for future discussions. Josh Smith(Calvinist Klein) directs you to Wallace: “…in 1895, Adolf Deissmann published his Bibelstudien – an innocently titled work that was to revolutionize the study of the NT. In this work (later translated into English under the title Bible Studies) Deissmann showed that the Greek of the NT was not a language invented by the Holy Spirit (Hermann … Continue reading Thayer’s Strikes Back

Universal Agreement

It is often presented by certain individuals that a universal agreement exists in certain debates. This may be possible, but often it is an attempt to be intellectually lazy and maybe even deceptive. In a discussion about Election in the New Testament an individual proclaimed that the Jews had a uniform concept of Election that is very alien to that of Protestant and Reformed thought. That the Pharisees, Essenes, and Sadducees all agreed on the issue of Election. Fundamental to any study of the history of Judaism in Late Antiquity is the question of how to understand the diversity of … Continue reading Universal Agreement