Category: apologetics
2 Corinthians 3:17 and the Trinity
The Trinity and John 17:3
Frame, Bahnsen, and Anderson.
Here are some reformed apologetics audios: Dr. Cornelius Van Til: Philosophy and Apologetics Modern Theology Christianity in Conflict Christ and Man Dr. John Frame: History of philosophy and Christian thought https://presupp101.wordpress.com/donations/john-frame-mp3s/ Christian apologetics Frame on Ethical decision making Lecture on knowledge Lecture on Apologetics What is presuppositional apologetics? Frame on Ethics Dr. Greg Bahnsen: https://presupp101.wordpress.com/donations/greg-bahnsen-mp3s/ Bahnsen vs Sproul Myth of Neutrality Reasoning with Unbelievers Stein vs Bahnsen Final sermon Smith vs Bahnsen Worldviews in conflict Evolution and Islam Dr. James Anderson: James Anderson MP3’s Dr. James Anderson and the History of philosophy and Christian thought Dr. James Anderson and Christian … Continue reading Frame, Bahnsen, and Anderson.
How to flunk Soteriology101?
I will criticize Dr. Leighton Flowers based on bad argumentation and faulty reasoning. I have talked to him and he seems like a nice guy. He just has the strangest way of being obsessed with Calvinism. This will hopefully be … Continue reading How to flunk Soteriology101?
Is Easter Pagan?
Divine conceptualism is Univocism?
Some very great men that I admire think that Divine conceptualism employs univocal reasoning. Dr. James Anderson and Dr. Greg Welty have responses to such a charge. Mainly in responses to Nate Shannon. “Nevertheless, one might worry that identifying propositions with divine thoughts breaches the Creator-creation distinction. Do we really want to say that God himself is the propositional content of all our human thoughts? Doesn’t that in some sense bring God “down to our level”? If that’s the concern, I think there’s a relatively straightforward solution to it. We can say that one part of the creation is a … Continue reading Divine conceptualism is Univocism?
Introduction to Revelational Epistemology
Pluralism?
Jimmy Stephens has taken a stab at the pluralist objection to TAG. “1.) All worldviews which hold to two contradictory propositions are irrational. 2.) Pluralism holds that an infinite set of worldviews are necessarily possibly true. 3.) All infinite sets of worldviews contain worldviews which contradict Pluralism. 4.) Pluralism holds to two contradictory propositions: [a] that pluralism is necessarily true and [b] that pluralism is not necessarily true. 6.) Therefore, Pluralism is irrational.” Continue reading Pluralism?
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.