Here is a recommendation for a unique individual with his own peculiar views that runs in the classical apologist stream of thought. He and I disagree both theologically and philosophically, but he has good materials. Check out his website here. http://www.inspiringphilosophy.org/ Continue reading InspiringPhilosophy
I was arguing with some Unitarians recently and they were using a few proof texts. Hebrews 1:3 states: And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, This is common anti-trinitarian prooftext. The idea is that Jesus is a “copy” of God as unitarian Greg Stafford argued with Dr. James White. Here Steve Hays speaks on it: As to Heb 1:3, we need to keep … Continue reading Revelational Christology
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
This is an old debate exchange between B. C. Askins (presuppositional apologist) and Dan Courtney (atheist). Here are the parts: B. C.: Part 1 Dan: Part 2 B. C.: Part 3 Dan: Part 4 B. C.: Part 5 Dan: Part 6 Continue reading B.C. Askins vs Dan Courtney
I have for a long time held a hatred for the metaphor of the “two books” that those who consider themselves scientifically enlightened use as some sort of theological point. It usually is a ploy to undermine the inerrancy and authority of scripture. I have talked about it here. I wish to share Steve Hays’ thoughts on the issue: “God gave humanity two primary sources of revelation about himself: the world that he created and the Scripture that he inspired. These are also known as the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture…God is a God of truth. As the author of … Continue reading Two Books
This is the beginning of a series of articles related to the issue of Christianity and Science. These are a short defense of the idea that Christianity is necessary for science. Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part … Continue reading A start for a philosophy of Christian science: Part 1
This is part six of my series on science. Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Bibliography. The Biblical Perspective on Science What is the biblical view of providence? Is it natural law? Is it indeterministic? We must have a biblical view of God’s providence, in order to dictate what Christian science would be. What’s the biblical evidence? The Bible pictures him acting with the creation directly and indirectly. We should speak of God acting in time, like when he creates light … Continue reading A start for a philosophy of Christian science: Part 6
This is the fifth part in the series on science. Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Bibliography. Doesn’t the fossil record prove Darwinism? Well, no. It is difficult to imagine how it actually could. I’m going to appeal simply to those who would know better about this subject than myself. Those being the likes of William Dembski and Jonathan Wells. Here is the article I’m quoting and using: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/why_fossils_can/ 1. Scientist and philosophers of science have stated that they think their … Continue reading A start for a philosophy of Christian science: Part 5
This is the third part of the series. Here are the other parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, and Bibliography. Here is a very short introduction to philosophers Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and other 20th century views. Sir Karl Popper view: He had a prescriptive view about how science must be done: one should give a bold hypothesis to explain phenomena, and, only then, he would empirically test it. If you falsified the theory you would junk it or you would test a theory and get … Continue reading A start for a philosophy of Christian science: Part 3
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.