The Kingdom Come

In my ongoing study of epistemology -- how we know what we know -- I was reading some comments by a "Clarkian" (a person who follows Gordon Clark's epistemological model), who was arguing that a phrase such as "the sky is blue" is an axiom that can neither be proven or disproved. He argues against the classic Christian epistemology which starts with "God is", or "God exists" hence the entire point of the "I AM THAT I AM" statement from God when Moses asked Him his name in Ex 3:14.

Couple this with Romans 1:20 which says:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..."

We see that God is making the case that He is the AXIOM.

I am glad to hear that former hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost has left the movement. And during his recent exchanges with one of his former proteges', Mike Bennett it appears Sam won't be straddling the fence anymore. He is even using terms like "historic Christian Faith" -- what I have been arguing for since the get go -- no modified "Realized Preterism" for me. But Sam STILL needs to check his ego. He recently claimed this:

"I have single handedly popped their Full Preteristⁱ bubble, and many have come out of this movement as a result." -- source

Really? So, the YEARS and YEARS of work by folks such as Ken Gentry, Dee Dee Warren, Todd Dennis, Vince Krivda, PaulT, and myself had no effect? Sam takes credit for "single-handedly" popping the Full Preterist bubble???

Athanasius was the 4th-century Christian theologian known for his epic and unwavering stance against anti-Trinitarians called Arians (source). But even more, Athanasius was often alone in his defense of the historic Christian Faith. I don't mean that Athanasius was a rebel who had a doctrine different than the rest of Christianity, rather that while Athanasius was consistently in line with the teachings of historic Christianity, there were times in his life that the "leaders" of the segment of the Church of which he was part abandoned the historic Christian doctrine.

On the other side of this is the TRUE rebel who reads the Bible and claims they alone have come to a conclusion different than every other Christian in history. Such a person often comes up with a doctrine never taught in historic Christianity and when people reject this doctrine and the person advocating it, the person may go into "Martyr Complex" mode -- woe is me, I'm being persecuted for Christ's sake -- when in reality they are being opposed for their OWN sake.

As a regular listener to the Rush Limbaugh show, I find that liberalism is almost identical in the theological world as it is in the political. You have all the same elements; liberals, conservatives, "RINOS" (Republican in Name Only) compromisers and those who will say anything to be loved and accepted by whichever group seems to be carrying the tide.

In theological circles I have found that it is not so much what a person says, or even how they say it; but who they are. If your name has been vilified; then no matter what you say it will be rejected or ignored. Another person can say almost the EXACT same thing, with perhaps even a harsher tone and their words will be pondered or praised.

Sometimes when Christians think of the word presuppose they consider it a negative since Christians want not to presuppose or assume but rather allow the Bible to determine our beliefs. But theologically and philosophically speaking, everyone presupposes when is comes to claims or propositions. What is important is whether our presuppositions are accurate or are flawed.

In this 44 minute podcast Roderick is joined by Dr. James Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary as Dr. Anderson gives an introductory summation of Presuppositionalism and especially how it is articulated from the two dominant "schools"; that of the late Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark.

Sometimes when in discussion with atheists or people resisting Christianity, or religion in general you will hear the claim that religion has been the cause of the most human suffering and death in the world. Typically, events like the Crusades, the so-called "witch hunts" and the Inquisition will be trotted out as proof. And many Christians will shrink back or will say something like, "Even so, Christianity as it was espoused by Christ is non-violent." Although it is true that Christianity as espoused by Christ was to be spread not by the sword (as Islam is designed), but by the Word, by mere preaching. But why should we allow the atheist to even use the Crusades and such as evidence in their claim that most human suffering and death has been caused by religion. It plainly is not true.

What I want to do is offer a detailed listing of human death from the 18th century through the 20th century and see if the claim is true. Yes, we'll also look at the Crusades, the witch hunts and the Inquisition.

The following is for friends and family who have recently made professions of Faith or those who are "giving religion a try".

What does it mean to "get saved"?  Saved from what?  Does it mean you won't go to hell when you die?  What happens when you are "saved"?  Do you suddenly start being a "good person"?  Do you start acting all churchy and religious?  When you "get saved", is there a list of "dos" and "don'ts" you suddenly must live by?

Well, first typically "getting saved" ISN'T something you just wake up one day and decide to do. 

What follows is an interaction with Dr. Kenneth Talbot, president of Whitefield Theological Seminary concerning methods of refuting the heresy of hyperpreterismⁱ.  This interaction originally began on a website called Theology Explained.  Actually, it was never supposed to be an interaction, but merely a "position paper" stating my position.  Dr. Talbot responded to it in "debate" fashion which is apparently against the rules since the site administrator closed down the thread and stated the site is not a debate site.  The problem is, whether the administrator closed the thread after my response or Dr. Talbot's response -- it would be unfair to either.  So, instead of playing that game, I have moved the entire interaction to MY OWN site where I can allow the interaction to continue as long as it will.  I won't close down comments AFTER they have begun.

As my site does NOT require a person to sign up to post comments, Dr. Talbot is welcome to continue his interaction.  Either way, I will be forcefully responding to the many false charges Dr. Talbot has put forth.

NOTE: The links to the site TheologyExplained where this debate originally occurred are now broken as that site administrator apparently deleted the debate to protect Dr. Talbot from himself.

Most of the time you will hear a Christian witness or evangelize an unbeliever by saying something like "Jesus died for you", or "Jesus has a wonderful plan for your life", or "If you died today are you certain where you will spend eternity?"

Is this how we are supposed to witness?  Is this how we see the apostles doing it in the Bible?

Perhaps of all places in the Bible, Acts 17:16-34 is the most relevant example to our modern, agnostic world.  In the account, we see Paul witnessing to Greek unbelievers.  Notice how he uses what they already believe or acknowledge.

Nothing is more discouraging than betrayal and perhaps nothing more discouraging to Christians than betrayal by other Christians. Christians are supposed to CONTEND FOR THE FAITH...but not just any faith, since heretics like to redefine "faith", we must declare loudly, the rest of the verse:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

It is the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. One thing all heresies have in common is that they are advocating some "new" faith, never practiced by the saints.

In the great debate of how we know what we know, or in theology it is called epistemology comes the question about starting points or "presuppositions".

Whether we like or not, we ALL have a presupposition or starting point when it comes to belief...belief in anything, be it religious or scientific.  These presuppositions or assumptions often determine our unfolding conclusions or "logic" to next steps.