Monthly Archives: July 2010

Jul 31

Closing the Week (7/31/2010)

Posted on by

It’s been a busy week!

Thanks for reading!

Jul 31

Event: Resolved Conference 2011, June 24-27

Posted on by

Dates: 6/24/2011 – 6/27/2011 (Friday – Monday)

Time: TBA

Location:

Palm Springs Convention Center
277 N Avenida Caballeros
Palm Springs, CA 92262  (Google Maps)

Speakers: John MacArthur, C.J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Steve Lawson, Rick Holland

Registration: Online (registration opens on 1/1/2011)

Website: http://www.resolved.org/conference/

Jul 31

Event: Rezolution 2010, October 14-17, Johannesburg

Posted on by

Click to Enlarge

Piper 2 Pastors

Date: 10/14/2010 (Thursday)

Schedule:

09:00 – 10:45 Session 1

11:15 – 12:45 Session 2

13:30 – 14:00 Q&A

14:00 – 15:30 Session 3

Location:

CCCI Church in Pretoria
56 Saal Street, Zwavelpoort
Pretoria East (Google Maps)

Cost: R150 (includes lunch)

Rezolution 2010

Dates: 10/15/2010 – 10/17/2010

Schedule:

Friday (Oct. 15)

19:30-21:00 Evening Session

Saturday (Oct. 16)

09:00 – 10:30 Morning Session 1

11:30 – 13:00 Morning Session 2

15:30 – 17:00 Afternoon Session

19:00 – 21:00 Evening Session

Sunday (Oct. 17)

09:00 – 10:30 Morning Session

Speakers: John Piper, Conrad Mbewe, Stuart Townend

Location:

Sandton Convention Center
Maude Street
Sandton 2196, South Africa
011 779 0000 (Google Maps)

Cost: R250

Website: http://www.rezolution.co.za/HOME.html

Jul 31

Event: Desiring God Conference, October 1-3

Posted on by


Theme: “Think: The Life of the Mind & the Love of God”

Date: October 1-3

Venue: Minneapolis Convention Center

Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Speakers: R.  Albert Mohler, Jr., R.C. Sproul, Thabiti Anyabwile, Francis Chan, Rick Warren, John Piper

Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2010/


Jul 30

Arminian “Presuppositionalism” Continued…

Posted on by

Jamin Hubner mentioned my blurb about Kerrigan Skelly’s video on presuppositional apologetics on Pros Apologian (thanks!). He offered some good comments that bear repeating:

First is the rejection of natural theology. The unbeliever has knowledge of God, but due to his depravity (the first point of Calvinism TULIP) he suppresses it. The classical arguments will never suffice for the same reason 66 books of evidence won’t suffice: he’s spiritually dead, and he needs to be shown his bias against God before gaining a proper orientation of life. Without the Calvinist/biblical teaching of depravity, one could adhere to classicalism as much as presuppositionalism regarding this central issue.

Second is the absolute sovereignty of God and Lordship of Christ coupled with sola scriptura. Classical apologetics is built from a Roman Catholic foundation that does not require that a believer (a) develop an apologetic method from Scripture or (b) begin with Scripture to engage in apologetics. Both are distinctive of presuppositional apologetics. In short, presuppositional Arminians (ie Kerrigan Skelly, Tim Chaffey, etc.) are simply unaware of their inconsistency, and need to come into grips with the fact that our theology gives rise to our apologetic methodology. If that can be admitted, it is clear that only presuppositional apologetics fits Reformed theology – that is, only biblical apologetics fits biblical theology.

Jul 30

James White on Matt Slick vs. Robert Sungenis

Posted on by

On the Dividing Line as of late, Dr. James White has been going over Matt Slick’s debate/discussion with Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis. The following episodes are worth checking out of the topic of the bodily assumption of Mary:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(blog)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(blog)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(blog)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(blog)

I’m personally learning a lot from these shows. I would recommend them to you if you are either a)  a Roman Catholic who is convinced that there is solid basis for the Marian Dogmas (such as the bodily assumption of Mary) or b) a protestant who is unaware of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and how to counter them with solid, scriptural answers.

It is definitely interesting to hear James White stop the recording of Faith & Reason and discuss what is going on, what his response would have been (given his past experience debating Sungenis and other Catholics), etc. For example at one point (on the 7/22 show) Dr. White asked what conditions were necessary for sola scriptura to be in effect? Think simple here, there needs to be scriptura! The point is that we do not live in an age of inscriptureation (sp?). Roman Catholics try to press us into defending sola scriptura before the scriptures were complete. If we fall into that trap we are going to try to defend a difficult position.

Paul’s words (spoken orally) to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:13) can not support the Marian Dogma of the bodily assumption because aside from the writings of the New Testament we do not possess any of the apostles’ teachings. It is many centuries before we have any written record of this being taught.

Jul 29

An Arminian Presuppositionalist?

Posted on by

I’m watching this video of this guy who runs, among other websites, www.refutingcalvinism.com (which re-directs to a YouTube Channel). What is odd about this video is that he is teaching presuppositional apologetics (which is a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic). I’m about 1/4 of the way though and I though I would share it with you and ask for your thoughts. The guy’s name is Kerrigan Skelly, btw.

My thoughts are this:
1. Calvinism (and presuppositional apologetics) has a distinct understanding of man. Specific to the topic, man is under the noetic effects of sin, his mind and its processes are corrupted by the fall into sin (this would be part of the T, Total Depravity). Presuppositional apologetics consciously attempts to address man as such, pointing out the inconsistencies between how he lives and what he professes to believe. (Consistent) Arminians deny Total Depravity as taught by most Calvinists, usually granting that fallen and unregenerate man has some capacity to understand and accept the things of God completely and entirely on his own. I just heard of Mr Skelly so I’m not sure where he falls on this scale.

2. Presuppositional apologetics was pioneered by Calvinists. If you read anything by Cornelius Van Til you will have no doubt that he was true to the reformed faith as true could be. He taught at Westminster Seminary, headed their apologetics department, he constantly quoted Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Archibald Hodge, Charles Hodge, etc. And of course the Theologian himself, John Calvin. Van Til’s students Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Rousas John Rushdoony, etc. How consistent can an Arminian be who attempts to utilize a distinctively Calvinistic apologetic? (Take this question as half polemic/half inquisitive)

I’ve never heard of Mr. Skelly before so any info would be cool if you know about him or his ministry (Pin Point Evangelism)

Jul 29

VIDEO: David and Nabeel Return To Dearborn

Posted on by

Acts 17 Enters the Dearborn Arab Festival (PART ONE)


David and Nabeel discuss what happened last year (2009) and why they came back to Dearborn. This video was shot less than 3 hours before their false arrest by Dearborn Police.

Acts 17 Enters the Dearborn Arab Festival (PART TWO)


This video is a continuation of the first one.

Jul 28

Venn Diagram: Acts 17 in the Dearborn Saga

Posted on by

Let’s talk logic. I’m no logician but I’ve read a few books and taken a class here or there. The Dearborn Four were arrested at the Arabic Festival in Dearborn Michigan last month. It is true that there were other Christians at the festival. It is true that some of them were not harassed (Josh McDowell was happy to point this out). Pop quiz, does it logically follow that if some Christians were not harassed that all Christians were not harassed?  Answer: no

Well, does it follow that if some Christians were harassed that all Christians were harassed? Answer: no

Factor in to my colloquial musing the video cameras and willingness to demand the constitution be applied and you get the following:

David Wood was kind enough to use my diagram on Answering Muslims to help illustrate the point that one of the marks of injustice is not always the mis-treatment of an entire class or group; a sub-class being alienated and treated differently than their peers is also a violation of justice. No one is claiming that all Christians were harassed at the Dearborn Arab Festival. If you have heard that I would adjure you to watch the videos and read the blogs carefully. See if that claim is actually being made by the victims, or if it is being made up by their critics.