Archive for the ‘ Cutting Edge ’ Category

Bahnsen and Bare Possibility

Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible as the source of all material or logical possibility, and hence failing effectively to challenge or internally criticize the very feasibility of knowledge, logic, factuality, interpretation, or predication as based on the boasted autonomy of “free-thinkers”, apologists found their defenses razed by those who (likewise) postulated that bare possibility was a principle more ultimate than God. … By appealing to probability, apologists saw Christianity relegated to the museum of of mere religious hypotheses (i.e.. “possibilities”) rather than embraced as the actual truth of God.

~Greg Bahnsen (Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended; ch 1, pg 5)

Enough said. Don’t you think?

Church History Class Links

Church History Classes:

Week 1
Week 2
Weeks 3-5
Week 6
Weeks 7-8
Week 9
Weeks 10-11
Week 12

Dear Dr. Caner

I appreciate you taking the time to write your statement earlier today, as well as the irenic spirit you assayed in it. I want you to know that I appreciate that you did so, as a Southern Baptist – and that I do appreciate the work you do, despite our disagreement in many matters.

While I am appreciative, I think it may be useful – for you, and for the brethren, to clarify a few matters.

Item 1): The “motive”, to borrow your own phrase, was not to question your conversion. In fact, your conversion, as far as I know, was never referenced or questioned in the vast majority of the *Christian* articles/blogs that negatively referenced your comments on The Pastor’s Perspective, the discrepancies in your testimonials, or your recollections of life as a Muslim. I, for instance, do not question at all that you were raised Muslim, or that you converted to Christianity. What was rendered suspect was whether you were a *devout* Muslim – especially the discrepancy noted with the Shahada.

Item 2): To most of us, the pronunciation issues were a minor head-scratcher, but nothing more. In fact, one of the team bloggers at AOMin.org – TurretinFan – publicly defended you on those allegations on the most public Christian post leveled at that topic. As you may know, Muslims, Roman Catholics, atheists, and others often tout their conversions from “Protestantism,” and often inflate their level of devotion and knowledge – we call it “conversion story syndrome”. Yusuf Estes, Tim Staples, and Dan Barker are good examples of this tendency. While this may not be the case for you – there were many of the hallmarks of similar cases implied by the discrepancies noted – and it caused concern.

Item 3): You state: “Being called a “liar,” however, is a serious charge, especially when it is made by Christians. That would indicate that (1) the accusers can know the motives of the accused person’s heart, and (2) the accused person intentionally misled people.”

With all due respect, by those standards, no man can ever be called a liar, save by God. Also with due respect, by any objective standard, I would hold forth the following statements: “Calvinists are worse than Muslims” and “Formal debates have been taken over a lot by myopic Reformed guys, uh, they try to turn it into these little, uh, show ponies, it’s like the Jerry Springer Show, basically, and there’s really not any real discussion going on, there’s rolling of eyes, its huffing and passive/aggressive garbage.” Dr. Caner, both of these statements may be your opinion – but they are hardly the truth. Since they are not the truth, what else may we call them? Couple that with your statements on hyper-calvinism, and we can take nothing out of that series of comments but that we are being systematically misrepresented.

I do not offer these criticisms lightly, nor do I offer them glibly. I’m honestly commenting with the intent that it may be evident that I offer them to further your understanding of why you are being criticized by those who hold to Reformed doctrines and a Reformed apologetic method. Above all, we seek to be consistent – theologically, and apologetically. If we do not question the facts presented by those on our side as we do those opposing us, we cannot help but be inconsistent, and rightly criticized by our opponents on that basis. While I understand that you appear to fully belief what you state about Calvinists – understand that what you criticize as “hyper-calvinism” is simple, historic Reformed belief. What is recently called “moderate” Calvinism by folks like Dr. Geisler is nothing like the historic Calvinism of ANY of the Reformed branches.

I am “Reformed” – one of the group you criticized – and I’ve had one moderated debate – whether it was “formal” is debatable, as it was online. Nonetheless, Dr. White, and other Reformed debaters are being classified as engaging in nothing but “passive-aggressive garbage”, “no real discussion”, and “the Jerry Springer Show”. I’m sorry, but I’ve watched a great many debates – and debates like Dr. White’s with Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, or Shabir Ally were anything but “no real discussion”, or “huffing”! I don’t think I was engaging in “eye rolling” or “no real discussion” when I engaged a young atheist man on the topic of “The Triune God of Scripture is the grounds for all knowledge” – as is clearly stated in Col 2:3!

Enough criticism, however. So that you can know that there are areas of agreement – I completely agree with your position concerning the CAMEL method. For nearly identical reasons. I support you 100% in your statement of opposition to it, and thank you for your public statement concerning it’s dangers. I appreciate many things about your ministry, and service, despite our theological differences.

In closing – let me again thank you for your statement, and the attempt to mend a breach. It IS appreciated, despite the criticisms offered above, and I don’t want to detract from that. My earnest desire is that this is taken constructively, and that there might be an honest attempt to mend fences with your Reformed brethren in the SBC and without. You aren’t going to change our mind about the glorious doctrines of God’s sovereign grace – but please be aware – we aren’t questioning your salvation, or your conversion by questioning your consistency. We’re as likely to question one of our own on those grounds as we are anyone else. We do not do so to cast aspersions on their character – but to safeguard the reputation of the God we serve and love – as, I believe, do you, however mistaken we believe you to be concerning what you defend at times.

For your edification, I’d encourage you to look at the following: “Open Letter to Ergun Caner.”

Open Theism and Pacifism?

Molinism advocate and apologist Wes Widner quoted Open Theist Gregory Boyd earlier today, concerning non-violence. The quote was as follows:

Any peace achieved by violence is a peace forever threatened by violence, thus ensuring that the bloody game will be perpetuated.

This is cited (but not in the tweet, for obvious reasons) from Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation, pg 27. (Excerpt of the book linked here) As no context was provided by Wes, I asked him, via Twitter, the same format I saw the quote in.

In the meantime, while waiting his reply, I performed a cursory search of his site. In November, he mentioned that self-defense was, in fact, justified.

Unfortunately, many people completely miss this point and, instead, tend to believe that where the Bible commands us to love our enemies1 and turn the other cheek2 it also forbids us from self-defense or the exercise of justice insofar as we, imperfect though we may be, can exact here on earth.

If so, we have an issue. First, why is he quoting an open heretic? Second, why is he quoting someone who is clearly opposed to his views not only on the issue of Open Theism (or so I’ve gathered, given his adherence to Molinism), but on the subject of the proper role of violence?

I received his reply: “Yes, it was from Boyd’s ‘Myth of a Christian Nation'”.

So: Wes is, indeed doing what I suspected. Citing from an Open Theist, in the context of pacifism, approvingly. However: Wes may have been unaware that Gregory Boyd is an Open Theist, or a pacifist. This goes to show, however, that theology truly does matter. If you’re going to cite an author approvingly, should it not be understood that the author is writing from a certain context? If the context in which the author is quoting is different from your own, should that not be noted?

I understand that he was merely tweeting this comment. What this doesn’t explain is why he would be tweeting this approvingly. Gregory Boyd is a heretic, quite simply. Denying the nature of God is no trivial matter. I won’t belabor that point, as Boyd is very famously the chief proponent of the Open Theology movement. Pacifism is no trivial matter either, however.

Take this article from Gregory Boyd’s blog: Jesus’ Repudiation of Old Testament Violence

A small excerpt, but you can read the rest for yourself.

Is it possible that some divinely inspired material is not supposed to reveal to us what God is like but what he is not like? Is it possible that some material is inspired precisely because God wants us to follow Jesus’ example and repudiate it?

Really? Check the context out, here:

What’s interesting is that Jesus himself repudiated the violence of the Old Testament — despite his belief that this collection of writings was inspired.

Catch that?

Now, how does that resolve itself with the quote from Wes above? Or this, from the same article:

Small wonder, therefore, that when Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms — Jesus rebuked him.

Now, quite frankly, is this the God that Christians worship? Does this bear any resemblance to Christian theology? I highly suggest, yet with great trepidation on my own part, that we examine those whom we quote with approval.

While I’m not positive as to the nature of what he is approving of in this quote, a read through the section in question leaves me scratching my head. On the next page, there is a discussion of Peter’s debut with the sword, and it states that

“Jesus rebuked the disciple and demonstrated the nature of his unique heavenly kingdom by healing the soldier’s ear (Luke 22:50 – 51), showing that his kingdom would advance not by destroying the enemy who seeks to destroy you, but by loving, serving, and hopefully transforming the enemy who seeks to destroy you.”

On his website, he gives the explanation I posted above – that Peter was acting in self-defense. Now folks, I don’t know about you, but Peter isn’t always the sharpest tack in the drawer. He attacks – (the word used is “strikes”) and cuts the ear off of a servant. First, Peter obviously isn’t all that awesome. Second, he’s obviously not really interested in attacking soldiers or guards. He attacks a slave! (Or, re: 1, he just stinks.) Third, self-defense? What? He attacked.

Boyd’s handling of this passage is poor, in any case. Additionally, I invite you to examine the book and see WHY Boyd says what he says in the approved quote. According to Boyd, Christians are not to involve themselves in politics because that is power “over”, not power “under”. I invite you to examine his exegesis of the texts he handles there, and compare them to The Shack’s discussions of power and the nature of God. (Incidentally, Boyd is very complimentary to the author of The Shack, Paul Young. I recently addressed The Shack, and it’s manifold theological deformities, in the apologetics class I recently taught for my church.)

Wes recently addressed the theological issues with The Shack himself.

One sentence in that article struck me, as it pertains to this issue.

…it is really just another example of how many Christians in America are more willing to embrace the existential, heterodoxical, and (often) heretical views of our present day15 rather than spend the time to study and listen to the orthodox views or fathers, grand fathers, and great grandfathers in the faith handed down throughout the ages.

Is Wes arriving at the conclusion he approves of above in the same context as Boyd is doing so? If so, there is a serious theological problem to be addressed. Was he quoting this author without checking into his background, or the context of the quote? If so, this may be something we all can learn from – the believers in Berea searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so. In the same manner, it behooves us to know those whom we are quoting, to see what context we are quoting. If we fail to do so, we may lead others astray. Most importantly, we must realize that inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument – or a failed worldview. If we can affirm a statement from a context we disagree with, from a viewpoint we cannot affirm as Christians, we are being irresponsible as Christians. We represent our Savior, and as such, we cannot afford to give God’s enemies a reason to mock. In my experience, and in the testimony of Scripture, the greatest slurs to God’s name come from the inconsistencies of His followers. May we show ourselves workmen that do not have to be ashamed!

My humble suggestion to Wes is that he re-examine his own statement above in the light of Dr. Boyd’s open, repeated commitment to various heresies – and to recall that in all parts of life, theology matters.

The Possibility of Middle Knowledge

I’m going to include the transcript of a discussion I had (along with several others) with a Middle Knowledge proponent that frequents AOMin’s chat channel. The reason I do so is in order to give an example of how the argument I advanced recently functions in an actual discussion.

The discussion was fairly wide-ranging, but I think demonstrates the ability of a consistent return to the nature of God as the foundation of a reply to the assertions advanced by proponents of MK and other similar philosophical systems, over against the Biblical conception of God’s nature and the modal collapse I feel this outlook necessitates.

Discussion linked below.
Read the rest of this entry

God is Sovereign over Possibility

God is Sovereign. He ordains all things, whatsoever. He is unconstrained by anything; yet by Him, all things are constrained. God is eternal. He did not begin, He did not end. He is outside of time. God is unchanging. No aspect of God is subject to change. He does not alter in any fashion.

A popular (and approaching universal) conception of possibility entails there being a multiplicity of hypothetical possibilities to be selected from. In the case of God, it is often advanced that God is selecting from amongst multiple possibilities which He has to choose from. My design is to show that such a conception is completely at odds with who God is. First, Scripture.

which He will bring about at the proper time– He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him [be] honor and eternal dominion! Amen. ~1 Tim. 6:15-16

also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will – Eph 1:11

Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; [I am] God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’; calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned [it, surely] I will do it. ~ Isaiah 46:9-11

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him [be] the glory forever. Amen. ~Romans 11:33-36

Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it? ~Isa 43:13

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {Too} little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. ~Micah 5:2

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ~Rom 1:20

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, {be} honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. ~1Tim 1:17

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ~Heb 9:14

{Abraham} planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. ~Gen 21:33

The eternal God is a dwelling place, And underneath are the everlasting arms; And He drove out the enemy from before you, And said, ‘Destroy!’ ~Deu 33:27

Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, From everlasting even to everlasting. Then all the people said, “Amen,” and praised the LORD. ~1 Chr 16:36

Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, From everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen. ~ Psa 41:13

Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. ~Psa 90:2

Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting. ~Psa 93:2

Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, {we have} an everlasting Rock. ~Isa 26:4

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. ~Isa 40:28

But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation. ~Jer 10:10

Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct. ~Hab 1:12

Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind. ~1 Sam 15:29

The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek. ~ Psa 110:4

For this the earth shall mourn And the heavens above be dark, Because I have spoken, I have purposed, And I will not change My mind, nor will I turn from it. ~ Jer 4:28

For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. ~Mal 3:6

My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. ~Psa 89:34

Jesus Christ {is} the same yesterday and today and forever. ~Heb 13:8

Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow ~James 1:17.

for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. ~Rom 11:29

Therefore the earth will mourn and the heavens above grow dark, because I have spoken and will not relent, I have decided and will not turn back. ~Jer 4:28

Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. ~Psa 102:26

In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. ~Heb 6:17-18

Note first: This is the consistent view of Scripture. God is Sovereign. God is Eternal. God is immutable. God is also self-sufficient, all-wise, infinite, holy, trinitarian, omniscient, faithful, perfect, loving, self-existent, just, merciful, good, and omnipresent. All of these attributes are interrelated. Therefore, if an imperfect conception of one of God’s attributes is held to, the rest are compromised.

For the concerns of this post, I will concentrate on the first three mentioned, but will refer to all of God’s attributes, to show how the argument I am making violates none of God’s attributes as listed above, while showing how the popular conception of possibility violates many, if not them all.

When we think of God, should we think of God as thinking linearly? Where every one of his thoughts follows a linear progression? To do such a thing requires that God be *changing* – having *new* thoughts. This is unacceptable, when matched against Scripture. So, how must we think of God’s thinking? Well, God is eternal. Would His thoughts not also be eternal? God, being omniscient, knows all things. God, being eternal, knows all things simultaneously. God’s knowledge of all things is also related to His ordination of all things – His sovereign decree. As God decreed all things from before the foundation of the world, He therefore knows all that He has decreed. Does God “know” that which He has not decreed? What content does a hypothetical “something” not decreed by God have? In these other supposed worlds, not decreed by God, what is the content of them? Not-real, not-decreed non-things? Such a concept, when examined, seems quite a bit akin to “God knows something about nothing”

Further, there cannot be possibility apart from God – as He is self-sufficient and self-existent; since He is, He is the only grounds that can exist for any other existence, and the only thing in existence that can provide that grounds, in His self-sufficiency. If God is perfect – and nothing exists (including concepts, I’d argue) that does not have God as it’s Creator, then this concept involves God having well-nigh infinite numbers of imperfect conceptions of His creation! Not “a creation that is imperfect” – but an “imperfect conception of creation” – almost infinite numbers of them!

When we think of God’s thoughts, should we not think of them as eternal thoughts? Do God’s thoughts escape Him? Do they go away? Are they, unlike everything else about Him, NOT from everlasting to everlasting? If God’s thoughts are, therefore, eternal – “as high above as the heavens are above the earth” – do we *really* expect all of these imperfect conceptions, and as *eternally existing* conceptions? If God’s thoughts are eternal, if they are perfect, if they are sovereign, if they are good, if they are holy, if they are immutable; etc, etc. If they are all that, God would think exactly as He intends, without changing, for all eternity, with utter control, about everything He has decreed will take place. In other words – God thinks exactly as He intends to, without error, and without change. He thinks it for eternity, with sovereign control, and with utter holiness. There IS no possibility apart from the ordination and will of the Holy, Eternal, Sovereign, unchanging God.

A possibility apart from God’s control of it is an affront to His sovereignty. A concept which is imperfect has nothing to do with His perfection. It is NOT good. It is NOT holy. Linear thoughts are not the thoughts of an eternal God. A process in which God chooses from all of the “possible worlds” in which men make “free choices” is not loving – as men are fallen, and *cannot choose God,* and neither are they free. It is also absurd.

If God chooses from among “possible worlds” – what makes them possible or impossible?

If it is God – are the ones not chosen “possible” at all? Why use the term?

If it is NOT God – what puts a condition on God? Is God then sovereign? Is He self-sufficient? Is He truly self-existent? These are things I don’t see ways around, from Scripture, and the revelation of God’s nature to us.

If God is sovereign over all things, He is sovereign over possibility, and always perfectly sovereign.
If God is eternal, His thoughts are eternal. They always have existed, always are existing, and always will exist.
If God is immutable, He cannot change His intention, His mind, His conceptions, His determination of possibility.
If God is perfect, neither His thoughts nor His actions can be imperfect, and this can never change.

We could go on and on with combinations of God’s attributes – but we MUST think linearly, as God has created us to do so; so it is hard for us to contemplate all of God’s attributes at once. Impossible, probably. We do not have that capacity. When we attempt it, however, we find it hard to reconcile these ideas. I’d welcome feedback on these things.

In summary, the concept of all possible worlds cannot be compatible with the Scriptural picture God gives us of Himself.

Suggested Reading:
Whate’er My God Ordains: A Biblical Study of God’s Control
Always Ready, Dr. Greg Bahnsen – esp. Chap. 16, Worldviews in Collision
Revisionary Immunity, Bahnsen (1975)
Science, Subjectivity And Scripture, Banhsen (1979)
At War With The Word – The Necessity Of Biblical Antithesis, Bahnsen (1990)
The Problem of Knowing the “Super-Natural”, Bahnsen (1991)

Let’s say you’re trying to compile a program – “Christian Living v1.0”, using the programming language “God’s Word”. You consult many manuals, but you just can’t seem to get it. Every compilation you attempt results in a crash. Every attempt you make at solving it just gets you into bigger and bigger messes.

Well, back to the drawing board, and back to those manuals! The more you read in these manuals, the more you realize that your system just doesn’t meet the requirements for compiling the program! It doesn’t have the right hardware, the right software. Something wrong here, something’s wrong there… and you decide that you just have to buckle down and upgrade your system, before this program will compile.

That analogy breaks down at some point – the user is separate from the software and hardware, after all. Further, we don’t upgrade ourselves. We have to be brought to the manufacturer for this to be accomplished. I think it’s a good illustration of why we can’t expect perfect understanding of Scripture, however. The problem does not lie in the author of Scripture. It does not lie in Scripture itself. The problem lies in us. First, it lies in our nature. We do not think or act correctly about anything. We are sinful, fallen creatures who cannot properly operate in terms of perfection. Second, we cannot, due to that nature, properly understand that which we are required to understand. Third, we cannot act in accordance with it.

In a conversation earlier today, the objection was made that God’s Word lacked sufficient clarity, since men were always arguing over what it meant. Second, the objection was made that if Scripture was sufficiently clear, we would not need teachers in order to properly understand it. My first response was to ask “By what standard do you think it lacks sufficient clarity?” and my second was to ask “By what standard *should* it have sufficient clarity?” He didn’t “get” the attempted push to reveal the worldview presuppositions, so I hit on a mention of “programming languages” that was mentioned. “If, like you say, there are hardware and software constraints for the compilation of programs, why would you think there is any difference when someone is trying to run, or to compile, say, a life requiring hardware/software they do not have?” I then went into Romans 12, and it’s admonition that we must be transformed by the renewing of our mind. Also, I referenced that humans, in their fallen state, do not have the capability of recognizing the precepts of Scripture apart from the demands of their own nature. For this to be accomplished correctly, there needs to be a change in them.

The objection was then raised that he was talking about Christians. Very well. Even in Christians – are we to be understood as saying that the renewal of sanctification is immediate and total? I cannot think that Scripture would back this up. Our sanctification is progressive. We do not instantly grasp all things, nor should we be expected to. Further, I mentioned, the Spirit, the author of Scripture, indwells believers. The Spirit uses means to accomplish His end of our sanctification. That same Spirit is who apportions the gifts to believers – including that of pastor, and teacher. These gifted men use the entirety of Scripture and bring it to bear on any given passage – teaching us to conform ourselves to it – through his gift of the Spirit, and through the work of the Spirit in us, which confirms the truth of their teaching and renews us accordingly.

We aren’t instantly and completely changed into perfect expositors and exegetes. We are brought along by the Spirit, and the means of grace which He has provided – for, as Scripture says:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. ~ 2 Tim 3:16-17

So, in closing – remember. Scripture isn’t unclear. Men “see through a glass darkly”.

This week, I went through Dr. James White’s video on the “LDS Law of Eternal Progression”, as a short intro to Mormonism.

Same video I used, but unedited for time. I took out several stories, since I only had 1 hour. This video is around 1.5 hours.

This week’s topic was “A Biblical Exposition of Acts 17”.

Here’s the audio.

This week’s topic was “How to Defend the Faith” – it included many sub-topics, which will be of interest to the student of apologetics, and came almost exclusively from Greg Bahnsen’s “Always Ready”, as did the previous class.

Here’s the audio.

Hosted by: