Jeff, I'm a young pastor to our kids ministry. I know I have a calling to go full-time ministry, please pray with me that the correct doors will open up in my life to fulfill God's mission.
This is amazing. I love how Jeff talks to the people around my age or a lil after. It's great. I want to be a evangelist some day and talk to people all around the world about God.
Dear Brother Jeff in Christ, there are no "WHAT IF" in the plan and purpose of God. And here's why - "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 46:11). God bless.
The problem with presupposition is easily exposed. "Why do you presuppose Yahweh?" "Because not to do so would lead to absurdity." "And absurdity is a problem?" "Yes." "Why?" Because of the law of non-contradiction. So presup reduces to "P1. or , P2. not , C. therefore, ." But P2... where did that come from? It was presupposed. And THAT - not Yahweh - is the presup's ACTUAL base presupposition.
I would say, yes, the law of non-contradiction is presupposed. That's the whole point. We don't throw out the laws of logic as useless... because God created them. The reason we can presuppose it is because Yahweh exists. The non-believer uses the laws of logic (your argument above is a logical conclusion) but has no basis to do so. That is the problem. We all know the law of non-contradiction is there, and the point is to show that the REASON for that, is Yahweh. If you are suggesting that the law of non-contradiction has no reason to be presupposed, well then there is no way to have this discussion. We are right back to absurdity and we all know it deep down in our hearts. Nothing can be lived out without it, and that is because we all know the Creator and his absolute laws. I see no reason to think this disproved presuppositionalism. It just doesn't follow, that because non-contradiction is ALSO recognized, it means we are not first presupposing Yahweh.
No sir. You don’t understand presuppositional apologetics. My suggestion to you is to buy Van Tillian Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen or listen to his Van Tillian Apologetics series on your favourite podcast app.
@@JMUDoc Hello there. I actually heard of the transcendental argument for the existence of God from Eastern Orthodox apologists in contrast to Reformed apologists; hence, the argument I give would be the one I heard from the Eastern Orthodox. From my understanding, the transcendental argument for the existence of God is structured like this: P1: The Triune God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge. P2: The possibility of knowledge. C: Therefore, the Triune God exists. Definitions: A worldview is a person's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Knowledge is justified true belief. First, I note that the goal of the argument is to show that if someone does not assume the existence of the Triune God, then they are lead to a worldview that destroys all knowledge. Second, I note that there is nothing wrong in the logical structure of the argument. Although it appears that I am committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this problem is avoided by saying that God is the NECESSARY precondition for the possibility of knowledge. Next, I note that if P1 is denied then the apologist will show how the opponent's worldview makes P2 false. Third, we note that the argument above can be used against not just atheists but also against Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. Now, the apologist will use the same argument but will often focus on different things that make knowledge possible. For example, the apologist will usually start debating with an atheist about the Laws of Logic while he will be debating with a Buddhist about the Self and an objective external world. Note, that the things that make knowledge possible are the Laws of Logic, an objective external world, the transcendental unity of aperception (the Self), meaning, casualty, etc. Finally, I note that the belief that the Triune God exists is justified and true by way of the transcendental argument above.
@@eulerspupil4032 *P1: The Triune God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge. P2: The possibility of knowledge. C: Therefore, the Triune God exists.* P1 has to be demonstrated. *Although it appears that I am committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this problem is avoided by saying that God is the NECESSARY precondition for the possibility of knowledge.* No, you would avoid it by *proving*, not just _saying,_ that god is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge. *Next, I note that if P1 is denied then the apologist will show how the opponent's worldview makes P2 false. * No presupper does this; you would be the first.
The problem with the Presuppositional method is that it presupposes a Theistic Worldview. An atheist by definition is one who does not believe in God. So, telling an atheist that he has to presuppose that God exists to get anywhere with him apologetically is a futile attempt. The classical method is much more efficient. Atheists are humans just like the rest of us. Even one who does not know God still has the ability to use logic and reason. This is where we have common ground. First, we should argue that objective truth is possible. In our postmodern society, this is a key starting point. We have to establish the philosophical basis for truth first, then we can argue for a theistic God. Starting with truth lays the foundation for us to meet the atheist where he is. I would recommend checking out a debate here on RUclips between Jason Lyle, Richard Howe, and K. Scott Oliphint. Dr. Howe shows philosophically the problems with Presuppositionalism. While I disagree with your method, I pray for you, Jeff. I pray that God will continue to use you as you contend for the faith. Love you, brother!
I have thought about this a bit and from what I have observed, the majority of atheists are not going to be able to even begin to understand the classic approach. This may be evidence of my lack of experience but most people I meet in everyday life are not the same as the students I see many apologists debate with at universities. The average person tends to have more assumptions and second hand teachings than actual knowledge or expertise in philosophy and such. What does everyone else think?
@@judethree4405 if you're giving evidence then you are essentially going back to at the very least the evidential method. So, you end up doing the same thing you would do if you would have started with the classical method. I went to the Ark Experience right after it first opened. As I was moving through, it was obvious that even though Ken Ham is a staunch proponent of the presuppositional method, he was using lots of evidence to argue for the validity of Christianity. He especially uses Science. So, why not just start there where we have common ground?
@@astrohed that can be the case if it is presented in a lofty way. However, you can make it really easy to work with. I taught at a conference a couple of years ago here in NC. It was a very rural county and the majority of the folks at the conference had at best a high school education. I was able to present the information to them that many said changed the way they think. Now, I realize that not all are able to teach in a way where everyone can understand. Some folks aren't good teachers, however, there are ways to present the classical method without being overly academic.
I think it's all necessary. We have to know it all and pay attention to the holy Spirit with a heart of love while listening to whoever we're talking to and know how and when to reply. It's all useless without that. If they don't know I love them and my intentions are for their benefit they won't hear anything but I clanging symbol and a banging drum but at the same time the worldview must be destroyed so that a seed has the possibility of being planted at some time.
David Probus As an Atheist and former Christian apologist, I agree with you. A Presuppositional approach will not convince an unbeliever. Van Till used that approach, but it only worked with those who were nominal believers or who culturally accepted the existence of a God. It is, more importantly, poor reasoning. I don't think the philosophical approach will help win many converts either. Unless the person you happen to witness to has a strong concern over epistemology, I don't see why trying to establish the presence of objective truth would be effective. I know I would not find that approach convincing. In my experience, that argument often becomes very similar to the presuppositional approach by assuming there is ultimate meaning and objective purpose. I would agree for instance that truth (with a small t), can easily be demonstrated. But one cannot demonstrate that there is an real purpose to the universe--no truth with a capital T. If an apologists argument begins with the assumption of a universal truth that implies meaning, that would be a presuppositional argument. Just some thoughts. Anyone can change their mind, Atheists included. But, the arguments must be very strong and convincing. To demonstrate the actual presence of a God an incredible amount of evidence is necessary. Theists are often surprised when non believers are unconvinced by arguments they themselves found compelling. I would recommend beginning the conversation by trying to discover what the unbeliever thinks would convince him or her. That would be more personal and authentic. The person you speak with will probably not feel as if you are just going through a method with them. People appreciate real conversations and will speak with you when they feel you respect their choices and intelligence. Thanks for your time. --Rich Miller
Jeff, I would like to see your response to Call to Reason’s video on Why I left Christian part1 . I think you would have some good response to him. He say somethings about Apologist I believe you would find interesting.
@I'm Second "No" *At least you admit your unevidenced assertion isn't compelling.* "Just stating the obvious." *So obvious you can't even state why I'm wrong. LMFAO!* "Simple, to the point." *The only thing your unevidenced assertion points out is that you can't even point out how I am supposedly 'wrong'.*
I think you should be more specific when you say your family/culture is "hostile" or "persecuting" christians because criticism and pointing out flaws isn't persecution. If you do this, please stop. This diminishes people that are actually persecuted.
They've been told that unless they are being persecuted they're not doing it right. Thus, criticism of any kind or degree is construed as persectution because then they are validated.
Denial of persecution/justifying it is very typical of people who participate in persecution. This is the result of pretending your worldview is value neutral when it isn’t. You take your worldview as the basic assumption, assume indoctrinating people into it is normal, assume removing kids from their homes is protecting them from their parents, assume the FBI is right to investigate Catholic parishes, etc You’ll justify it all so it’s kinda worthless to explain it. I’ve been around long enough to know how this game goes. You deny it’s happening and then when it’s pointed out you say it’s actually good. Deny, then justify.
Question: did Peter deny Christ as a failure in defending Jesus, or out of fear for his own life? I submit it was the latter. Peter knew Jesus was Messiah. Jesus didn’t need defending; his death was part of the plan. Peter had a doubt planted by the enemy, and denied Christ out of fear for his own life.
I’m not sure how he reconciles his eschatological views with Revelation. Thessalonians, Peter, John and Timothy. What about Zechariah which says only 1/3 of Jews will make it through the day of the lord. Does he think Israel has been reconstituted to have a picnic? Jeremiah calls it the time of Jacob’s trouble.
An inexplainable narrative 'explained' by other inexplainable narrative: Read on, please. 1 Co 2:13, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words". So, our words [which served us for millennia] are split into two kinds of words: Into human and not human. And it is only the non-human language who can prove that the Biblical God exists. Such language also proves, according to 1 C 2:13, that the Bible was written by biblical God and that every believer [on account that all of them receive the Spirit from their God] perfectly understand an alleged perfect God's writing and can obey each and ever of his commands each and every time. I don't know how many [or if any] believers have ever read 1 Co 2:13 or ever heard from the pulpit that they are perfect in every way possible. 14, "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers hem foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through Spirit". I do not deem the verses foolish but non-understandable and not ever provable as right or wrong or as true or false. And i suggest that person who penned the two verses and scribes who had written the same or similar inventions, knew that that cannot ever be understood.
I love Jeff... But when he basically said no one in the history of the church believed in premillennialism... Give me a break. He doesn't do a decent job in quickly making distinctions like Sproul/MacArthur did in their talk (my site: religiopoliticaltalk.com/dr-macarthur-and-dr-sproul-respond-to-question-of-doctrine-and-grace/)
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28 KJV Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 KJV Jesus loves you repent You're a sinner in need of a Savior That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 KJV =
How to do presuppositional apologetics: 1.) Assume you are right. 2.) Assume everyone who does not agree with you is wrong. 3.) ????? 4.) Reap the harvest.
That's how most people engage in discourse. Haha! You're not making sense. Why argue for a thing you don't think it is right (unless you're in debate club)? I will change my mind if need be, but I'm still justified in arguing for the position I presently believe is right and against the one I think is wrong. Smh
Modern evangelism? The final nail in the coffin of my faith, the final push to abandoning my belief, was just how modern evangelicals have gone to bed with the far-right political movement, how Trump is held up as a ‘wonderful servant of God’ despite his being a human depiction of the seven deadly sins. It seems that the methods of the right are fine, because the end justifies the means for the MAGA evangelicals.
Try jesus for 30 days. I know who said that in CA and in Seattle. Sad cause i love the guy and used to listen to him. I know exactly what they mean by western evangelicalism. I wish more christians would teach the holy days and the sin of homosexuality without fear.
Too long. Too many words Jeff. I’m 30 minutes in and you’ve said a thousand words but I (and those kids) have no idea where you’re going. Going to look for another video. Be short, get to the point, be interactive with the kids. They’ll remember so much better if they interact with your points than if they listen to you drone on forever. It’s not about you and your many words.
Jeff, I'm a young pastor to our kids ministry. I know I have a calling to go full-time ministry, please pray with me that the correct doors will open up in my life to fulfill God's mission.
Tabasco on the table , guitar and Jeff .... Good stuff ...!!! Thanks guys !
This is amazing. I love how Jeff talks to the people around my age or a lil after. It's great. I want to be a evangelist some day and talk to people all around the world about God.
Start at your local park. Hand out some tracts and try to get a conversation going. Hardest part about evangelism is starting.
God Bless you!
Do something better with your life than bothering people.
"Since I'm right you can't be."
-Presuppositionalism
Wonderful counselor …our Savior so perfect so brilliant -God is the answer for everyone in this world Hallelujah
I pray these hearts were touched if they only knew the value of what they were being taught
Brilliant God centred teaching. Keep up the good work!
This is great. Truth. Keep preaching brother.
“At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.” (Hebrews 2:8, ESV)
Dear Brother Jeff in Christ, there are no "WHAT IF" in the plan and purpose of God. And here's why - "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 46:11). God bless.
How do you know its the "right way," have you done any study?
Powerful lesson!
The problem with presupposition is easily exposed.
"Why do you presuppose Yahweh?"
"Because not to do so would lead to absurdity."
"And absurdity is a problem?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
Because of the law of non-contradiction. So presup reduces to
"P1. or ,
P2. not ,
C. therefore, ."
But P2... where did that come from? It was presupposed. And THAT - not Yahweh - is the presup's ACTUAL base presupposition.
I would say, yes, the law of non-contradiction is presupposed. That's the whole point. We don't throw out the laws of logic as useless... because God created them. The reason we can presuppose it is because Yahweh exists. The non-believer uses the laws of logic (your argument above is a logical conclusion) but has no basis to do so. That is the problem. We all know the law of non-contradiction is there, and the point is to show that the REASON for that, is Yahweh. If you are suggesting that the law of non-contradiction has no reason to be presupposed, well then there is no way to have this discussion. We are right back to absurdity and we all know it deep down in our hearts. Nothing can be lived out without it, and that is because we all know the Creator and his absolute laws. I see no reason to think this disproved presuppositionalism. It just doesn't follow, that because non-contradiction is ALSO recognized, it means we are not first presupposing Yahweh.
No sir. You don’t understand presuppositional apologetics. My suggestion to you is to buy Van Tillian Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen or listen to his Van Tillian Apologetics series on your favourite podcast app.
@@matthewmanucci Please render the presup argument in the "premisses->conclusions" format
@@JMUDoc Hello there. I actually heard of the transcendental argument for the existence of God from Eastern Orthodox apologists in contrast to Reformed apologists; hence, the argument I give would be the one I heard from the Eastern Orthodox.
From my understanding, the transcendental argument for the existence of God is structured like this:
P1: The Triune God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge.
P2: The possibility of knowledge.
C: Therefore, the Triune God exists.
Definitions:
A worldview is a person's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
Knowledge is justified true belief.
First, I note that the goal of the argument is to show that if someone does not assume the existence of the Triune God, then they are lead to a worldview that destroys all knowledge.
Second, I note that there is nothing wrong in the logical structure of the argument. Although it appears that I am committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this problem is avoided by saying that God is the NECESSARY precondition for the possibility of knowledge.
Next, I note that if P1 is denied then the apologist will show how the opponent's worldview makes P2 false.
Third, we note that the argument above can be used against not just atheists but also against Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. Now, the apologist will use the same argument but will often focus on different things that make knowledge possible. For example, the apologist will usually start debating with an atheist about the Laws of Logic while he will be debating with a Buddhist about the Self and an objective external world.
Note, that the things that make knowledge possible are the Laws of Logic, an objective external world, the transcendental unity of aperception (the Self), meaning, casualty, etc.
Finally, I note that the belief that the Triune God exists is justified and true by way of the transcendental argument above.
@@eulerspupil4032 *P1: The Triune God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge.
P2: The possibility of knowledge.
C: Therefore, the Triune God exists.*
P1 has to be demonstrated.
*Although it appears that I am committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this problem is avoided by saying that God is the NECESSARY precondition for the possibility of knowledge.*
No, you would avoid it by *proving*, not just _saying,_ that god is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge.
*Next, I note that if P1 is denied then the apologist will show how the opponent's worldview makes P2 false. *
No presupper does this; you would be the first.
Amen!!! GOD BLESS.
Psalm 83:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
The problem with the Presuppositional method is that it presupposes a Theistic Worldview. An atheist by definition is one who does not believe in God. So, telling an atheist that he has to presuppose that God exists to get anywhere with him apologetically is a futile attempt. The classical method is much more efficient. Atheists are humans just like the rest of us. Even one who does not know God still has the ability to use logic and reason. This is where we have common ground. First, we should argue that objective truth is possible. In our postmodern society, this is a key starting point. We have to establish the philosophical basis for truth first, then we can argue for a theistic God. Starting with truth lays the foundation for us to meet the atheist where he is. I would recommend checking out a debate here on RUclips between Jason Lyle, Richard Howe, and K. Scott Oliphint. Dr. Howe shows philosophically the problems with Presuppositionalism. While I disagree with your method, I pray for you, Jeff. I pray that God will continue to use you as you contend for the faith. Love you, brother!
I have thought about this a bit and from what I have observed, the majority of atheists are not going to be able to even begin to understand the classic approach. This may be evidence of my lack of experience but most people I meet in everyday life are not the same as the students I see many apologists debate with at universities. The average person tends to have more assumptions and second hand teachings than actual knowledge or expertise in philosophy and such. What does everyone else think?
@@judethree4405 if you're giving evidence then you are essentially going back to at the very least the evidential method. So, you end up doing the same thing you would do if you would have started with the classical method. I went to the Ark Experience right after it first opened. As I was moving through, it was obvious that even though Ken Ham is a staunch proponent of the presuppositional method, he was using lots of evidence to argue for the validity of Christianity. He especially uses Science. So, why not just start there where we have common ground?
@@astrohed that can be the case if it is presented in a lofty way. However, you can make it really easy to work with. I taught at a conference a couple of years ago here in NC. It was a very rural county and the majority of the folks at the conference had at best a high school education. I was able to present the information to them that many said changed the way they think. Now, I realize that not all are able to teach in a way where everyone can understand. Some folks aren't good teachers, however, there are ways to present the classical method without being overly academic.
I think it's all necessary. We have to know it all and pay attention to the holy Spirit with a heart of love while listening to whoever we're talking to and know how and when to reply. It's all useless without that. If they don't know I love them and my intentions are for their benefit they won't hear anything but I clanging symbol and a banging drum but at the same time the worldview must be destroyed so that a seed has the possibility of being planted at some time.
David Probus
As an Atheist and former Christian apologist, I agree with you. A Presuppositional approach will not convince an unbeliever. Van Till used that approach, but it only worked with those who were nominal believers or who culturally accepted the existence of a God. It is, more importantly, poor reasoning.
I don't think the philosophical approach will help win many converts either. Unless the person you happen to witness to has a strong concern over epistemology, I don't see why trying to establish the presence of objective truth would be effective. I know I would not find that approach convincing. In my experience, that argument often becomes very similar to the presuppositional approach by assuming there is ultimate meaning and objective purpose. I would agree for instance that truth (with a small t), can easily be demonstrated. But one cannot demonstrate that there is an real purpose to the universe--no truth with a capital T. If an apologists argument begins with the assumption of a universal truth that implies meaning, that would be a presuppositional argument.
Just some thoughts. Anyone can change their mind, Atheists included. But, the arguments must be very strong and convincing. To demonstrate the actual presence of a God an incredible amount of evidence is necessary. Theists are often surprised when non believers are unconvinced by arguments they themselves found compelling. I would recommend beginning the conversation by trying to discover what the unbeliever thinks would convince him or her. That would be more personal and authentic. The person you speak with will probably not feel as if you are just going through a method with them. People appreciate real conversations and will speak with you when they feel you respect their choices and intelligence.
Thanks for your time. --Rich Miller
Thank you! But Why the Commercials?
So they can have the money to give you this content.
Jeff,
I would like to see your response to Call to Reason’s video on Why I left Christian part1 . I think you would have some good response to him. He say somethings about Apologist I believe you would find interesting.
Fallacious arguments are not 'good responses'. All Jeff or any other theist has is fallacious arguments, but no evidence.
@I'm Second "You're wrong."
*Gee, what a compelling argument. LOL*
@I'm Second "No"
*At least you admit your unevidenced assertion isn't compelling.*
"Just stating the obvious."
*So obvious you can't even state why I'm wrong. LMFAO!*
"Simple, to the point."
*The only thing your unevidenced assertion points out is that you can't even point out how I am supposedly 'wrong'.*
@I'm Second *Then demonstrate I'm wrong. We both know you can't and that's why you won't. You're a joke, little boy.*
@I'm Second *Hmm, no evidence I'm wrong. Typical response.*
"God bless."
*You haven't evidenced any 'god' exists to 'bless' anyone.*
"gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (His Church)
I think you should be more specific when you say your family/culture is "hostile" or "persecuting" christians because criticism and pointing out flaws isn't persecution. If you do this, please stop. This diminishes people that are actually persecuted.
They've been told that unless they are being persecuted they're not doing it right.
Thus, criticism of any kind or degree is construed as persectution because then they are validated.
I would suggest looking up the word persecuted.
@@coltonbrewer6632
According to the Murican Christians, persecution is when you are no longer allowed to abuse and persecute others.
Denial of persecution/justifying it is very typical of people who participate in persecution.
This is the result of pretending your worldview is value neutral when it isn’t. You take your worldview as the basic assumption, assume indoctrinating people into it is normal, assume removing kids from their homes is protecting them from their parents, assume the FBI is right to investigate Catholic parishes, etc
You’ll justify it all so it’s kinda worthless to explain it. I’ve been around long enough to know how this game goes. You deny it’s happening and then when it’s pointed out you say it’s actually good. Deny, then justify.
Question: did Peter deny Christ as a failure in defending Jesus, or out of fear for his own life? I submit it was the latter.
Peter knew Jesus was Messiah. Jesus didn’t need defending; his death was part of the plan. Peter had a doubt planted by the enemy, and denied Christ out of fear for his own life.
How do you know if you had not stayed those ppl in drug rehab would not have been saved?
So if no one does good but god, then how can anyone say they do good? I am so confused.
No one is* good
I’m not sure how he reconciles his eschatological views with Revelation. Thessalonians, Peter, John and Timothy. What about Zechariah which says only 1/3 of Jews will make it through the day of the lord. Does he think Israel has been reconstituted to have a picnic? Jeremiah calls it the time of Jacob’s trouble.
An inexplainable narrative 'explained' by other inexplainable narrative: Read on, please. 1 Co 2:13, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words". So, our words [which served us for millennia] are split into two kinds of words: Into human and not human. And it is only the non-human language who can prove that the Biblical God exists.
Such language also proves, according to 1 C 2:13, that the Bible was written by biblical God and that every believer [on account that all of them receive the Spirit from their God] perfectly understand an alleged perfect God's writing and can obey each and ever of his commands each and every time. I don't know how many [or if any] believers have ever read 1 Co 2:13 or ever heard from the pulpit that they are perfect in every way possible.
14, "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers hem foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through Spirit". I do not deem the verses foolish but non-understandable and not ever provable as right or wrong or as true or false. And i suggest that person who penned the two verses and scribes who had written the same or similar inventions, knew that that cannot ever be understood.
If someone ever created a time machine, we would never know.
Appreciate the talk, but the drinking noise I couldn’t contain! Hahah
Where in the in the Bible within the New Testament mentions the Trinity?
"Baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
I love Jeff... But when he basically said no one in the history of the church believed in premillennialism... Give me a break. He doesn't do a decent job in quickly making distinctions like Sproul/MacArthur did in their talk (my site: religiopoliticaltalk.com/dr-macarthur-and-dr-sproul-respond-to-question-of-doctrine-and-grace/)
Wrong.
He said dispensational premillennialism. And he was right.
I had to pause it at 31.13 so that I didn't become postmill 😅
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:28 KJV
Jesus lives
Jesus Christ is Lord
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23 KJV
Jesus loves you repent
You're a sinner in need of a Savior
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10 KJV
=
How to do presuppositional apologetics:
1.) Assume you are right.
2.) Assume everyone who does not agree with you is wrong.
3.) ?????
4.) Reap the harvest.
That's how most people engage in discourse. Haha! You're not making sense. Why argue for a thing you don't think it is right (unless you're in debate club)? I will change my mind if need be, but I'm still justified in arguing for the position I presently believe is right and against the one I think is wrong. Smh
hmm....I get lost in this presentation....
Modern evangelism? The final nail in the coffin of my faith, the final push to abandoning my belief, was just how modern evangelicals have gone to bed with the far-right political movement, how Trump is held up as a ‘wonderful servant of God’ despite his being a human depiction of the seven deadly sins. It seems that the methods of the right are fine, because the end justifies the means for the MAGA evangelicals.
Try jesus for 30 days. I know who said that in CA and in Seattle. Sad cause i love the guy and used to listen to him. I know exactly what they mean by western evangelicalism. I wish more christians would teach the holy days and the sin of homosexuality without fear.
*Soooo, you're hung up on other people's sex lives. Why?*
I got a question. How much money do you get for being a hypocrite
Just curious, but where is he being a hypocrite?
please get organized and make a proper presentation...
Presup is so juvenile.
Too long. Too many words Jeff. I’m 30 minutes in and you’ve said a thousand words but I (and those kids) have no idea where you’re going. Going to look for another video. Be short, get to the point, be interactive with the kids. They’ll remember so much better if they interact with your points than if they listen to you drone on forever. It’s not about you and your many words.
Sigh... more and more they're pushing their eschatology...
Nothing fails like apologetics. And prayer for that matter.... yet another fail....
That's a nice cult you've got there.
Apologetics done right, is to not do apologetics.
Brain washing, I mean apologetics done right!
Apologetics done wrong.
E Christian in what way?