U.P. Interesting article. Can't say that it didn't have an decent argument, but it was definitely set within a framework of an agenda. Just like money is a root of all evils it could be the same for music. It is a means that can be used for good as well regardless of form.
Doubting Thomas: What are you? Eight years old? Act your age, not your shoe size.
Dolores: Yes ma'am. Which is one reason that it is of the utmost importance that Christians learn the principle and application of Biblical Discernment. Much of vain tradition and unbiblical doctrine could be thrown out of Christian pulpits were men of God to really "study to show themselves approved into God".
Watch it Doubting Thomas. It's not Johnny Y's mere opinion, it's the word of God you just discounted. Snide remarks never got the cause of Christ anywhere but further down the hole. If you're not going to stand by the very basic principles of the Bible (such as the doctrine of Salvation by Grace through Faith) , then you are in fact "taking the name of The Lord in vain". Claiming to be His, yet denying His written Word. Kind of contradictory on your part. Get over your idiocy and focus on drawing closer to Christ. Get in your Bible and you may find that it clears up a lot of the junk that's clouding your mind.
Sinners are disgusting vile wretches and the beauty of the incarnation is that Jesus actually entered our sinful world to rescue us. Homosexuals need Jesus, but you don't treat them as less than you are. Are you praying for their souls or being God for swift judgment?
I honestly haven't read anything by Van Til, but I've listened to a number of his lectures through SA. But I'm reading through Schaeffer's "the God who is there" and if you're familiar with Schaeffer's work, you'll be well prepared to give Van Til a listen...though some of the audio is poor due to the time.
Van Til taught alongside J. G. Machen, but you might be more familiar with one if their students: Francis Schaeffer. Presuppositional apologetics focuses on personal worldview bias that precedes the interpretation of facts. So Nye presupposes that man can be reasonable and that this material world is all we have and can know about. And so Nye interprets the world this way. Bringing up evidence contrary to his opinion won't address his presuppositions. ...as for Gordon Clark. I'm unfamiliar with him. I'll check him out.
What an encouraging message. This is a great sermon to remind the church how faithful, powerful, merciful,
gracious, and wonderful the
LORD is. My family is thankful for the ministry of this church and we pray that God will continue to bless His work there.
JSC wrote: Unprofitable I haven't responded because unfortunately matt hasn't given any biblical support for driscol's antics outside the obvious matt likes mark. Matt...
I moved to a computer...
1. My original post was made for the sake of those who see someone else shake their head at someone and then shake their heads without any investigation. If you investigate and conclude something, I'm glad. Even if you differ.
2. As far as biblical support, to my knowledge, he is orthodox in his teaching of God and of Jesus. And also to my knowledge, he meets the biblical qualifications of elder.
3. As far as me not answering direct questions, I did ask a qualifying question about Driscoll's affirmation of Jakes as a Godly man...whether he commended the man or his teaching (I think there is a difference)...but you didn't directly answer.
4. The radio question...it was obvious Mark was frustrated, but he didn't cuss at her or say something offensive...I don't know how I would've reacted in the same situation...where I'm called to talk about the content of my book and then get blindsided with an accusation of plagiarism.
5. I'm confused as to when I didn't speak truthfully...?
6. I tried to be encouraging and edifying, yet it's not...