Hi Al,

Thanks for the comment! You're certainly right about the relationship the believer has with the law of God being misunderstood by many. It is a difficult topic and, I feel, a slippery slope at times. At least, for me, it is something that I've had to really delve into because I saw both continuity and discontinuity between the Law and the NT believer.

Thanks again,
Daniel

This is something that I constantly have to remind myself when trying to work through especially difficult concepts. My tendency as a lover of philosophy (which literally means "love of wisdom") is to answer every question and to answer it to my satisfaction. It is frustrating but also humbling to know that there are some things that I am just not going to be able to answer...and that God designed it to be that way.

I've read Frame and I have books by Bahnsen and Van Til that I have yet to read on my shelf.

Presuppositionalism is new(ish) to me. I've only been investigating how I can use it for about a year. Until I get a firmer grasp I don't feel comfortable recommending it.

But, yes, Lewis will remain at #1 for the long haul.

Thanks for the comment Aaron.

Yes, it can be misleading (much like Limited Atonement) because I think people want to confirm it while not leading the hearer to think they can just live like they did before they were saved. There must be a change. Its a slippery slope and many are unable to articulate the doctrine correctly.

Paul Washer really drives this home in his internet-famous sermon he gave at a youth conference a few years back.

Christ's death on the cross has no bearing on hermeneutics whatsoever. in fact, to even know he died on the cross you would have to be guilty of interpreting Scripture and, therefore, refuting your own argument.

To even disagree (though I have NO idea what you're talking about) you would have to interpret Scripture. There is no discussion here. You must, by necessity, interpret Scripture. You are unable to argue against brute fact.

Since God is the ultimate author of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16) your assertion is flawed.

If we ignore authorial intent then we can never know ANYTHING about God that he has chosen to reveal through Scripture. You are unable to assert any position whatsoever without interpreting Scripture. Period.

I don't recall advocating violence though if you feel your wife is emasculating you then I suggest you speak with her about it.

Reading comprehension FTW!

So you assume it is reality without proving it.

As you are the one who instigated this discussion, the burden if proof is upon you.

It is made up if the author has fabricated erroneous details of his life.

You would first need to show that such an action has taken place.

Evolution has been proven by the works of Darwin, Dawkins, and numerous other authors and scientists. Feel free to read those books, as I have.

Proven how? I told you that I wanted original research not "go and read such and such" answers. For every author/scientist you provide I can provide another who says the opposite.

I take it you haven't read anyone other than those agreeing with your position?

You say, "you don't need to prove God exists" ... that is a comment to consider. I, on the other hand, do feel the need to prove ideas and beliefs.

Then please prove the following:

1. The scientific method.
2. Your memories as being real.
3. That I am not a robot.
4. That you are not a brain in a vat in a scientist's lab.
5. That the sun will rise tomorrow.

Here is your most damning statement and a real distinction between blind faith and realty.

You assume that my faith is blind but you've not shown that to be the case.

Science admits that is has been wrong and can be wrong.

But you said science was reality. Now you say science can be wrong. Is it your position that reality can be wrong? If so, how? If not, how is science reality then?

One of the principals of the Scientific Method is to correct previous knowledge. Religions do not claim that principal, rather they rally against it.

Really? That's news to me and millions of other Christians. We correct beliefs all the time based upon new evidence.

Why just a few weeks ago I believed that God was immutable but now, after further research, I am leaning towards believing his immutability only applies to his essential attributes.

For example, Galileo published his papers on the heliocentric theory of Copernicus in 1610.

You're aware that heliocentrism is false, right? Even your beloved science concurs.

The Catholic Church issued a formal apology for the trial of Galileo in 2000.

The apology was for the trial, not the conclusions. Of course, I'm not Catholic and anachronisms don't help your case.

I never assumed Genesis was a science book. Rather, it is fiction.

So then you assume it is fiction without proving it.

If Genesis does not contain details about creation, doesn't that tell you that it is made up?

A biography on George Washington doesn't contain details about creation. Is that made up too?

You assume that Genesis intends to convey scientific fact yet you fail to show how such a hermeneutic is justified.

You would think something that important should have a little depth to it.

Why? Why would you think that Genesis should have a "little depth"? What standard are you applying to it?

Actually, Evolution is fact. Face it, you are a distant cousin of the ape.

Saying so doesn't make it true. You know that!

If macroevolution is true then why are we no longer evolving from apes? Where is the missing link? Why are apes still in existence? Where's the proof?

Science is reality.

Science is not reality. If it were then it would never be wrong yet it continues to revise and exclude scientific conclusions previously made.

Reality is that which corresponds to truth and science is often found not to be true.

You should probably think through these things a bit more.

Belief in a supernatural being who listens to the mumblings of millions of people is anything but logical.

Really? Which law of logic is being violated?

PROVE god exists and I will be the first to praise him.

I doubt that. However I don't need to prove God exists as belief in God is properly basic. He is a necessary Being.

You should concentrate on doing that rather than produce homophobic, misogynistic ramblings.

I'd suggest you concentrate on the meanings of words. If criticizing homosexuality qualifies as homophobia (which you'd have to prove was wrong) then I am certainly homophobic. However you'd then be homophobicphobic and just as guilty.