Erik Manning has a great Playlist of videos on YouTube on the reliability of the book of Acts [and therefore of the author Luke who wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts].
The Reliability of Acts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLc0GBMN1lA&list=PLbVf0T8-zFVhHcxyayFZSK_cxfD99yG_P
New Testament Scholar Peter J. Williams responds to Tom Holland on the topic of Jesus.
New Testament Scholar Reacts to Tom Holland on Jesus || The Rest is History
https://youtu.be/2-guxbJ7P9E
See slso Peter J. Williams EXCELLECT lecture:
Confronting Misconceptions about Jesus (with Rebecca McLaughlin)
https://youtu.be/QuMC9Gs8338
"Jesus King of the World" clip by Rebecca McLaughlin
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxfZrni6rUb_SSr9UJ-YlOU7tQWt_eDUo2
Here are SOME links to some of the "The Domain For Truth''s posts on Bible Contradictions. The links have other links as well:
https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/collection-of-posts-responding-to-bible-contradictions/
https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/category/bible-contradiction/
Kennedy and Falk discuss and debate the early vs. late date for the Exodus.
When Did the Exodus Happen? Titus Kennedy and David Falk in Conversation
https://youtu.be/m_f6atkNA3s
Is Theistic Belief Rational in a Scientific Age? | William Lane Craig vs. Jeff Hester
https://youtu.be/PXE5lQW5RQw
Tim Stratton (Molinist) and Chris Date (Calvinist) Discuss Theological Determinism
https://youtu.be/8-OAlGL7cVg
Stratton vs Date Discussion Review
With Tyler Vela and Colton Carlson
https://youtu.be/gkcDVa6yEhc
Review of Tim Stratton and Chris Date on Determinism
With Dan Chapa and Turretinfan
https://youtu.be/0pEPP1N5PKs
Dr. Kirk MacGregor Vs Dr. Guillaume Bignon: Calvinism Vs Molinism: The Problem or Evil EP 239
https://youtu.be/1wtPCXv-BDk
Someone on Facebook posted the following on their wall:
If I deconverted from Christianity I would immediately become a nihilist.
Here was my quickly thought up response:
If nihilism were true, then nothing has objective meaning. It would also then be likely that moral/ethical nihilism would be true. In which case, it would be meaningless and [objectively] morally and rationally indifferent if one were to choose to pretend that a religious system like Christianity [or what have you] were true.
However, if nihilism is false, that best comports with a theistic religion. Because, while atheistic philosophers have argued for objective meaning on secular grounds, many theist and atheist philosophers think they fail or are weaker when compared to theistic options in providing ontological grounding for objective meaning.
In which case, it's most rational to hold to a religion that has the optimal balance between 1. the greatest stakes if one misses out in not subscribing to it [e.g. Christianity and Islam], 2. the greatest benefits in believing/practicing it [via INdirect doxastic voluntarism] and 3. has the greatest evidence in favor for it.
Universalism fails #1. because if true, it doesn't matter which philosophy of life you hold, you'll eventually end up in some kind of paradise and be "saved." Whatever that means in that worldview. For example, in some versions of Buddhism, the goal is actually "arriving" at Nirvana by passing out of existence to escape suffering. While if Universalism is false, then you could be in serious trouble if there's a hell.
Both Islam and Christianity pass #1 And (ostensibly) #2. Both pass #1. because both teach a doctrine of post-mortem punishment [i.e. hell] that a rational person would want to avoid. Both (ostensibly) pass #2 because of a doctrine of a blessed afterlife [i.e. heaven, paradise, Kingdom of God/Allah etc.].
However, of the two, Christianity has much more going for it in terms of evidence than does Islam. Islam is literally self-refuting [as per arguments like The Islamic Dilemma here: https://youtu.be/nNAS0aaViM4].
Therefore, opting for Christianity makes most sense of the options I'm inductively aware of. Maybe there's a competitor to Christianity that meets those three criteria as good as or better than Christianity. But I'm not aware of one.
Either there is ultimate meaning, or there isn't ultimate meaning. If there isn't then no matter what you do, you're not really missing out. But if there is ultimate meaning, then it's in one's best interest to find that meaning and align oneself with it.
Since ultimate meaning makes most sense in a theistic worldview, one would be most rational in examining which theistic worldview has the greatest evidences for it and subscribe to that. As a Christian I think Christianity has the most evidences when compared to all other theistic worldviews I'm aware of. Admittedly, my inductive investigation is limited. But that's the nature of induction.
Atheist Graham Oppy & Christian Guillaume Bignon discuss "Rationality, Religious Experience and the Case for God." Oppy is considered one of the top atheist philosopher living today. Well known Christian apologist William Lane Craig has repeatedly stated that he thinks Graham Oppy is "scary smart." Guillaume Bignon is a Christian philosopher who is well known to be a top defender of Calvinism. I've linked to and referenced his work in many of my blogs.
Atheist Alex O'Connor and Catholic Apologist have a discussion on why they aren't and are a Christian.
Why I Am/Am Not a Christian, @CosmicSkeptic vs. @The Counsel of Trent // CCx22 Session 2
https://youtu.be/dFYrfKHSV2k
Why is God hidden? Cosmic Skeptic & Lukas Ruegger at Oxford University with Max Baker-Hytch
https://youtu.be/9nc0YT-WTnQ
The following essay addresses the issue of whether the story of Jesus could have been pure fiction. This is important because a common objection to C.S. Lewis' famous "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" Argument is that Lewis failed to address whether Jesus, or the story of Jesus, was/is a Legend. Thus making four instead of three "L" options. The argument is also called the "Trilemma" Argument. Adding the fourth "L," some have called it a "Quadrilemma."
Here's VIDEO and TEXT links to C.S. Lewis' essay: Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism. It also goes by the title, Fern-Seed and Elephants.
C. S. Lewis - Fern Seed and Elephants
https://youtu.be/hJ1RnnBKKiQ
Link to the text here:
https://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
OR here: https://web.archive.org/web/20121107160310/https://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
Dr. Lydia McGrew recently discussed whether the 'Maximal Data Case' is better than the 'Minimal Facts Argument' for the Resurrection of Jesus. Paulogia responded in his video titled: Christian Scholar Exposes Minimal Resurrection Facts. The first half of the video was fantastic. The second half of the video...well, Paulogia attempted to critique maximal data and it wasn't good. In this video Erik Manning is joined with Dr. Jonathan McLatchie, Tim McGrew and Lydia McGrew to review Paulogia's criticism.
What Paulogia Gets Wrong About the Maximal Data Case for the Resurrection
https://youtu.be/8BQDcl7nOX8
Below are links to Dr. Travis Campbell's interview by Reasons To Believe on the topic of Middle Knowledge. Campbell received his PhD in philosophical theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 2004. I was highly impressed by his paper "Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique" when I first read it years ago. Today I found out that he was interviewed by RTB.
I've linked to the two part interview and the original paper below:
In the video below Bram Rawlings discusses the objection that Jesus made predictions about His return that failed to come to pass. Bram gives thanks to Jason Engwer for helping him refine his response. Here's Engwer's blog where he comments on the video, HERE.
My blog on the topic is here: Did the New Testament's Prophecies and Predictions Regarding Jesus' Soon Return Fail?
Was Jesus a false prophet?
https://youtu.be/uM9Ml9NSAzo
Here's an interesting discussion between two well known YouTube atheists Alex O'Connor and Joe Schmid. They not only discuss arguments for God but also rate them in the style of video game tier lists where video game characters "are subjectively ranked by their respective viability." It's amazing how Alex O'Connor has become more open to the arguments for God's existence compared to his earlier younger days of vlogging on YouTube in defense of atheism. He's one of the most popular atheist voices on YouTube. The discussion also has Joe Schmid who is regarded by both top atheists and top theists as a brilliant young philosopher whose philosophic abilities are very impressive.
(In-Depth) Arguments For God Tier List (Feat. Joe Schmid!)
https://youtu.be/_cPfxjwAubY
The following video has two atheists discussing the common but false myth that Christians burned down the great and famous library of Alexandria. I would of course not agree with everything they say. But it's an interesting video that should help refute those atheists who are constantly spreading this myth around. Here's a link to O'Neill's blog History For Atheists where he often debunks atheist myths regarding history [and sometimes about science, etc.]. Again, I would obviously disagree with a lot of what O'Neill says when he criticizes Christianity etc. He's attempts to be an "equal opportunity" "debunker."
Jordan Peterson interviews Indian Christian philosopher, social reformer, political columnist, writer and lecturer Vishal Mangalwadi on how the Bible and the Christian worldview transformed India and Europe. It's an EXCELLENT interview that has postmillennial implications, which at the very least is consistent with postmillennialism.
India, Europe and the Biblical Revolution | Vishal Mangalwadi & Jordan Peterson
https://youtu.be/QvESPeFWLHw
Eli Ayala interviews with Reformed/Calvinist Philosopher and Pastor Michael Preciado, about his book "A Reformed View of Free Will."
Talking FREE WILL with Michael Preciado
https://youtu.be/BVuvX7j5-8s
Colton Carlson interviewed regarding his 300 page response to and critique of Tim Stratton's book Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis.
300 Page Response to MERE MOLINISM
https://youtu.be/WAsHqEU82lg
See also the series of videos where Colton Carlson reviews the book Mere Molinism. Here's a link to PART ONE of the video series: https://youtu.be/yZ_-eJ9EFa0
Jonathan McLatchie (Christian) and Alex O'Connor (Atheist) debate the existence of God. This might be their 2nd or 3rd debate. I'm not sure.
Theism vs. Naturalism: Which is a Better Account of Reality?
https://youtu.be/HIm5KFvTOws
Two of my favorite defenders of Calvinism really enjoyed listening to this debate/discussion. Guillaume Bignon I end up siding with Philip Swenson, but had the exact same evaluation as Paul Manata did. Paul Manata wrote on his facebook wall:
//I’ve probably watched less than 10% of Capturing Christianity’s episodes, so my judgment here means very little if you take it to be an ontological claim about the best episode, but the Cyr-Swenson episode is *by far* my favorite. I’ve watched it three times. This isn’t a “debate” at all, but a discussion between two top experts who know all the moves in the debate. It’s almost like a dance, each partner knowing their move after the other had made theirs. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they planned this dance ahead of time! For those up-to-speed on the state of the discussion, this discussion is a real treat. I ultimately side with Cyr, but Swenson masterfully shows just how difficult it is to make the argument against his side.//
Does God's Foreknowledge Preclude Human Free Will? Philip Swenson vs. Taylor Cyr
https://youtu.be/uPl2heSStGk
Jonathan McLatchie is interviewed by Sean McDowell on the topic of questioning one's Christian faith.
How to Doubt Your Faith (and How NOT to!)
https://youtu.be/OBtwwr04nGw
Messianic Convergence in the Gospels: A New Way to Frame the Argument from Old Testament Fulfillment by Jonathan McLatchie
https://jonathanmclatchie.com/messianic-convergence-in-the-gospels-a-new-way-to-frame-the-argument-from-old-testament-fulfillment/
Justin Bass & Dale Allison: Is there evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
https://youtu.be/1o5htZtDBfE
Bestselling author Stephen C. Meyer explores how three key Judeo-Christian presuppositions encouraged the rise of modern science, and he explores the influence of faith on the life and work of Sir Isaac Newton. Meyer is Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and author of Return of the God Hypothesis.
The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science
https://youtu.be/ss-kzyXeqdQ
Who is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Singer
https://youtu.be/ZkGv0AEUFF4
A Critique of "Classical Apologetics" by presuppositionalist Dr. Greg Bahnsen:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200719063714/http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa061.htm
Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic by presuppositionalist John M. Frame:
https://frame-poythress.org/van-till-and-the-ligonier-apologetic/
Christian Apologist Greg Koukl's conversations with atheist PineCreek.
2019 conversation:
https://www.str.org/w/a-conversation-with-an-atheist
2022 conversation:
https://youtu.be/9WHDTRiJUQY
These will be a series of videos. I may or may not include all the other videos.
Bad Arguments for the "Problem" of Evil---Greg Bahnsen
https://youtu.be/T5QKwABjg5w
GB248 Is the Problem of Evil Problematic?GB249 Is God Good?GB250 How to Defend the Faith in the Face of Evil
The Historicity of the Resurrection | Dr. Randal Rauser vs Godless Engineer
https://youtu.be/8781a1zPN28
I posted comments to the following video by Matthew Hartke. I've reproduced those comments below.
Here are my comments:
The weakness of this video is the fact that most scholars agree that both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are almost certainly written by the same person [we'll call him "Luke"]. They are VOLUMES 1 & 2," so to speak. However, when we compare the resurrection appearances of Jesus in GLuke, Luke goes out of his way to emphasize the literal physicality and corporeality of Jesus' body. So much so that Luke records Jesus eating fish [and honeycomb in some textual variants] after showing them His hands and feet. It even says that initially the disciples were frightened and startled because they thought the appearance of Jesus was of a ghost/spirit. Then Jesus contradicts that thought by saying, "For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Again, Luke is emphasizing the genuine corporeality of Jesus' body by recording all these things that way.
If Luke were fabricating and making all this up whole-cloth, then he would make the appearances to the disciples in GLuke and the appearance to Paul in Acts as similar as possible. EITHER by having both of them emphasizing Jesus' corporeality, OR both of them emphasizing the more numinous nature of Christ's appearance . Instead, the author of Acts makes it clear that they are different in nature. In Acts he's presenting Jesus' appearance to Paul as a glorious theophany in the style of the Old Testament [especially to Ezekiel]. Anthony Rogers explains this well 15 minutes into his debate with Carlos Xavier here:https://youtu.be/WhjC0jRmjmU?t=923
That Jesus' appearance to Paul was of a different kind from the other disciples is clear from not only how it differs from the accounts in Luke, but from the appearances of Jesus in Acts chapter 1. Which are also apparently more on the side of the corporeal. Luke could do both WITHOUT CONTRADICTING himself because there's a long tradition in Jewish thought that goes back to the Old Testament that the same heavenly beings can appear either as ordinary humans or as evidently supernatural entities. That's true of angels in general and also of the Angel of the LORD [i.e. the Malak/Angel of Yahweh, who many Christians like myself believe to by the pre-incarnate Christ].
Luke 24:
37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.
38 And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate before them.
So, I would have to disagree with the statement made at 5:45 where Matthew says, "In other words, when we put all the relevant texts on the table we have very little reason for thinking that Paul's conversion experience was a physical appearance of the risen Jesus like the ones described in the resurrection narratives of Matthew, Luke and John which were all composed decades later."
Moreover, it's not the case that Paul merely makes the claim that the risen Jesus appeared to him in a numinous way [probably multiple times]. Anyone can claim a past private supernatural experience. But Paul backs it up by also claiming to perform miracles ["signs and wonders"] like the other Apostles did. Both in his past ministry and continuing ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:19); 1 Cor. 2:4-5). That miracles are still occurring in our modern world in the context of teaching about the Jesus of the New Testament suggests, or is an evidential chip in favor of, the truth of Jesus' resurrection and of the Christian religion.
The quote of Strauss at 6:42 works only if one presupposes that Paul never interviewed the other Apostles and if neither the other Apostles nor he himself [i.e. Paul] were able to perform miracles attesting to the truth of their Gospel message. Yet, in the book of Galatians Paul claims to have met some of the other Apostles and to have compared their message and supernatural experiences with his own. It's not a stretch to think it went in the other direction as well such that the other Apostles compared notes with Paul's message and miraculous thaumaturgical feats.
For the evidence of modern miracles see the following books and YT videos by the following authors:
Read Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2011]
Craig Keener's "Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World" [2021]
Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates,
and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle
as well as Larmer's book Dialogues on Miracle
Paul Manata's response:
Bahnsen’s been dead for 27 years and so obviously he isn’t here to defend himself. But even if he were here, he wouldn’t bother to reply to David Pallman’s demeaning “hot take.” I’ll lower myself, though.
I don’t know what Pallmann means by “particularly brilliant or original thinker.” What is it to be a “particularly brilliant” thinker? Is Kripke one? How many philosophers are Kripkes? Is it just to have a high I.Q.? Does Pallmann know Bahnsen’s I.Q.? Is it being able to put forth controversial views and defend them in academic print for decades against cadres of scholarly opponents, many of whom maintain opposition but recognize you’re a formidable opponent? Is it doing the former but not just in one scholarly area but many, e.g., philosophy, apologetics, ethics, theology? Bahnsen certainly did that.
What is it to be an “original thinker”? Is it to be a David Lewis? How many philosophers are Lewises? Is it to offer unique and updated defenses of extant positions, especially ones which have fallen out of favor? Bahnsen certainly did that. But why is this even a criterion for avoiding young Pallmann’s ire? Not every thinker is a system builder. Some thinkers might be very gifted at spotting flaws. The latter may not be very original, but that talent is nevertheless important - ask engineering firms! Other thinkers may be particularly skilled in defending what already exists, steel manning the traditional view. It’s particularly modern to tie importance or intellect to originality. Sometimes, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
So, while I’m not sure what Pallmann has in mind with these loogies fired on Bahnsen’s grave, it may be worth taking a very abbreviated tour of Bahnsen’s intellectual history. Besides being born with numerous health problems, one which would ultimately cause his early demise, Bahnsen would graduate magna cum laude from Westmont College (B.A. philosophy) as well as receive the John Bunyan Smith Award for his overall grade point average. He did this despite doctors finding a severe heart problem during a college medical examination. After graduating from college, Bahnsen enrolled at Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS). There, he *simultaneously* earned two masters degrees, the Th.M and M.Div, as well as the William Benton Greene Prize in apologetics and a Richard Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. After graduating from WTS, Bahnsen went to USC to study philosophy under Dallas Willard. Willard was Bahnsen’s doctoral advisor and Bahnsen earned his Ph.D in 1978, after defending his dissertation, *A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception*. As the philosopher Erik Funkhouser notes in his recent book on self-deception, this is a very interesting area of research which hasn’t received nearly as much attention as other areas in philosophy. Philosophical analysis of self-deception involves epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, etc. Bahnsen taught at the graduate level for a few years, wrote around 8 books in three distinct areas of study, contributed to 4 books, and published a number of articles. He was invited to guest lecture at several graduate programs, and invited by student bodies, radio show hosts, and other groups who sought him out to debate about atheism, theonomy, post-millennialism, Catholicism, homosexuality, gun control, etc. Later, Bahnsen started a study center and also intimately pastored a church. All of this was done in about 25 years, during which he lived with a heart problem which frequently left him tired for long periods of time. He had three major heart surgeries over his career, dying at age 47 after his third aortic valve implant surgery. The Sunday before his death he preached on Philippians 1:21, titled “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Clearly, Bahnsen’s academic interests were wide-ranging. From philosophy, to theology, to biblical ethics, to eschatology, to apologetics, to hot potato issues in American politics, Bahnsen weighed-in with interesting thoughts. Not only that, he was the rare theologian trained in philosophy. So his theological writings were a rare treat as they contained arguments that were presented much more clearly than one finds in a lot of works of theology. In the 2000s, I listened to political debates he had in the 80s and early 90s. He was citing John Lott and others in his debates defending the second amendment. He was debating progressive, homosexual Christians and making arguments contemporary scholars like Gagnon make today. He also held controversial and unpopular views in theology, namely his theonomic approach to ethics and his postmillennial eschatology. He gave some of the best and most thorough defenses of those views up to date. But he wasn’t only idiosyncratic in theological areas. I recall reading his paper on the nature of man and coming across an odd view which I later discovered was something like Russellian substantival monism. That’s where I first learned about non-dualist/non-materialist views of human persons or nature.
Yet, in virtually all of these areas, I part ways with Bahnsen. I’m not theonomic, I’m not post-millennial, I’m not a substantival monist, and at best, I’m weakly-Framean in my presuppositionalism. I still agree with his Reformed Theology and many of his political views. But these academic views were never my primary interest in Bahnsen. What I most appreciated about him was his pastoral heart. In the days when celebrity preachers and mega churches were coming onto the scene, Bahnsen, who was more qualified to teach the flock than virtually any of these super pastors, pastored a very small OPC congregation, and he took his job of shepherding the flock seriously. His sermons were recorded, and you can listen to many of them online at Sermon Audio, which contains about 1700 sermons (and lectures). I have especially liked and profited from many of his sermons exegeting entire books of the Bible and doing practical theology, like his Sermons for the Heart, a series he preached after his wife’s affair. Another good series was his A Call to Consecration, and of course his eerie final sermon. He has series on the book of Hebrews, the book of Proverbs, Calvin’s Institutes, and many, many more.
Whatever you think about Bahnsen and his views, to boil this man down to a dull, unoriginal thinker skilled only in the art of sophistic rhetoric, is to do a disservice to him, and that’s putting it extremely mildly.
Paul Manata posted a few more comments on his Facebook Wall. Here are a few more. I won't be posting all of Manata's comments. Just some highlights.
After a few days of intense thinking about how to reply to my post, Pallmann finally offered this reply (see attached picture). Sorry, son, this ain’t gonna cut it. The point was that, given the credentials, the academic awards, the PhD dissertation on a very original and unexplored topic (cf. Funkhouser’s 2019 comments on the issues involved in philosophical analysis of self-deception, a fortiori do they apply to the 1970’s), the body of work, the respect from dozens of likewise highly credentialed people who *disagreed* with Bahnsen and debated him in print, and all of this with major medical issues that frequently left him tired and unable to perform at peak performance, but who, on top of this, and during this, pastored a church and left us a thousand excellent high-level exegetical and expository sermons, it is * highly unlikely* that he was some dull, unoriginal rube who was only gifted in using sophistic rhetoric. This touches on *exactly* the issue raised by the ephebic epologist.
People don’t want to talk about this, though, they want to talk about “Dillard’s.”
And another one:
After decimating the first part (the “Bahnsen” stuff) of Pallmann’s reply, I said that I was going to reply to the second part (the “Calvinists in general” stuff), but I ended up not doing so because the problems are obvious to any person not lobotomized. Anyway, the fam went to bed early and I’m up, and I’m bored. So I’ll reply to the second part of the freshman epologist’s “hot take.” For context, see the attached picture below before reading.
So Pallmann transitions from his comments about Bahnsen to “the Calvinist community in general.” Said community, in general, is “easily seduced by strong rhetoric which tells them what they want to hear.” Using rough numbers, there’s 800 million to one billion Protestants. One Barna poll said that roughly 3/10 churches are Calvinists. Using ugly math, let’s say there’s 240,000,000 Calvinists. But let’s be generous and significantly reduce this figure by 90%, leaving 24,000,000 Calvinists. No, let’s be more generous and reduce this by half. So, worldwide, we have 12,000,000 Calvinists. Nah, I’m going to be nicer and reduce by 50% again. So we’ve got 6,000,000 Calvinists. Ok, so … wait, I need to be even nicer. Let’s do another 50%. So worldwide, we’ve got 3,000,000 Calvinists.
Okay, so Pallmann made a claim about Calvinists in general. I bet he doesn’t know and hasn’t talked to 600 Calvinists, that’s .02% of Calvinists. I can be generous and allow that he has personally spoken to .03% of Calvinists, that’s 1,0000 individual Calvinists. I don’t doubt he’s talk to Calvinists 1,000 times (or more!), but I doubt he’s personal talked to 1,000 Calvinists. That’s a lot of people! Indeed, I was in *several* Facebook groups with him, and the number of Calvinists interacting with him were no more than 24. Besides that, many Calvinists, like me, who gave him serious pushback, have been blocked. So he self-limits the Calvinists he interacts with, namely those who don’t embarrass him.
Anyway, the point here is that Pallmann clearly doesn’t have the sort of sample size needed to render this sort of judgment about “Calvinists in general.” It’s worse, though. His empirical claim involves a psychological claim about “seduction.” Surely this hardcore “evidentialist” doesn’t have the sort of *evidence* needed to underwrite his claim about Calvinists “in general.” Oh, but it’s worse. It’s not just that “Calvinist in general” are seduced by rhetoric, but “Calvinists in general are *easily* seduced by rhetoric” (emphasis mine). It’s even worse, it’s not just that they’re seduced by rhetoric, or *easily* seduced by rhetoric, it’s that they’re easily seduced by rhetoric which “they want to hear.” I would *love* to see the *evidence* this “hardcore evidentialist” has to make these sorts of claims!
So, let’s all be honest here. Pallmann is *bullshitting* in the Frankfurt sense. He doesn’t know, and doesn’t care if he’s right or wrong, about his claims about “Calvinists in general.”
But he’ll protest. “I cited Calvinist thought leaders!” These “thought leaders” are, according to Pallmann, “very shallow thinkers” who are given to pure rhetoric, which “Calvinists in general” are “easily seduced by.”
Well, a Calvinist approach to matters theological has a very long and storied history, boasting some of the greatest thinkers the church has produced (this is admitted by all sides). Who did the Dillard’s sales associate cite? He cited Scott Oliphint, James White, Paul Washer, Jeff Durbin, and Sye Ten Bruggencate. Oh yeah, he wrote “etc” too, but everyone knows that’s just more bullshit.
Okay, so let’s think about this list. I mean, wtf?! This is so stupid, but I’m going to address it. First, wth is Oliphint doing here? It’s no secret that I’ve strongly disagreed with Oliphint on several matters. But he’s a genuine scholar with a PhD from a legitimate institution (Pallmann is getting an undergrad at an a school which is not affiliated (accredited) with any regional or national accrediting agency). He’s been invited to participate in scholarly works engaging with scholars such as Tyler McNabb and Tim McGrew. I once expressed my disapproval of choosing Oliphint to represent a certain view, but both McNabb and McGrew stuck up for Oliphint. This is highly strange on the Pallmannian hypothesis that Oliphint has nothing to offer other than sophistic rhetoric which easily seduced Calvinist dupes. While I disagree with Oliphint on many matters, he’s struck me as a scholar and a gentleman. That leaves the remaining four: White, Washer, Durbin Ten Bruggencate. Of these, only White has a PhD, and I *think* it’s from an unaccredited school. Others, like Ten Bruggencate, are personalities who gained fame from online stunts and gimmicks. Washer, a preacher, probably isn’t in this category, but I don’t know much about him other than some clips I’ve seen from him, many of which he says some true things and seems sincere.
Anyway, yeah, that’s the list. I mean, in a world where we have “Calvinist” scholars like: Calvin, Vermigli, Turretin, Van Mastricht, Edwards, Hodge, Machen, Vos, Bavinck, Shedd, Berkhof, Murray, Kline, Frame, Bignon, Anderson, Welty, etc, we get names like “Jeff Durbin” and “Sye Ten Bruggencate. Note, my “etc” is legit. Look at recent top-ranked exegetical commentaries. Calvinists dominate this field. I’ve also left of several Calvinist analytic philosophers, theologians, etc. It is beyond a doubt that Calvinist scholarship suffers from an embarrassment of riches. Scholars like Tom McCall and Jerry Walks are very much anti-Calvinist, but they would admit the existence of great Calvinist scholars.
None of these thinkers are cited. Why? Because Pallmann hangs out in the extremely small ecosystem of “very online” Calvinist hacks. The extremely sub-culture he’s involved with, comprised of uneducated, loud, anti-intellectual hacks, forms his opinions. From what I’ve heard, any Calvinist who detail a more sophisticated Calvinism or even presuppositionalism than, say, “Jeff Durbin” or “Sye Ten Bruggencate,” get blocked. Pallmann is content to deal with people panned by actual sophisticated Calvinist scholars, in order to make his unsubstantiated claims about “Calvinists in general.”
I’m in this community. I know far more Calvinists than Pallmann does. Far more. Most aren’t even on social media. And the overwhelming majority cite thinkers like Calvin, Turretin, Edwards, Hodge, Bavinck, Machen, Kline, Clowney, Carson, Schreiner, Moo, Anderson, Welty, &co. These men are not “shallow thinkers,” as many non-Calvinists would attest. These are the thinkers the *majority* of Calvinists are reading. I get that the hacks Pallmann likes to confront cite the “hacks”
Pallmann listed. But his list is just strong *evidence* that he doesn’t engage Calvinism in a scholarly reputable way. It’s like me panning Arminianism and evidentialism by citing people like Ray Comfort, Leighton Flowers, and David Pallmann, instead of, say, Abasciano, McCall, Walls, and Keathley.
See also Kenneth Gentry's article: Appointed for the Defense of the Gospel: The Life and Ministry of Greg L. Bahnsen
I haven't been a Catholic since the 1980s, but I appreciate Catholic apologist Trent Horn as clear thinking and great debater. Here's a video of his on the topic of atheism:
One question atheists can’t answer
https://youtu.be/D8Dnm6gqKDs
Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. David Wood vs. Atheist influencer Tom Jump.
An interview of William Lane Craig by the YouTube channel Warrior Poet Society
Warriors MUST answer these questions..
https://youtu.be/9DDiFk54t4M
This is blog not a comprehensive answer to the question. It just records a post posted on a Jewish and Christian Facebook group, and my quick response to it. Presumably it was posted by a Jewish Woman (first name "Ilana").
Christian, why do you worship an idol who hates women? I’m pretty sure the god/man hates women. Here are the facts, aside from telling a Canaanite woman that she is a dog of other nations, we see other instances that seem to support this idea of sexism from the god/man. After the resurrection, the women go to the tomb and are met by Jesus who tells Mary not to touch him—because he has not yet ascended to God, yet only ten verses later Jesus tells Thomas to touch him and believe. On the surface, the woman at the well is seen as a comforting story, but why does the writer go to such detail to inform the reader that she has been married so many times, with no backstory. Jesus directs her to go get her husband, and as the story goes, knows already that she is not married. Is there a single instance where Jesus speaks of any man’s past relational issues? Even Paul parrots this sexist nonsense when he claims that, per the law, it is not permitted for women to speak in the churches, nor teach. That was a lie. There is no such Torah law that makes that command at all. How could the judge, prophetess, wife, and military general of the Hebrew Scriptures, Deborah, have judged Israel—by using the law—while remaining silent? Other prophetesses include Miriam, Huldah, Noadiah, and Isaiah’s wife. How could the Proverbs 31 woman exist if Paul’s instructions are part of God’s plan? She has a business selling belts to the tradesmen, buys land, is praised in the gates of the city, cares well for her handmaidens, and is married.
The following was my brief response:
Compare all that with the traditional Jewish prayer:
//“Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman.” //
//Bessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has not made me a woman.//
Some have it, “Blessed are you O God, King of the Universe, Who has not made me…” and conclude, respectively, “a goy [Gentile],” “a slave,” and “a woman.”
Woman were among those who financially funded Jesus ministry. See Luke 8:3
Luke 8:1 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him,
2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,
3 AND JOANNA, THE WIFE OF CHUZA, HEROD'S HOUSEHOLD MANAGER, AND SUSANNA, AND MANY OTHERS, WHO PROVIDED FOR THEM OUT OF THEIR MEANS
Jesus not giving a hearing to the Canaanite/Syro-Phoenician woman wasn't because she was a woman, but because she was a Gentile. Jesus said His mission was to Israelites. Only later would the Gospel go to the Gentiles as the Tanakh predicts, and Jesus' own teaching entails.
Jesus telling Mary not to touch her is better translated as "hold on" (NIV, ISV) "cling/clinging" (as the ESV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, CSB, HCSB).
//but why does the writer go to such detail to inform the reader that she has been married so many times, with no backstory.//
Adulterous and "fornicatious" affairs are sinful whether one is a man or a woman. In this case, it's a woman, rather than a man. One might as well say that the prophet Nathan was a misanthrope [a hater of men] because he exposed King David's affair with Bathsheba.
//Even Paul parrots this sexist nonsense when he claims that, per the law, it is not permitted for women to speak in the churches, nor teach.//
Even in most Jewish settings [ancient, 1st century, middle ages, and present] rabbis are only to be men.
//That was a lie. There is no such Torah law that makes that command at all.//
The Hebrew Scriptures clearly teach by inference that only men should be teachers of doctrine over both men and women. Though, it would obviously allow for women to teach their children etc.
//How could the judge, prophetess, wife, and military general of the Hebrew Scriptures, Deborah, have judged Israel—by using the law—while remaining silent?//
The New Testament also has female prophetesses (Acts 21:9; Acts 2:17-18). But Giving prophecy and teaching doctrine aren't exactly the same thing. Prophecies must be weighted/judged under both the Old and New Testament (Deut. 13 & 18). Giving prophecies doesn't necessarily make one a leader or a teacher. Paul's statement should also take all this into consideration. Paul was speaking generally about women. Most women, generally don't have the gift of prophecy. Though, some did.
//She has a business selling belts to the tradesmen, buys land, is praised in the gates of the city, cares well for her handmaidens, and is married.//
The married couple who were both tentmakers Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned 3 times in the book of Acts. Two out of the three times the female wife is mentioned first. Probably because she was more vocal in terms of evangelism and sharing the Gospel with others. While I'm not fully convinced, a case could be made that the second person mentioned in Rom. 16:7 is not only a woman (Junia), but a fellow apostle/missionary. There are debates on this issue, but it's not an impossibility.
scholarly article on the topic
introduction to the topic
https://www.gotquestions.org/Junia-Junias-apostle.html
At one of my blogs (HERE) I linked to three debates where I thought Dan Barker lost a debate to a Christian. I linked to them because I've listened to dozens of Dan Barker's debates and I think he wins nearly all of them. So, for a theist to win a debate against Barker is remarkable. Here's a FOURTH debate where I think a Christian won against Dan Barker.
Does the God of the Bible exist?
[Atheist Dan Barker vs. Christian Michael L. Brown]
https://youtu.be/tQtDha3pgOw
SEE ALSO: Atheist Dan Barker Defeated by Three Christian Theists
Greg Koukl's talk where he shares some of the principles in his EXCELLENT apologetics book, "Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions" (GET THE REVISED 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION).
The Columbo Tactic: Diplomacy Rather than D-Day (Greg Koukl)
https://youtu.be/iFVktfjz4O0
The ONE Apologetics Book EVERY CHRISTIAN Should Read in 2022
https://youtu.be/uDRW0It-7zY
This will a series of videos by Jordan Cooper on the topic of Michael Heiser's views on the Divine Council. At present, I've linked to two of the videos. There might be more in the future which I fail to add to this blog.
An Evaluation of Heiser's Divine Council Theology
https://youtu.be/cNKkhcLfKtI
Is Jesus pro-LGBTQ?
Michael L. Brown vs. Brandan Robertson
https://youtu.be/RBHrZdcup84
Should Christians affirm Transgender Identities?
Michael L. Brown vs. Megan Rohrer
https://youtu.be/SMzPipegf_A
