@@redeemedzoomer6053 hey 120yo idol. do you think its ok to have a discord community that bans you for saying "The Bible tells us to reject other religions, not HATE them. Also, Buddha wasn't demonic."? Manage your pathetic community and make sure heretics dont ban others for truth which is perceived as heresy.
I'm so sad that I can't share the Eucharist with you. Hopefully we can some day! That's the ultimate brotherly experience to share our saviours body and blood
It is always awesome to see sisters in Christ loving the study of theology. Praise our Lord Jesus! I've been watching his videos for a while and this one of his best videos or his best video so far! stay tuned haha
As a Presuppositionalist who has studied the methodology directly from Bahnsen and Van Til, you got it all right, although Im not sure what you meant by "They agree with some Natural Revelation", we affirm Natural Revelation just not Natural Theology, or the majority of it. Other then that, it was very good. In terms of the natural revelation stuff, I highly recommend listen to Bahnsen's 8th lecture on Calvins Institutes, he talks about that and its distinction between Natural Revelation and Natural Theology.
I presuppose that Abraham and moses were handed the king james bible in english by god in human form jesus, And they were confused because they don't read English so they spent their adulthood translating it into hebrew just to read it and thats why they didn't do anything until they were old men,
I've seen a number of your videos and had my reservations yet I subbed on this video. Great job and really appreciate your study. I haven't read enough to argue but I think you're representation of presupposition to be off. I understood it in the context of presuppositional apologetics which required certain concepts and ideas to exist in the mind before these ideas of salvation and substitutionary atonement can be understood, appreciated, and submitted to.
I’d say in general the highest I would go is Francis Turritien ( one of my favs) but I would probably not go below Charles Hodge and I would only stay on the infralapsarien side, I feel like John Owen is the sweet spot.
As someone who is on the autism spectrum, and is a long time fan of your videos.. In the nicest way possible, are you also on the spectrum? I've wondered about it ever since I first started watching your videos, thank you.
In my opinion, I would have to say that the Barth approach of starting with Christ and the incarnation is the only uniquely Christian approach because if we use natural theology alone then we will end with Deism like the Enlightenment thinkers and Platonists or Pantheism like the Stoics and Taoists. Aquinas was only able to reason the Christian God because he had the hindsight of Christian revelation through Christ. Likewise, one cannot focus on the Trinity or a biblical worldview either apart from Christ because it is Christ who made us aware that there even is a Trinity. The Jews too can say that they have a biblical worldview, but that worldview isn't Trinitarian or Christian because they do not accept Christ. Thus, one would have to start with Christ first in order to even make possible the other approaches to be done from a Christian perspective in the first place. Hence, Christ said, "No one knows the Father except the Son," (Matt.11:27), as well as what the Apostles taught in John 1:18, Rom. 1:19-21 and 1 Cor. 1:21. And yes, I'm Lutheran.
it's a good point. philosophically speaking you can arrive at that if God is divinely simple, Him knowing Himself, and loving Himself is intrinsic to who He is, but aren't what He is. So the relationships He has with Himself cause different personhoods within Himself. So God is pluri-personal. And 3 to be exact because God trying to know Himself, the object that is known is Himself, but is the Son. And the Father and the Son them love themselves, which is produced from the act of the willing, which is the Holy Spirit. But we shouldn't try to reason to our dogmas, this is Pelagianism. We have received these divine revelations, so we don't need to rely on our natural revelation.
I think it matters who you're talking to and there is merit in all three of these approaches. If you talk to a muslim, it would make sense to start with just God, because that muslim would think he believes in God and you could find common ground and quickly establish the grave differences between allah and God. If you talk to a Buddhist, I think it makes sense to start with Christ, because he will be fascinated by the teachings of Christ specifically. The Trinitarian approach, I think, has it's best place in arguing with heretic Christians, ie. liberal Christians, because if there is still a fragment of truth in them, they should see how the Trinity is found in all facets of the Bible.
What do you think of this AI summary? 1. Theology Compass: The speaker created a triangle to graph different approaches to theology, with influences from various Christian figures, including pre-Reformation figures like Thomas Aquinas and Reformed figures like Cornelius Van Til and Karl Barth. The compass doesn’t map where these theologians stood themselves but rather their impact on Reformed theology. 2. Three Approaches: • Classical Approach (Thomas Aquinas): Focuses on starting with a general concept of God, common to all religions (natural revelation), and then moving to specific Christian teachings like the Trinity (special revelation). Aquinas’ approach is philosophical and logical. • Presuppositional Approach (Cornelius Van Til): Begins with the Triune God of Scripture and rejects the idea of neutral philosophical ground. Van Til believes that all reasoning should start with the Christian God, and non-Christian worldviews are inconsistent. • Neo-Orthodox Approach (Karl Barth): Focuses on the Incarnation of Christ, rejecting natural revelation altogether. Barth emphasizes that the only way to know God is through Christ, who bridges the gap between finite humans and the infinite God. 3. Influence of Reformed Figures: The speaker discusses how influential theologians, like John Calvin, sit between these approaches. Calvin didn’t fully embrace Aquinas’ natural theology but also wasn’t as radical as Van Til or Barth. Other reformed theologians, like Samuel Rutherford, are also placed within this compass. 4. Scholastics: The medieval Scholastics (Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Bonaventure) and later Reformed Scholastics are discussed, especially in relation to their views on the Incarnation and predestination. Aquinas is associated with infralapsarianism (the Incarnation is tied to the fall of man), while Scotus and Barth are supralapsarian (Christ would have become incarnate even if there were no fall). 5. Personal Placement: The speaker identifies themselves as a “mathematical Platonist” and places themselves near the intersection of Scotus, Barth, and thinkers like Athanasius and Samuel Rutherford, while admitting they are still refining their theological views.
As an aspiring mathematician, heck yeah! Math makes for a very strong argument for God's existence. I don't feel so impressed by the need for an infinite mind to contain infinite information, however. To me it's more that there is an immaterial part of reality that is only accessed through the mind, and which seems to describe the universe, thus pointing to the universe being ordered and created by a Mind. Also, I feel it makes an argument based on transcendentals like beauty and goodness more plausible, but I have trouble articulating why I have this intuition.
I do think a presuppositional perspective would tend towards theologians being “creationists” but not necessarily “young earth creationists.” It seems like a nit-picky point but I think it’s significant. The old earth vs young earth debate is not the same as evolution vs creation debate. One could be, and many are, old earth creationists
THEOLOGY NERDS OF THE INTERNET, I SUMMON THEE I HAVE A REQUEST, HERE MY PLEA AND CALL TO AID: I'm one of the leaders of my colleges Christian union and I'm running a session Monday in "why we should trust the bible". Research is hard as so many people say "we have over 5000 manuscripts" and stuff but no one sites there sources and I don't want to be giving out third hand info, can anyone help me and link me to some people we site there sources, or just link me to some sources directly?
@@somethingsupercrunchy3988 I’m not Thomas Aquinas belived in the real presence and I disagree with him on the immaculate conception of Mary, and the papacy,
I promise you the mandelbrot argument isn't it chief. "It" only has infinite complexity if it were to be literally generated or stored all at once, but it there's no reason to believe that's possible. All that we store of the set within the universe is the finite rule and finite resolution, only the abstract object of the set is infinitely complex.
9:04 I disagree with Barth here. As a recent theology graduate (and non-denominational), my dissertation was on the analogia entis and whether Protestants could accept this or not. I was particularly focused on the account of analogia entis by Erich Przywara S.J., a 20th-century Polish-German Jesuit, Thomist scholar and a lesser known Catholic contemporary of Barth. There are many reasons why I disagree with Barth here. One is that his rejection was based on the assumption that analogia entis was a tertium quid (third part to God, thus effectively replacing Christ). However, Przywara (whom Barth associated with his rejection of analogia entis in Church Dogmatics), Przywara's writings talk of metaphysical laws and relationship of the divine and the created through the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, it is even likely that Przywara was trying to explain the Incarnation itself, at least justifying the idea of God with us. It made more sense for to see Przywara's analogia entis as support for the Trinity metaphysically not support for anything that replaces Christ... I still concluded that the only Protestants who can't accept Przywara's analogia entis would be Reformed (sorry Zoomer) - not for any of Barth's reasons though, but because I don't see the Five Points of Synod of Dort as compatible with Przywara's principle of non-contradiction (which I see as a compromise to creaturely autonomy, something TULIP disagrees with)...
2 Corinthians 4:5-7 King James Version 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. 1 Corinthians 1:27-31 NIV But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
Scientists sometimes want to always be right (psychopath), so they are not very intelligent because they refuse to learn the truth. So the conclusions that they find are not scientific at all.
it's not that you cant trust the findings of science, it's that you have to understand the presuppositions that are used to interpret those findings. For example, if one believes that a supernatural explanation is the least likely explanation for any given situation, they are more likely to interpret the evidences given by the process of science in a non-objective way. Nobody rejects the findings of the science, but there is something to be said about questioning the presuppositions necessary to reach the conclusions of the scientific community
@@TheScholarlyBaptist I would also add that present-day science is highly unreliable. Scientists in many fields are side-stepping the "reliable and repeatable" aspects and using "peer-reviewed" to rubber stamp all their work. While there may be individually trustworthy scientists, the body of modern science falls under scrutiny, because most of the "findings" are either one-off experiments or heavily manipulated to show certain results. I went through research methods when at university and I can sadly say that many published studies would have received a failing grade in that course. There are also the issues of scientists building on each other's work without verifying if that work is valid. It was big news a while back, but there was that one professor who had five studies redacted because she lied about the process and results. It didn't just have an effect on her, but also on the scientists who presumed her work was solid because it was "peer-reviewed." My personal experience is in the social sciences and I have seen a lot of nonsense (not just because I disagree with it) get approved and praised as "groundbreaking." The problem, is that almost 200 published studies were redacted because they were flat out lies or conducted in such specific ways that the results were subjective. I have seen bits and pieces of similar things happening in the natural science realm, but I'm not as "in-tune" with those as they are not my area of focus or expertise. And just as final wrench in this, the natural sciences can easily be dismantled through a new discovery. The recent telescope launch, for example, dismantled the life work of some scientists who focused entirely on the study of space. The telescope provided findings that effectively reversed decades of study and realigned the compass towards a more biblical model. I do understand the point of what you are saying; but science is not really an institution to be entirely respected. It has taken on a life of its own.
I like the video. My one complaint is that I believe that Athanasius should probably be farther to the left. I don’t mind him being labeled in the supralapsarian triangle. I can see an argument for that after reading On the Incarnation. I just think he should be closer to presuppositionalism since he is a if not the chief theologian in the development of the doctrine of the trinity.
Falling was good for adam, its required for books to be interesting, its called the dark night of the soul, theres a thesis(set up), antithesis (rising action and a synthesis (resolution) Its a 3 act structure, there is only one story that exists Adam started as a lawless hedonist With apathy and was unhappy because he never had to risk anything for a reward and never learned anything He gets the maguffen plot device. He becomes Sisyphus and is happy because his like has challenge and purpose Keep pushing that boulder up that hill Good times make weak men. Weak men make hard times, Hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times
Nevermind intelligence, because of course there are geniuses that are vastly above us. What I find truly humbling is when a man of God, who you can tell really speaks from his heart about Christ, says he's a no-good sinner and his only hope is Christ. Doesn't matter how enlightened or pietous we might think we are, it's just dirty rags in the eyes of God and that really grounds me when I hear someone I look up to in matters of faith say that.
Moltmann is a prime example of German Idealism-he’s deeply influenced by Hegelian thought. And no mention of Pannenberg?! Also, Neo-Calvinists like Bavinck are thoroughly rooted in Neo-Platonism-just read his writings on the Beatific Vision….
@@grantcaldwell1938 Yeah, it's just crazy the amount of beliefs and doctrine you have to sift through to even know which denomination you want to be in. I'd rather just take the ancient Church and the church fathers and rest in their wisdom and faith.
That's like deciding that the Bohr model of the atom must be the correct one just because it's simpler. Reality isn't simple, especially if you let people reason their way through different topics.
@@ElijahDawkins-yb1uc Yes, I totally agree. However, when it comes to faith, I think it would be better to find unity in the church started by Christ and the apostles rather than fracturing into 10,000 different denominations over every minute doctrinal difference. I've spent years trying to find the "right" Protestant church, and it turns out the true church has been there all along, never changing but staying consistent with the teachings of the Apostles, the ecumenical councils, and the church fathers.
I must be a Thomist since logical arguments were how I became convinced of God originally. I started with why God exists and then moved on to why He's the Christian God.
Same except I was convinced by more platonist arguments like the ontological argument. Be careful with Thomism as a Protestant you can fall into false doctrine that Catholics believe.
@@TheScholarlyBaptist like what false doctrine ? purgatory, intercession of the saints, real presence of Jesus in the Eucarist, baptismal regeneration, papacy?
Jesus' birth was foretold by prophets, so clearly it's possible to know about God without Jesus. Jesus himself learned about Jehovah from the old testament.
About the incarnation, Adam and eve walked with God right? So Jesus was already there before the fall. So the question of would Christ have come to earth incarnate if Adam hadn't sinned the answer would be He already did. If I'm misunderstanding I pray the Holy Spirit will correct me
I take "the engineer's philosopher" Karl Popper and his critical rationalism as applied to both natural science and theology. All ideas are summed up through analyzing atomic ideas or data points. However, with any finite number of data points, an infinite number of solutions necessarily exist that can fit all known data. So absolute certainty is not possible to human minds and instead there is ...faith through attempting beliefs through trial and error and open discussion of ideas. I'd put critical rationalism in the center of the triangle, but it is far bigger than Reformed thought. I'm anti-Calvinist because I'm anti-Augustinian. Calvin accepted the "two most important Augustinian doctrines in practice": Infant Damnation and Righteous Persecution. So Servetus is as much a Protestant hero as Tyndale.
It's interesting that the section you placed yourself in is the only section that has no one on it . . . do you think no prominent theologian has had your same beliefs? I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it is a cause to be cautious.
I dont quite understand the difference between the supralapsarian and infralapsarian position. The way in which you explained the difference seemed to be strictly on a hypothetical universe other than that which is this one. How and why would the hypothetical of "if the fall never happened" ever come into conversation?
@@patrickkircher145 well that’s why we must ask ourselves if it’s worth to have these conversations, for those who want to present the faith in a systematic and logical model the answer would probably be yes.
I disagree regarding Rutherford. His ideas are not that hard to comprehend. It is very much that his writing style obscures those ideas. Reading his contemporary George Gillespie is like watching Ben Shapiro eviscerate a 20-something woke nitwit. Reading Samuel Rutherford, by comparison, is like watching Curtis Yarvin dismantle an argument. Yarvin feels the need to preface his statements with a lot of historical and philosophical context, and to dress all of it up in fancy language. And while this makes his points more elegant (and yes, as Orthodox I affirm that beauty is important), it also renders him a little difficult to follow ("Why exactly is he talking about King George III to answer a question about anti-Semitism?"). Rutherford is the same way. He takes a circuitous, poetically garnished route using sentences that have, like, 16 layers of nested clauses. But what he's trying to say behind all of it is painfully simple.
