Royal Prerogative

"Glorifying God consists in adoration, or worship. Psa. xxix 2. "Give unto the Lord the glory due unto His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." There is a twofold worship: (1.) A civil reverence which we give to persons of honour. Gen.xxiii 7. "Abraham stood up and bowed himself to the children of Heth." :iety is no enemy of courtesy. (2.) A divine worship which we give to God as His royal prerogative. Neh. viii 6. "They bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces toward the ground." This divine worship God is very jealous of; it is the apple of His eye, the pearl of His crown; which He guards, as He did the tree of life, with cherubims and a flaming sword, that no man may come near it to violate it. Divine worship must be such as God Himself has appointed, else it is offering strange fire. Lev. x 1. The Lord would have Moses make the tabernacle, "according to the pattern in the mount." Exod. xxv 40. He must not leave out anything in the pattern, nor add to it. If God was so exact and curious about the place of worship, how exact will He be about the matter of His worship! Surely here everything must be according to the pattern prescribed in His word."


-Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, pgs. 7-8.

In my previous post, I spent some time looking into what it means to glorify God, in terms of Him having the supremacy in our thoughts. Now, out of that admiration (setting Him highest in our thoughts) for God flows the stream of worship, or adoration. With glipse of His stunning glory are we able to grasp worship as His royal prerogative. It is only when we rightly see and comprehend His holiness and beauty can we truly worship Him.

Many, I suppose, think the idea of confining our worship as prescribe by the Scriptures puts God in a box, but it is God who designates such patterns for worship. Therefore, to worship God in any other manner is to offer "strange fire," and do so in disobedience. Therefore, let us never succumb to the grievous error of worshiping God without the knowledge of who He is. An error which I am convinced has plagued the modern church. Thoughtless-worship seeks to center in on feelings and detach believers from doctrines and confessions. This is not worship, but idolatry. Worship stems from Biblical orthodoxy. The Scriptures prescribe us how we must worship, as Thomas Watson accurately points out.

Highest In Our Thoughts

"To grorify God is to set God highest in our thoughts, and to have a venerable esteem of Him. Psa. xcii 8. 'Thou, Lord, art most high for evermore.' Psa. xcii9. 'Thou art exalted far above all gods.' There is in God all that may draw forth both wonder and delight; there is a constellation of all beauties; he is prima causa, the original and springhead of being, who sheds a glory upon the creature. We glorify God, when we are God-admirers; admire His attributes, which are the glistering beams by which the divine nature shines forth; His promises which are the charter of free grace, and the spiritual cabinet where the pearl of price is hid; the noble effects of his power and wisdom in making the world, which is called 'the work of His fingers.' Psa. viii3. To glorify God is to have God-admiring thoughts; to esteem Him most excellent, and search for diamonds in this rock only."

-Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, pg. 7.

To many, the idea of setting God 'highest in our thoughts' is but a pitiful maudlin that serves to boost our self-esteem. But it is painfully obvious that Thomas Watson's assessment of what it means to glorify God is not a 'you can do it' encouragement, but stunning rebuke of the depravity in the human heart, for we do not esteem Him as we ought. It displays our need of Him.
Behind all our ideas and affections, God must be preeminent; His superiority must ultimately presupposed. God's glory radiates when all our conducts find their end in Him. However, the reality is that we 'search for diamonds' in other rocks, which are ultimately inadequate; we find no diamonds in them, only filth. We constantly run to destructive idols. The remedy for our straying is in God who renews us and sanctifies us, and ultimately glorifies us that we may never again stray from Him. May God grant His people to 'draw forth both wonder and delight' in Himself. Endless beauty.

Small Group Questions Acts 2:1-13

*We will be reading Acts 1:12-26 and Acts 2:1-13, but examining more intently on the latter. Please read the passages along with these questions.


Acts 2:1-4

What is the significance of the following events occurring on this specific day, namely, Pentecost? What may have been the Jewish attitude during this event?

How do you think the disciples reacted when they suddenly heard “a mighty rushing wind” (v.2) coming from heaven?

Statement to consider:
“The violence of the wind did serve to make them (disciples) afraid; for we are never rightly prepared to receive the grace of God, unless the confidence (and boldness) of the flesh be tamed.”

Application:
In light of your experience and/or biblical knowledge, would you agree with the statement above? Why or why not? Also, please interact with the above statement and its relation to the world around us.

God used wind, a symbol of the Holy Spirit’s presence (Jn. 3:8), and fire, a symbol of His cleansing and judgment (Matt. 3:11-12). What do you think is the function of “divided tongues” (v.3) that rested on the disciples? How might the spread of the Gospel be different if this miracle was not given?


Acts 2:5-8

Relevant Scriptures:
Let us look at Genesis 11:1-9.
What are the correlations between the above texts and Acts 2? What was the motivation of each event?

Statement to consider:
“At Babel the nations came into being, the nations in their religious alienation from God, in all their earthly power and achievement, and in all their ultimate and spiritual powerlessness. At Pentecost they began to be resolved into the "people of God" as the message of the gospel was addressed to Jewish representatives of the nations of the world.”



Application:
What are the differences between a man-centered unity and a God-centered unity? What means does God use to bring about unity with the “people of God?”

Last week we examined the Kingdom of God. What does this event tell us what the kingdom of God is like? Who does the Holy Spirit invite to the Kingdom?


Acts 2:9-13

What is significance of the disciples proclaiming “the mighty works of God” (v.11)? What does this reveal about the Holy Spirit’s agenda? How do we know that the Holy Spirit is at work amongst us?

Relevant Scriptures:
“He will glorify me (Christ), for he will take what is mine and declare it to you,” John 16:14.

Statement to consider:
“So that if the Spirit that is at work among a people is plainly observed to work so as to convince them of Christ, and lead them to Him”

Application:
How does this knowledge safeguard us from mysticism and pride?

Covenant Presbyterian Church of Chicago

A Supernatural Profession

Christian supernaturalism is, I am persuaded, a central doctrine that needs to be reaffirmed throughout the ages because of the adamant skepticism of staunch atheism and liberal Christianity. Every which way we turn, the supernaturalism of the Christian God is blatantly repudiated and mocked; it is said that Christians are irrational, unsophisticated, and naïve for believing in such myths and fables. Consequently, many are led astray from such criticisms. Because of the ‘anti-doctrinal’ precept of the modern church today, believers are left defenseless against such intimidating attacks on the faith. The faith once for all delivered to the saints, which they must earnestly contend for; the neglect of which strips God of His refulgent majesty and reduces Him to a mere creature. Therefore, like never before, the Christian Church is in dire need to be reacquainted with the supernaturalistic Christian confession, which B.B. Warfield articulated so plainly and persuasively in his essay ‘Christian Supernaturalism.’

Warfield contends that all genuine Christians are to earnestly affirm the following truths: God is supernatural, God acted supernaturally in creating the universe, God wrought about our redemption supernaturally, God reveals this supernatural redemption to us by a supernatural means, and lastly, God saves us supernaturally. ‘Thus,’ says Warfield, ‘we may fortify ourselves against that unconscious yielding of the citadel of our faith to which every one is exposed who breathes the atmosphere of our unbelieving and encroaching world.’1 In other words, with such rudiment profession, Christians are safeguarded from the anti-supernatural unbelief of our day. As well as the prevailing indifference towards the supernatural amongst Evangelicals who have abandoned this profession in exchange for pragmatism. Let us therefore, with unwavering persistence, uphold and confirm this supernatural confession.

1Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, ‘Christian Supernaturalism,’ in Biblical and Theological Studies,
ed. by Samuel G. Craig (Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1968),
p. 21.

Pitchford on 'Coming to Christ'

I ran across this while browsing my 'usual' blogs, it is soaked with so much truth. Very humbling to the soul.

Read it here

Tim Keller Lecture at University of Chicago

This particular lecture took place at the University of Chicago on March 7, 2008. It was a bitter cold night, to say the least. Not to mention Florentina and I getting lost! But, by God's grace, we met a few saints and found the place just in time for the lecture. Having heard so much of this university's adamant liberalism, I was amazed of how many people attended this event.

Tim Keller, in my humble opinion, presented a very credible defense of the Christian faith. He covered many of the skeptical assumptions and his rebuttals found in his new book, 'The Reason for God,' which Florentina purchased for me, and Lord willing, I will post some of my thoughts regarding it. Maybe in the near future.

I am thankful to God for His work in gifting His church with men, such Pastor Keller, who can adequately defend the Gospel. May the Lord be glorified in all things!

Relativism: Fertile Ground for Unreason

Note: This is an outline for my speech class. It was delivered on February 18, 2008.


Speech Title: “Relativism: Fertile Ground for Unreason”

Summary of Speech:
In this speech, I will aspire to persuade my audience of the dangerous ideas of a philosophical theory known as relativism. It is logically incoherent, it leads to moral uncertainty, and it is ultimately impractical.

Speech outline:
Topic: Philosophy
General Purpose: To persuade
Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience of the inconsistencies of relativism.

Introduction/Central Idea:
“There are no absolute truths,” and “that’s true for you, but not for me.” How many of us have heard these before? These statements describe a philosophical term known as relativism, by definition, it means: “A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”1 The Sophist in the 5th century are known to have been founding fathers of relativism; their opponents included Plato and Socrates. Today, it flows violently in the bloodstream of society. By relativism, I do not mean that there is no sense in which truth can be relative. For instance, the statement, “the fee for this class is expensive,” can have variants in truths depending on one’s social status. This class may be very expensive for someone who is poor and this class may be very inexpensive for someone who is wealthy. This type of relativism I do not disagree with. These are subjective. What I am opposed to is the idea that conflicting views can be equally valid. Relativism is a thoughtless dogma that needs to be reconsidered. I will attempt to refute relativism in three points: it is logically incoherent, it leads to moral indifference, and it is ultimately impractical.

Source: "relativism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Main Points:
I. Point/Argument 1
a. Relativism is logically incoherent; therefore it is not a credible worldview.
b. The statement “All truth is relative,” is an objective claim, so we must conclude that relativism is false. It is self-defeating.
Source: Taylor, Justin G. “The Death of Truth in Our Campus?” 29 Jan. 2008 .
II. Point/Argument 2
a. Relativism leads us to moral indifference.
b. If there are no absolute moral laws, than all criminal acts are just as valid as acts of justice. All ethical affirmations would be justifiable.
Source: Koukl, Gregory. “Relativism Self-Destructs.” 1993. 29 Jan. 2008
< http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5539>.
III. Point/Argument 3
a. People may affirm relativism to be true, but no one lives this way; it is impractical.
b. Our own class can never be conducted in this manner. Imagine if Mr. Morgan graded our tests in this manner. He might say something like: “This student’s answer seems to be completely different from my answer, but let me give them the credit anyway because it’s true for them.” This in, my opinion, is chaos.
IV. Point/Objection
a. There are many objections to what I have been presenting, but one that I want to particularly address is the objection that I am being intolerant when I hold to absolute truths.
b. Does anyone see any inconsistency with this objection? Precisely that this very objection assumes that there are absolute truths!

Wrap Up/Conclusion:
Relativism is false because it is logically incoherent, it leads to moral indifference, and it is impractical.

Questions for Audience:
Why is relativism incoherent?
What are the implications of relativism in our lives, if it is to be believed?



Bibliography:

"Relativism." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
Taylor, Justin G. “The Death of Truth in Our Campus?” 29 Jan. 2008 .
Koukl, Gregory. “Relativism Self-Destructs.” 1993. 29 Jan. 2008
< http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5539>.

Counterfeit Tenderness: A Biblical View of Othello's love for Desdemona

*[note] This is a paper written for my English 102 class (Shakespeare orientated class). For those who are not familiar with the story of Othello, it is one of Shakespeare's tragedy plays; a story of jealousy and revenge. In this essay I attempt to examine Othello's characteristics to the Biblical view of love, as well as humanity as a whole.


Counterfeit Tenderness: A Biblical View of Othello’s love for Desdemona


Upon careful examination of the biblical concept of true love, it is evident that the authenticity of true love is absent in Othello’s character and seemingly demonstrates counterfeit tenderness towards Desdemona, namely, Othello exhibits a jealous, selfish and angry spirit instead of a benevolent, self-giving, and joyful spirit. I will contend that Desdemona, Othello’s so-called love, was not given access to his mind, therefore, was not actually loved in the heart; for there is no dichotomy between the mind and the heart in matters of love. It is also my intention to contrast certain attributes that Othello manifested concerning his actions and motives to Desdemona, as to whether they conflict with a biblical worldview, in hopes to persuade one to reconsider their understanding of love in light of the biblical perspective. Also, it seems relevant to the era in which Shakespeare lived in and as well as any time period of human history.

It is essential that I begin with a brief description of the biblical concept of love because it will be the ground upon I will analyze Othello’s love and affections for Desdemona, as well as humanity.
Although it is a claim of absolute exclusivity, and certainly offensive to many, I would argue that everyone holds to an exclusive claim of what love really looks like. Therefore, I feel justified in holding to the Biblical claim of love, whether it is accepted or rejected, so long as I am convinced of it in my conscience that it is logical and truthful.

According to Christian orthodoxy, love is first and foremost rooted in the Triune God, apart from Him there is no love, for God is the fountain from which all true love flows from. And the ultimate revelation of God’s love and glory is only found in Jesus Christ alone. Love is not merely God’s emotional expression, but He Himself is known to be love, it is in His divine nature. He is not merely loving because of He performs acts of love, but, because He is love, therefore He performs acts of love. It is then self-evident that any form of love that does not rest upon Him is not true love, but mere deceit, whether intentional or unintentional.
Therefore, when exercising an examination of genuine love, we must primary consider it in its relation to God. Jonathan Edwards, the great American Puritan and Reformed theologian, so eloquently described love, in accordance to God and man, in this manner:

When God is loved aright, he is loved for his excellency, and the beauty of his nature, especially the holiness of his nature; and it is from the same motive that the saints are loved—for holiness’ sake. And all things that are loved with a truly holy love, are loved from the same respect to God. Love to God is the foundation of gracious love to men; and men are loved either because they are in some respect like God, in the possession of his nature and spiritual image, or because of the relation they stand in to him as his children or creatures––as those who are blessed of him, or to whom his mercy is offered, or in some other way from regard to him. (5-6)

One of the clearest passages, to understand what true love is, is found in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church in the thirteenth chapter; which has been known to Christians as the “love chapter” in Holy Scriptures. I will certainly not exegetically expound on its entire context, but here, one will find that the Bible’s summation, as to what love truly looks like, is diametrically opposed to the world’s understanding of love and is contrary to Othello’s temperament concerning Desdemona.

A common misunderstanding is that people often assign a dichotomy between the mind and the heart when dealing with love, but this is an altogether foreign ideology in the Scriptures. Rather, this misconception is birthed from the deceitful scheming of man. It is solely based upon faulty traditions rather than a firm exegesis of the Scriptures. Even many Christians, along with the world, have become enchanted with the idea that doctrinal truths separate us and love is what brings us together, but this idea is radically false and deceitful because they, the mind and the heart, are always found in the outworking of real love.

Nowhere do we see the mind and the heart being divorced when engaged with true charity, or love. It is clear that where one finds true meaning of love in Scripture, there is always an impregnation of both mind and heart. We can assuredly detect this concept within the context of 1 Corinthians 13. In verses 4-6, the Apostle Paul describes this idea vividly in this way, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” He gives a list of what love is and is not with varies actions that derive from the heart; to envy, to boast, to be arrogant, to be rude, to be insistent on its own way, to be irritable, to be resentful, and to rejoice are all affections are all consistent with the overflow of the heart, but notice the latter part of verse 6, “…rejoices with the truth.” this is a prime example of what it means to love with ones’ mind and heart.

The reality of truth must first be perceived by the mind because the mind is the channel to the heart which expresses acts of love; all true acts of commitments to love must ultimately be born out of delight in the truth. John Piper, Evangelical Pastor and Theologian, renders love similarly, saying, “Love is not a bare choice or mere act. It involves the affections. It does not just do the truth. Nor does it just choose the right. It rejoices in the way of truth…we must ‘love kindness!’” (114-115).

Acts of love alone do not satisfy the qualifications of genuine love and affections. They must ultimately be grounded with acceptance and rejoicing in the truth. This is what is meant in verse 3 in 1 Corinthians. There is a way in which a person can give everything—even ones’ own life—yet, profits nothing without love. How can this be? Only if these acts of love were to deviate from the truth and do not revel in the truth can they not profit anything, they would not be even worthy to be associated with genuine love. I emphasize this point so strongly because it will further clarify my examination of Othello’s alleged love for Desdemona.

Given the prior summation of genuine love, I will now proceed to analyze Othello’s character and motives, and compare them to the biblical account. A task, I believe, worthy of consideration because of the relevant connection it brings to the table in life’s engagement with charity.

In light of the biblical view of love, it is clear that Othello was not in a state of genuine love but was in a state of rage and jealousy in and through his utterly corrupted knowledge.
In his essay, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays, William Hazlitt, an acclaimed Shakespearian scholar, observes, “The third act of Othello is his master-piece, not of knowledge or passion separately, but of the two combined, of the knowledge of character with the expression of passion, of consummate art in the keeping up of appearances with the profound workings of nature, and the convulsive movements of uncontrollable agony, of the power of inflicting torture and of suffering it. Not only is the tumult of passion heaved up from the very bottom of the soul, but every the slightest undulation of feeling is seen on the surface, as it arises from the impulses of imagination or the different probabilities maliciously suggested by Iago”(Hazlitt).

Regardless of the fact that he perceived it in a secular approach, Hazlitt’s assessment of Othello’s condition is thoroughly accurate. It is astounding to observe, that he adheres to the reality that the motives of the mind, as to whether they receive the truth, are ultimately involved upon the condition of the heart, and its acts of love or even hate. Despite the lack of knowledge of Othello’s assent with the Christian truth, regarding love, it would remain relevant to examine his adherence to general truth, in this instance; the deception was received in his heart rather than the truth, which resulted in tragedy and bloodshed.

Hazlitt is absolutely veracious in raising Iago’s impact upon Othello’s mind. Iago, throughout the play, manipulates Othello’s understanding, even to the extent of his murderous revenged on Desdemona. This—Iago’s manipulation— brings to surface all his hatred towards her and Cassio; which originated in his mind, and eventually manifested itself in his actions. I want to suggest that Othello was motivated by his own evil desires, rather than genuine tenderness. Despite Iago’s cruel manipulations, his motives coupled with corrupted knowledge—motives filled with jealousy, anger, and selfishness— were ultimately the final determinant for his malicious actions.
In Amanda Mabillard’s “Othello Analysis,” an argument that she strongly propagates is Othello’s accountability for his wrongdoing; although there is some ground for shifting the blame upon Iago, Othello remains blameworthy for the consequences. Mabillard also upholds a well-argued indictment on Othello’s motives for the murder of Desdemona.

I refer to Hazlitt and Mabillard, two non-Christian scholars, to demonstrate that there is yet validity in the Christian claim of the mind and the heart being intertwined in the marriage of genuine love in the world, although the claim would remain valid despite the lack of affirmation. I find that this idea is stunningly tenable with the bible’s account of love, in analyzing Othello’s character, despite the apparent differences in theology or lack thereof.

In revisiting the Scriptures analysis of true charity, we find that Othello’s jealousy and anger cannot be justified, despite his ignorance of the truth throughout the play, because it was compelled from his selfishness, rather than his love for Desdemona. It pleased Othello to assume that Desdemona has been unfaithful to him, in retrospect; it was he who was to be unfaithful. It is a recurring theme throughout the play, his love for unrighteousness consistently brought for false accusations. Perhaps it was due to his military cultivation that he persistently sought for violence, but in any regards, it is still blatantly evil. Although, for a season in the play, Othello seemed rather tender-hearted towards Desdemona but in the test of genuine love, his counterfeit affections finally surface.

“Love never ends,” declare the Scriptures. This is a message of cataclysm, not merely for Othello, but for the all of humanity. Othello surely failed to live up to love’s expectation. True love is ongoing, despite life’s pressures to stir up wickedness in one’s soul. Everyone, in some form of another, has dealt with the extremity of the temptations of sin; in fact, it is a habitual affair common to humanity, not merely Othello. And all, if they are to observe love, are obliged to overcome and conquer every temptation.

Yet, all are under the indictment of the two greatest commands in the Scriptures: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Subjected to these commands, we all stand condemned, for we have greatly failed to uphold them. They ought to strike terror in the hearts of men, like a helpless rodent in the presence of a deadly serpent.

What are we to attain in reflecting upon Othello’s association with the biblical view of love? Is this not a hopeless task because of love’s demand of perfection? Yet, there is great gain in the effort to understand what love truly looks like in Scripture. Pondering the true meaning of love and conforming to it, transforms our relationships. This was true in Shakespeare’s era and still abides true today; for fruits of love do not change.

Throughout history, the fruits of love have been and will continue to be of the sweetest taste known to the human soul, therefore to exercise our minds to search within ourselves (namely, the heart), as to whether we are in fact loving, is one of the greatest duty that man is obligated to perform. This exercise is not merely an individual exercise, although it must start with individuals. It escalates from individuals to family to friendships to society and indeed to the rest of humanity.

Examining ourselves in the principle of love is primarily an edifying exercise because it serves to bring us to ponder love’s correlation between God and ourselves. The biblical understanding of love is, undoubtedly, dreadful to the human soul, for its pinnacle reaches heights too wonderful; its depth is bottomless. Love’s demand is much too great. To conquer it with feeble minds and hearts, inclined to a sinful disposition, is inconceivable. Upon the examination of our failure to truly love, ought to give us a sense of our need for a great savior and our utter helplessness. Yet, there is great hope for those who are unable to fulfill love’s demands.

The God of love sent his only Son, despite man’s ruin, to satisfy all the requirements of love for those who would receive Him; to bring us to God, who is love. This is the glorious Christian Gospel, good news profoundly rooted in God’s beautiful grace, manifested in the Cross of Christ. Jesus Christ upheld all of love’s demands and the consequences of sin, in order that we may receive the pardon for our offenses towards God. John Stott renders it in this manner, “Moved by the perfection of his holy love, God in Christ substituted himself for us sinners. That is the heart of the cross of Christ.” (165).

His love is the redemption of our unloveliness. Therefore, let the sinner consider this gracious love before them, rather than their own alleged piety, for this is the love of God that ultimately reconstruct s us to His very own image; an image of perfect love.

As I imagine a world immersed in the biblical understanding of love, thoughts of overwhelming sweetness consume me; with beauty and glory abounding in all things. This, in fact, is the picture given in the Scriptures concerning heaven. Perhaps the greatest contemplations of heaven I have ever read, outside of the Scriptures, is in Jonathan Edwards’ memoirs: “Heaven appeared exceedingly delightful, as a world of love; and that all happiness consisted in living in pure, humble heavenly, divine love.” (xiv). This is undoubtedly in accordance with the Bible’s account of heaven, a place where divine love is finally consummated in its fullness, for the God who is love will everlastingly commune with His creation, in everlasting love without the hindrance of sin. All the brokenness and ruin of this sin-sick world is gloriously mended in heaven, the dwelling place of love.

Works Cited

Edwards, Jonathan. Charity and its Fruits. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969.

---. The Works of Jonathan Edwards (vol. 1). Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974.

Hazlitt, William. Character of Shakespeare’s Plays. London: C. H. Reynell, 1817. 18 Nov. 2007

Mabillard, Amanda. "Othello Analysis." Shakespeare Online. 19 Mar. 2000. 19 Nov. 2007 <>

Piper, John. Desiring God. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2003.

Stott, John. The Cross of Christ (20th Anniversary edition). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001.

Christian Apolegetics and Philosophy

Greg Bahnsen: An Intro to Worldviews

Part 1

Part2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7