I have been wondering about this too. Are you implying Apologia has a weak view of Reformed Confessions?I'm much more concerned with his willingness to jettison his 1689 affiliations to hobnob with Apologia
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have been wondering about this too. Are you implying Apologia has a weak view of Reformed Confessions?I'm much more concerned with his willingness to jettison his 1689 affiliations to hobnob with Apologia
That's not what Clark and others are doing. We are not criticizing certainty itself, only illegitimate forms of certainty.
Certainty based on specious argumentation is by definition illegitimate certainty.Who decides what's legitimate and not? Clark includes six day creation under his QIRC. I should take advice from him on what is and isn't legitimate?
Who decides what's legitimate and not? Clark includes six day creation under his QIRC. I should take advice from him on what is and isn't legitimate?
I could be corrected on this, but I don't see anything that indicates they are a confessional church. If they hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession, they don't advertise it publicly.I have been wondering about this too. Are you implying Apologia has a weak view of Reformed Confessions?
My apologies, redirecting back to the topic.I plead for the thread to stay on topic.
I could be corrected on this, but I don't see anything that indicates they are a confessional church. If they hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession, they don't advertise it publicly.
Thanks! That's helpful!Having attended there a number of times, I can tell you that Apologia Church claims to officially hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession. It used to be prominent on their website, and when I talked to Jeff Durbin about it he seemed surprised to hear that it wasn't listed on there anymore (I don't think that he personally closely polices their website).
As part of their liturgy they also recite the Baptist Catechism (also commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as Keach's Catechism).
Seeing it was Dr. Van Kleeck’s first debate, he didn’t do his best to represent his camp, of which I am not in. When he posted that theorem to prove the TR = autographs, he lost me, as I’ve never heard of that theorem before.Anyone else listen to the debate yet?
After the part of PVK I watched, and the reviews, I’m wary of wasting my time.