Ya know why I pay almost no any attention to political campaigns? Because their record tells me EVERYTHING I’ll ever need to know about them. UNLESS they acknowledge that record and specifically note significant differences between what they’ve believed in the past as opposed to what they have now come to believe in it’s place. In the absence of this from Frame, who I have no particular dislike for either, I suspect that his decades long record is a sufficient basis upon which to say what I did.

It would be most entertaining to observe your attempt to discredit this line of thought, but I’m afraid would also take us far afield of the focus of this discussion.

“I haven’t listened to this yet.” You should have stopped there.

I appreciate your feedback. Unfortunately, the song we used for so long is a royalty free clip in Apple’s Garageband software. You’ll hear it on commercials, YouTube videos, other podcasts, etc. We wanted something nobody else is using. And we are ecstatic to be using Pamela York’s music on many of our shows.

Van Til’s epistemology dies the proverbial death of a thousand qualifications in his hands. He is constantly billed as a leading Van Tillian and is not actually a Van Tillian at all. A guy from my church has an entire semester of his apologetics class down there in Florida (mp3’s He got from enrolling there) and at bottom what he advances there IS good old fashioned Aristotelian/Thomistic thought. In those lectures at least he didn’t even seem to really knwo the difference. Again, I don’t mean to be personally hurtful, but I just have not found him to be a particularly compelling or profound theologian/philosopher.

Add to that my recently discovered article of his on “theology at the movies” on their website (he and Poythress), which advances by far the most ridiculous rationalizations for viewing onscreen nudity and sex I’ve seen yet, and my view is not improving. I can only be honest.