In this episode of the LBM Podcast Jason discusses the Reformation, and the issues that were key for the reformers and pre-reformers. He delves into the question do these same issues still matter today and is the modern day church facing the same faith crisis issues that prompted the stand taken by the reformers? At the end of the show he addresses an article by Richard Bushey attacking presuppositionalism and goes into the pretended neutrality fallacy.


How Presuppositionalists Suppress The Truth In False Piety

Video Podcast:

  1. Bruce Zittlow 5 years ago

    Neither Luther nor Lutherans have ever held to consubstantiation.

    • Author
      Jason Mullett 5 years ago

      You must be a Lutheran, because it is usually Lutherans who make this objection. 🙂 How does your view or the Lutheran view differ from consubstantiation that there is a real substantive presence of the flesh and blood of Christ along side, around and through the bread and wine? From what I have read on Luther’s view is that he held to the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ and hence the real and true bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. If the view that you are proposing is that Christ is spiritually present in his divine nature, than this is the reformed Calvinistic view and not the Lutheran. Can you shed light on the difference you are proposing?

  2. Maryanna Roddel 5 years ago

    Thank you. Jason…..learned so much. Look forward to next weeks episode.

  3. Andrew Rappaport 5 years ago

    Why call it “reformed apologetics”? There are many dispensationists that use presuppositional apologetics but they are not reformed. It is a misnomer to assume that it comes from reformed theology if that is your meaning.

    • Adam Staub 5 years ago

      Agree! I know personally, I’ve just gotten used to people calling it that and having to treat it as water off the ducks back but I think, Andrew, you have a valid point. Since you bring it up and we’re talking about it, I, as well, know many who wouldn’t cling to “reformed” as a title (each with varying reasons, myself included) who see presuppositional apologetics as the most scriptural apologetic system. They would affirm the “Sola’s” and have monorgistic soteriology but are not reformed by most other standards.

    • Author
      Jason Mullett 5 years ago

      Agreed, there are Dispensationalists that utilize Presuppositional Apologetics. There are Arminians that use it also, but neither are the school of thought out of which the apologetic came. Presuppositional apologetics has a firm reformed pedigree and comes out of the Reformation view of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of Total Depravity and Covenant Theology. Arminians utilize it inconsistently as their view of Libertarian Free Will presupposes there are things (i.e. the willful choices of man) that do not come from and flow out of the Lordship of Christ. Dispensationalism has an Arminian and not a reformed pedigree. While Dispensationalists and Arminians do utilize Presuppositional Apologetics (praise God) it does flow out of and come from Reformed Theology.

      • Andrew Rappaport 5 years ago

        Might we be better to call it Biblical Apologetics? However, that could be offensive to some thinking that we are stating that this is the only way to do apologetics

        • Author
          Jason Mullett 5 years ago

          I have referred to it as the Biblical Apologetic. I have an episode on that (44), however I like to refer to it as the Reformed Apologetic every once in a while just to tweak my Dispy friends to remind them where it came from. 🙂

  4. Adam Staub 5 years ago

    Great one, Jason!

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

©2022 Bible Thumping Wingnut Network


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?