<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Purify Your Bride &#187; Apologetics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/category/apologetics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com</link>
	<description>Random Thoughts of a Catholic Convert</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:57:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Sproul and Bahnsen</title>
		<link>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/10/05/sproul-and-bahnsen/</link>
		<comments>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/10/05/sproul-and-bahnsen/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>purifyyourbride</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/?p=758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
RC Sproul debated Greg Bahnsen on apologetics. They seem to have very different views of how to do apologetics. Sproul is an evidentialist. That is he tries to prove the God of the bible through historical evidence. He tries to show that certain events like the resurrection can be well documented and therefore a person [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/10/05/sproul-and-bahnsen/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TurretinFan&#8217;s response to Mark Shea</title>
		<link>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/23/turretinfans-response-to-mark-shea/</link>
		<comments>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/23/turretinfans-response-to-mark-shea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:13:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>purifyyourbride</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/?p=622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
I noticed that some guy called Catholic Champion has written a response to TurretinFan&#8217;s post. He does an OK job. A bit to much of matching insult for insult but he makes good points. Most of the quotes are just ECF&#8217;s saying nice things about scripture. It is a classic straw man. Mark was not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/23/turretinfans-response-to-mark-shea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reply to Garret G</title>
		<link>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/22/reply-to-garret-g/</link>
		<comments>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/22/reply-to-garret-g/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>purifyyourbride</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/?p=619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
This reply became long so I made it a post.
I am enjoying your blog, I assume that I am welcome as a protestant, and a reformed one at that! ;)
Of course you are welcome. I am glad when anyone enjoys what I write. 
First- the authority would not be the ‘rookie’, but the Bible to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/22/reply-to-garret-g/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Reformation and the Nature of Knowledge</title>
		<link>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/22/the-reformation-and-the-nature-of-knowledge/</link>
		<comments>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/22/the-reformation-and-the-nature-of-knowledge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>purifyyourbride</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apologetics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/?p=617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Found an interesting article linked in the comments of this thread. It talks about  the nature of knowledge and specifically the ideas of a guy named Polanyi.
One of the central elements of the early modern attempt to reformulate knowledge and thereby extricate it from the tyranny of tradition was the attempt to reduce all [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/22/the-reformation-and-the-nature-of-knowledge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comment For Ken Temple</title>
		<link>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/15/comment-for-ken-temple/</link>
		<comments>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/15/comment-for-ken-temple/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>purifyyourbride</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/?p=588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
I made a long reply to Ken on David Waltz&#8217; blog. It didn&#8217;t seem to post so I copied it here. Ken&#8217;s words are purple. Mine are in black:
We have sufficient knowledge without claiming infallible knowledge or living under the burden that RCC apologetic Newman style seeks to create, &#8220;how do you know you have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2009/07/15/comment-for-ken-temple/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
