Interview #11 – Gene Cook Jr. – The Narrow Mind + More


On episode 11 of our podcast, we interview Gene Cook Jr. on an array of topics including his podcast The Narrow Mind’s past, present, and future.

After that we talk about some Reformed Baptist headlines and give you a preview of next week’s episode on Reformed Baptist Seminary from their dean, Dr. Bob Gonzales.

Books & Sites Mentioned:

Headlines Mentioned:

Sponsor: – A wiki dedicated to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, commonly called the 1689, and theology in accordance with the doctrines contained therein.

Post-Interview Music:

Ain’t No Rest For The Wicked by Cage the Elephant

22 Replies to “Interview #11 – Gene Cook Jr. – The Narrow Mind + More”

  1. Can’t find the video of the Infidel Guy on Wife Swap (except for that portion in the podcast)… all the ones I found were removed for copyright :(

    If anyone can find it link it please! :)

  2. Great podcast . . . but Louisville is pronounced “Loo-ah-vul” not “Lew-is-ville,” just so y’all know.

      1. I gladly concede that that pronunciation would be most correct, according to the French. But Kentucky. We have a city named Versailles. No, not “Vair-sai”, as the French would have it, but “Ver-sales.” We could have said “Lew-is-ville” (as it looks in English) or “Loo-ee-ville” (as it should be in French), but no. “Loo-ah-vul.”

        This odd pronunciation gives rise to one of the best Kentucky-themed jokes I know of:

        Person A: Do you pronounce Kentucky’s capital “Lew-is-ville” or “Loo-ah-vul”?

        Person B: I pronounce it “Loo-ah-vul.”

        Person A: Well, I pronounce it “Frank-fort.”

        *crickets chirp*

  3. Great interview. I appreciated hearing how God has worked in his life, particularly with regard to the effects of a primarily polemical ministry. Look out for a line of confessing baptist apparel based upon that lesson ;)

    As a couple of asides,

    1) Perhaps I haven’t matured enough yet, but I still think Johnson’s primer is poor. It doesn’t use the term hyper Calvinism according to its historical meaning, and it labels James White a hyper. It looks like Gene did a show about this so I’ll have to find some time to listen. Tom Ascol did an interview on Iron Sharpens Iron that explained the historical meaning.

    2) Just FYI, not all presuppositionalists agree with TAG. Here is a comment from another Confessing Baptist:

    What is Van Til’s “absolutely certain proof” of “Christian theism”? Says Frame, it is an “indirect” argument: the impossibility of the contrary. In Van Til’s words: “The theistic proofs therefore reduce to one proof, the proof which argues that unless this God, the God of the Bible, the ultimate being, the Creator, the controller of the universe, be presupposed as the foundation of human experience, this experience operates in a void. This one proof is absolutely convincing” (313). Van Til seems to confuse “convincing” with “valid.”

    Van Til goes on: “The Christian apologist must place himself upon the position of his opponent, assuming the correctness of his method merely for argument sake, in order to show him that on such a position the ‘facts’ are not facts and the ‘laws’ are not laws. He must also ask the non-Christian to place himself upon the Christian position for argument sake in order that he may be shown that only on such a basis do ‘facts’ and ‘laws’ appear intelligible” (313, 314).

    The problem here is that if the Christian is formulating his arguments on the presupposition of Biblical revelation, then there is no “theistic proof” at all. It is simply divine revelation, not an argument for God or his Word. Hence, to suggest, as Van Til and some of his disciples do, that the traditional “theistic proofs” can be reformulated in a Biblical fashion, under which they are valid, is absurd.

    On the other hand, if the transcendental argument is being used as an ad hominem argument, i.e., a reductio ad absurdum, then again it proves nothing with regard to the truth of Christian theism. Reducing the opponent’s arguments to absurdity, thereby showing him the futility of his own method, is an excellent apologetical tool. But it does not prove the truthfulness of the Christian system. In fact, if all other “systems” could be shown to be false, this would still not prove Christianity to be true. Van Til and his disciples are confused.

    What, then, is the conclusion? The “absolutely certain proof” of the “transcendental method” is non-existent. There is no proof for God and his Word. A Christian epistemology begins with the Bible as the Word of God; this is the indemonstrable axiom, from which all true theories are to be deduced. Being an axiom, it cannot be proved. If it could be proved, it would not be the starting point. Why do we have to keeping repeating the obvious for the benefit of the Van Tilians?

    – See more at:

    1. Ya, regarding #1 I’d have to agree with you… I posted and listened to the newest Narrow Mind on Hyper-Calvinism and I can’t say I agree with a lot of it… according to it I would actually be a Hyper-Calvinist!

  4. Listening to this one on my way to work today, and Javy’s confession music had me laughing like an idiot in my car :P

      1. Thank you Jason. Loving the podcast and website. Really like how y’all link to all of the resources mentioned in each episode. Thanks for the good work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *