Blog

I made sure I looked both ways before posting. It appeared clear, so cover me: I’m going in.    Kevin Johnson responded to my article on Bullinger. He seemed to understand the implications of Bullinger’s views regarding Rome to some of his own views on the matter, although it seems he missed the larger point of the article. The main objections

capitulate /k«ÈpItjUleIt/  v.v. verb cease to resist an opponent or an unwelcome demand; surrender. Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.    When you are challenged on a theological and biblical claim you have made in public, it is expected that you can respond to said challenge with serious and sober argumentation,

   The first comment on Mr. Johnson’s post is by a fellow by the name of Mike Spreng: Don’t you just love how he fires those shots without leaving a chance for anyone to comment on his site (not that anyone wants to interact with such a man)? What can be said about guys like this that only go as far

   Kevin Johnson has responded to my comments about his “mind of the church” hermeneutic comment last evening. Let’s remind ourselves what he said and the context in which he said it (for that little element got lost in his response): My belief is that context ought to be centered more in the concerns of the mind of the Church rather

   Those who have followed this blog over its two-plus years now know how often the topic of “The Gospel in Capernaum” has come up. I have reviewed a number of attempts to get around this tour de force of clear salvation teaching on the part of the Lord of glory, and all have crumbled to dust when the simple reality

   Tom Nettles’ classic work, subtitled A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life, from Founder’s Press, is currently being offered by SGCB for less than $20 until mid-February. If you don’t have this in your library, you’ll want to pick it up. Great resource, important citations.

   Let me set a few things straight regarding Mr. Stafford’s recent comments on his website:    1) mail@aomin.org is not a valid e-mail address. Period. It has never been used by me, it is not my personal e-mail, or anything else. In fact, it has not been in use since, as far as we can tell, the late 90s, and then

   Here is a quick comment from Greg Bahnsen I heard today that is very relevant to discussions taking place these days. You can download the three mp3 set here. Hopefully the advertisement will cover for the 2 minute citation!    I am off to New Jersey. Lord willing, the blogosphere will return to some semblance of balance and normalcy by the

   A few days ago I noted, very briefly (all of a single paragraph at the end of a longer blog entry), the continued campaign of Watchtower apologist Greg Stafford in reference to Reformed theology, and in particular, the sovereign decree of God and Yahweh’s exhaustive knowledge of future events. I doubt our Open Theist friends are overly appreciative of the

   To my knowledge, no one has contacted me to ask if Phil Johnson and I are at odds over the current discussion of Stop and Think. Despite how easy it is to contact me (how many folks do you know who sit at a toll-free number an average of two hours a week, and are almost always available on line?),

   Wow! A quick blog run has brought me an embarrassingly rich number of things that really, really need to be addressed, each of which can be made into an edifying blog article. But I don’t have time to do them all!    First, I note Paul Owen has shown he thinks himself much wiser than his far better known namesake (John

   Among the charges the Reformers leveled against Rome was that it was corrupt and heretical. The Reformers also leveled charges against the Anabaptists stating that they were schismatics and unjustified in leaving the church. This same charge was, simultaneously, being leveled against the Reformers by Roman defenders, labeling the Reformers as being schismatic for departing from the catholic faith. Setting

   I was listening to a debate while riding this morning (nothing new there). What was unusual was 1) it was cold (for Phoenicians, 43 and windy is cold, and for anyone, really, on a bicycle, that’s cold), and 2) the Christian in the debate illustrated for me yet once again how theology matters. Your theology determines your apologetic, by nature.

   What keeps God’s love from becoming mere maudlin sentimentality? What is the bulwark, the firm foundation, that keeps the love of God from falling into the abyss of universalism, and prohibits us from the idolatry of seeing God as the great grandfather in the sky, filled with woe and sadness at His inability to make us all happy? I suggest