Blog

I checked my AOL e-mail account for the first time in like four months this evening, and found an e-mail from someone informing me that as early as February 2nd (i.e., when I first began responding to Mr. Holding) he began posting on the theologyweb and using as his tagline the following: Now through Feb. 31: Give to help support

J.P. Holding spent some time in his essay arguing that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau can be seen as a cost/benefit analysis on God’s part; that is, he invests a large amount of space discussing hypotheticals (infused with a little Molinism just for the fun of it–no, of course there is no effort to ground Molinism, or any of

Goodness. Honestly, I had no idea. I really did not. As I had mentioned, my purpose in responding to J.P. Holding was simply to correct the clear exegetical errors his imposition of some “sociological” understanding of Hebrew culture creates in Romans 9 regarding the free electing grace of God. I was working on something else when someone in channel mentioned

I have played the debate in the hearing of my apologetics classes since 1995. Some portions I do have memorized, not from trying to do so, but just from repetitive exposure and memorable content. I refer to the debate on the existence of God between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen, which took place twenty years ago tonight, February 11th, 1985.

Let’s begin with the concept of “Hebrew block logic.” A scan of the standard Hebrew grammars and works on syntax reveals no emphasis upon such an concept in the regularly used scholarly sources. A scan of my entire Libronics library (a rather large collection, for which I’m thankful), brought up only one reference: that in the book cited by Holding.

I was sent the Spurgeon Evening Devotional for February 2nd (ironically, the day after Dave Hunt released his “I know NOOOOOOOTHING” impression of Sgt. Schultz in the Berean Call newsletter) and it is as if Spurgeon were calling Hunt from the grave. Check it out: “And these are ancient things.” –1 Chronicles 4:22 Yet not so ancient as those precious

J.P. Holding’s article on unconditional election is, at the very least, an interesting read. But for one who finds exegetical clarity and consistency the greatest driving factor in evaluating someone’s position, the article falls far short. Now let me say immediately that I know very little of Mr. Holding, and this article is intended to be completely non-personal. The gentleman

Hyper-Calvinism is an offense to God, and it is an offense to any serious Calvinist. Yes, yes, I know, there are disagreements over just what hyper-Calvinism involves. Some have attempted to paint me as a hyper simply because I hold to a strong view, a modified supralapsarian view, in fact. But you really don’t have a lot of question about

Greetings from North Carolina. Spoke for Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Rocky Mount this afternoon, and will speak there again tomorrow before doing a video interview Monday morning and then flying back to Phoenix (Deo volente). Just a note in reference to the series I have just begun regarding Romans 9, “Hebraisms,” and J.P. Holding’s take on election. I was

It is necessary for those who wish to find a way out of the “strong doctrine” of Romans 9 to establish some kind of “new idea” as to what Paul is really up to in this passage that distances the text from personal salvation. Make it about nations. Make it about the Old Testament only. Say it has to do