Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

Some will remember Peter Lumpkins, a blogger and author of a new book on all you need to know about Calvinism—actually, a pamphlet of about 34 pages of actual text written by Peter himself. In any case, he was one of the main defenders of Ergun Caner in 2010, and remains in that camp, despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence

I have often said that as long as the leadership of Calvary Chapel continues to ignore the biblical testimony to Reformed theology, while at the same time teaching their people to believe and study the Bible, they will continue to produce an unending stream of Calvinists. You cannot deal with Reformed theology by utilizing the surface level arguments of someone

Oh, forgot it was Reformation Sunday? Well, I didn’t! In the midst of the craziness, and evil, of our day, it is good to remember that 495 years ago, God brought light to a darkened world. He may well have to do so again in the not too distant future! Here are two sermons from today at PRBC on the

“In their recent book Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (Oxford 2011), David Baggett and Jerry Walls have a chapter attacking Calvinism on allegedly philosophical grounds. Jerry Walls may well be the leading Arminian philosopher of his generation. So this chapter presumably represents the best philosophical case against Calvinism from an Arminian perspective.” Read more… See also the follow-up

So…isn’t it ironic that I finally finished writing What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an on 9/11? That wasn’t my plan, but it turned out that way. Anyhow, by the time I got to the DL I had been working all day to finish a 34 page chapter with at least seven pages of endnotes (maybe nine, I

I suppose it is possible the folks at the Berean Call are just recycling articles these days. But I was directed this afternoon to an article in the July 2012 newsletter from TBC titled “Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic Connection.” There is nothing new here, it’s the same tired and refuted material we encountered in Debating Calvinism. Dave’s willingness to use the

One of the most common excuses offered by synergists to the plain teaching of John 6:44 is to jump over to John 12:32. Do they have a basis for doing so?

We have all heard the repeated misrepresentations and maligning of Calvinism, so it is easy to become blasé over time when we hear it again. But we must have stamina to continue to respond and challenge them. Certainly, there are times when wisdom calls for ignoring them. But there are times when we are called to defend our Lord’s character

Hays writes: Over at Arminian Invectives, Ben Henshaw has a running series on “unconditional eternal security.” Oddly enough, he has that filed under “perseverance.” Problem is, Calvinism doesn’t subscribe to “unconditional eternal security.” There are some antinomian fundamentalists who take that position (e.g. Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Randall Gleason), but that’s in studied contrast to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.

Here is the article. Here are two quotes: And what I believe about it is that it depends on what is intended. Normal language interpretation would seem to me to indicate that asking God to save someone, without any qualifications, is tantamount (whatever is intended) to asking God to do the impossible (from an Arminian perspective). Unless words no longer

Smell that smoke? It’s coming from the theological straw men lit up by the likes of Emir Caner, Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, Malcolm Yarnell, and David Allen. The smoke is thick, but the fire is hardly hot. I refer to a newly released statement titled “A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” I began seeing

The “Calvinist vs. Arminian” debate is substantially a debate between what is called “synergism” and “monergism.” There is no third option (unless one is willing to affirm Pelagianism). For those who are new to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, the following is a primer on the two perennial branches of theological systems in Christianity. Or to put it another way, there are

Greetings from somewhere between Quizno’s and gate B-14. On my way to minister to the saints in Hilo and Honolulu (and hoping to be ministered to as well!). Infamous blogger and channel rat “johnMark” informed me that Steve Lemke of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (and one of those who participated in the famed “John 3:16 Conference” of a few

Roger Olson just posted a blog that is clearly a response to my comments about his book (without, of course, naming me: nothing new about that, given, of course, that he “on principle” refuses to read anything I write—evidently he can listen to what I say, just not read what I write). Here is his response. Now, let’s remember what

A couple of days ago someone in Twitter dropped me a link to a Southern California Reformed radio program. I am not sure why I followed the link, but I did. I encountered a video that contained the audio portion of a radio program where in some reformed pastors were responding to comments made by Dr. John MacArthur. As I

Roger Olson’s new book, Against Calvinism, became available in Kindle format the day before I left for Australia. Thankfully, I slept well on the trans-Pacific flight and hence did not get an opportunity to look at it until just now as I am settled in in Sydney. I have much to do in preparation for next week’s ministry, including two

So after Roger Olson deleted my comment asking him for clarification on what he meant by saying he does not read anything I write “on principle,” I wrote to him directly: rogereolson says: September 24, 2011 at 9:21 pm Nope. Haven’t read either one. As a matter of principle I don’t read anything by Norman Geisler or James White. Dr.

Another book is hitting the shelves aimed at the Reformed faith, this one by well known Arminian author Roger E. Olson, who teaches at Baylor University. Against Calvinism evidently is part of a two book series, Michael Horton having written For Calvinism. I am sure we will be hearing all about the book over the next few months. I have

A few years ago Lane Chaplin put this “debate” together, and since someone just popped into channel and made reference to it (he was freaking out about the advertisement that plays beforehand—for him, it was for Scientology. These are random ads—mine was for Mormonism!). Remember, at this point, we were scheduled to debate at Liberty in October of 2006, a

One of the primary lessons I have been attempting to bring forward over the past week in my exposure of the inane nature of so much of the popular anti-Calvinism found in the writings of Geisler, Hunt, Vance, and Bryson (repeated without the slightest bit of concern by Coate) is the contrast between the biblically-based presentations of Reformed writers and

I do not know if this comment was left by George Bryson or not. The nature of Internet comboxes is such that pseudepigraphy is encouraged and would be difficult to detect. But someone identifying themselves directly as George Bryson left the following comment on Turretinfan’s blog, attached to an article documenting Bryson’s dishonesty in what I am calling “The Absurdity”

Ephesians is an incredibly saturated epistle on the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection. I was meditating on Ephesians 2:4-5 this evening: “But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you are saved!” When I reflect on this

There appears to be nothing more infuriating to a Lutheran than to suggest that Luther was fundamentally a Calvinist in his view of sovereignty and predestination. While Luther certainly believed in predestination, it was expressed in a much different way than the Reformed posit. I recently finished up a short research paper attempting to sort out this very issue: Is Luther’s Doctrine

Martin Glynn responded to a question I posed recently to Arminians, which was: Since you believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does God not cause everyone to be saved?Glynn writes: “I have never heard a self-proclaimed Arminian say that a human’s free will can “impede” God’s will to change their hearts, and a true Arminian never would.” This

Since you believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does God not cause everyone to be saved? What is so all-mightily restraining his will to be able to save all people? If you respond by saying that it is the resisting free-will of the unbeliever that impedes God to change their hearts, then why pray, “God, change the unbeliever’s

Over the past few years I have experienced what has become a regular occurrence when traveling and speaking across the US, UK, and Australia. I will be approached by someone, most often a man, who tells me his story of being a member of a Calvary Chapel, following the exhortation to read and study the Scriptures, and coming to an