Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

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

I was searching through some old files and came across a set of interesting mp3’s from 2004-2005. Back on 12/01/04, Dr. White was invited to be on the radio show Viewpoint with attorney Chuck Crismier along with Dave Hunt on the topic of Calvinism. When I searched around the Internet, I noticed that the links to the shows don’t work

One of my fellow pseudonymous bloggers, “diglot,” has posted a response to one of my co-blogger’s articles. The response is titled: “Matt. 23:37 and the Calvinism/Arminian Debate,” and addresses Jamin Hubner’s article here on the Team Apologian blog, “Matthew 23:37: Misquoted by Arminians (and Calvinists?)“ Diglot’s response to the article is to say, in effect, that the observation that it

Any seasoned Calvinist will tell you that to try to interact biblically with an Arminian is a Herculean feat. And if you achieve that stage, it is an additional challenge to have them concentrate on a single coherent passage without them jumping all around the Bible. Peter Lumpkins is illustrative of that type of Arminian. Recently, I argued that human

I take a trip down memory lane every time Dr. White discusses Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free. During the 1980’s I was quite a fan of Dr. Geisler’s work. I first came across Dr. Geisler while flipping through the channels on my television one evening. He was debating secular humanist Paul Kurtz. I had no idea what show I was

Yes, Norman Geisler claims to be the first “major” scholar to critique Calvinism. I know, I know…

Human responsibility is dependent on an objective entity (God’s law), not a subjective entity (human moral ability). Human responsibility relates to a moral standard. It does not imply a so-called free will. If a teenager boy gets drunk and runs a red light, is he no longer responsible because of his condition? Yes he is responsible because he has broken

Often it takes an illustration to help non-Calvinists break out of their categorical and cultural assumptions about the precious truth of predestination. The following illustration has floated around in Calvinist circles for many years, and has been very effective: You have 100 criminals on death row. They are all equally guilty and deserving of death. Every single one of them

God’s sovereign election is the only basis by which any believer has confidence to evangelize the lost. We do not know who the elect are in this lifetime, but what we do know with certainty is that there are elect out there. Has God ever revealed to us why we should evangelize the lost? Indeed he has. In Acts 18,

We recorded some podcasts for the Midwest Center for Theological Studies last week while I was in Owensboro. The first has been released: White & Barcellos | Interview 1 from MCTS on Vimeo.

I found out today that someone may have video taped the entire debate, and if I can get hold of that footage, I will post it on the YouTube channel. Till then, here is the cross-ex period from last night’s debate at RTS Jackson.

“After these things I looked, and here was an enormous crowd that no one could count, made up of persons from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb dressed in long white robes, and with palm branches in their hands. They were shouting out in a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God,

Ergun Caner has stated that Calvinists are worse than Muslims. This week Norman Geisler has added to this vitriolic rhetoric calling Calvinists theological racists. Wait a minute, I thought it was Calvinists who are the mean nasty people? Geisler said: “These people teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect. And I think

“Especially when it comes to human evil, that we would call sin in theological terms. That God does not will this, he does not promote it. But because of our free will, he permits it.” -William Lane Craig, August 12, 2007, Reasonable Faith, “Problem of Evil” “for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus,

I wonder if The Potter’s Freedom will be required reading, too? 🙂

Four hours, 55 minutes. That’s how much material is contained in this collection containing the debate with Steve Gregg on the freedom of God in salvation, along with follow up commentary and discussion of this vital issue. As Mr. Gregg’s material is popular amongst the NDD (Non-Denominational Denomination, i.e., Calvary Chapel), this set will be of great value to many

Lane Chaplin forwarded me another link to another Ankerberg Show clip, just as the previous entry. If you go about two minutes in (after a long section in praise of creaturely autonomy), you not only have Geisler misquoting Matthew 23:37 (nothing new about that, as we have documented on the part of many), but even the text slide which is

Lane Chaplin sent me this link. Here Geisler comes as close as I’ve seen, on video, to referring to The Potter’s Freedom (outside of the horrific, and now removed, appendix to the second edition, cobbled together by confused undergraduate students). But for anyone who has read TPF, this response is empty and vacuous, and illustrates why Norman Geisler, and his