Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

   The primary reason for addressing Tim Warner’s arguments on the subject of John 6 is found in the assertions made therein regarding the exegesis of the text. Each time examples can be provided of errors in exegesis, it is hoped our readers will be better equipped to detect such mistakes in a wider variety of contexts.    As noted before, Mr.

   I hope to find the time today to get another post in the John 6 series up. This morning I listened to Barry Lynn interviewing John Shelby Spong while riding. That was a bit tough, as you can imagine, but enlightening as well. I have a feeling I will review that on the DL today, since it is always easier

   It has been a while, so I had forgotten some of the details of what The Berean Call had said about the “Hebrew original” claims Hunt makes in his book. One of our channel regulars sent me the letter TBC had sent him on the topic, and it reminded me of just how embarrassing this situation is for Hunt, and

   A friend of mine contacted the folks at TBC about the DL today. The response was most interesting: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We constantly monitor White’s website and are well acquainted with his statements. In response to White’s question as to whether the statement about Acts 13:48 was left in, it has.    A couple of things.

   After all these years, I’ve had to conclude that he cannot. No matter how often he is corrected, evidently, he has no ears to hear. And despite his saying that he has nothing more to say about Calvinism, he continues writing books, talking about it on his radio program, etc. Remember, Dave Hunt has a standing challenge to debate this

   Maybe I’ll have more to say about this later. I don’t know. I talked a bit about it on today’s DL right at the start, where I read Ergun Caner’s letter and my response. I’m still processing this myself. I am still in a bit of shock. In any case, here is today’s DL. I have added all of today’s

The following e-mail was sent Thursday morning, July 13th, 2006, at 10:26am MST: Dear Dr. Caner: I just returned from ministering in the United Kingdom at the School of Theology at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, as well as a quick trip up to Glasgow, where I combined ministry (spoke on the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality-a privilege that will surely

   I noted a few weeks ago the fine sermon by our brother Roy Hargrave on “The Idol of Evangelism,” found here. We have a fine and ironic example of this mindset in the words of that anonymous blogger, he who lacks the courage to even identify himself, Charles the Brave, the man who provides Bob Ross with an outlet on

   I have added Ergun Caner’s response to Tom Ascol’s letter to the pdf file. Sorry to keep making you download the same file, but it’s easier to keep it in one place, I guess. The irony is that I had posted Tom’s e-mail last night, though Caner evidently did not bother to check that before firing off this missive, and

   The e-mails are running 70-30. Seventy percent want me to press forward, hold my nose, and let the truth do the speaking on October 16th. Thirty percent say, “These men are not serious, there is no way to reason with them, get out while you still can.”    I would like nothing better than to never have anything to do with

   I have added Ergun’s morning installment to As Liberty Turns to the pdf I created yesterday, along with my response. I am so tired of the whole thing I am not even going to bother posting it here on the blog in its entirety. As normal, I have responded to each of his points (a courtesy he has almost never

   To be honest, this kind of correspondence deeply saddens me. I am hesitant to post it, but I do so for mainly one reason: it seems the Caners are doing all they can to force any logically thinking person to run from even considering trying to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate with them. They are insisting upon their incoherent

Well, as some of you have been wondering what has been going on regarding the October 16th debate in Lynchburg with Ergun and Emir Caner. I had sent a note to Dr. O’Donnell once again, since it had been a full month since we had first contacted him, and had asked that he respond by the 20th. He replied on

   Jeff Downs has organized a conference that those of you back east should be aware of. Read about it here.

   While no end of interesting illustrations could be mined from continuing to review Jimmy Akin’s desperate attempt to avoid admitting he simply doesn’t care to keep abreast with developments in his area of self-professed expertise, I likewise find the task most distasteful. I have not invested much time perusing the comments on Akin’s blog, but I did look through a

   The following e-mail was sent to Ergun Caner, Emir Caner, Brent O’Donnell, Tom Ascol, and Rich Pierce at 3:28pm MST, June 13, 2006. Greetings:    Allow me to state right up front that in light of the public nature of the debate and the issues that separate us, I will be posting all attempts at communication concurrently on my website.    On

   This is surely the most popular passage cited (almost never with any reference to the context) to prove that God could not possibly desire to save a specific people but instead desires to save every single individual person, thereby denying election and predestination. The text seems inarguably clear. But it is always good to see a text in its own

Finally, this definition of “Neo-Calvinist” concludes, Calvinism is the only Gospel. Simply put, when a person holds this narrow view, they become exclusivists. They believe that Calvinism, and only Calvinism, is the preaching of the Gospel. One historian wrote, “Calvinism is just another name for Christianity.”1 If that is true, what does that say about the myriad of preachers throughout

   5) Reformed brothers. So, which is it? Am I a Reformed brother? If so, why refuse to answer that honestly asked question? Or are there some Reformed brothers as long as they aren’t my kind? We just don’t know.    6) Is there a meaningful parallel between the charismatic controversy of years past (who actually won that battle? Compare the “worship”

   Well, what a disappointment to discover that the blog article I referred to above is actually written by Ergun Caner, not Jerry Falwell. I saw falwell.com and since my current internet access is expensive and has to come in “bursts,” I assumed if it was on falwell.com…. But I was disabused once I went off line and started to read

   For the couple of folks who thought Jerry Falwell looked displeased at the end of Ergun Caner’s anti-Calvinism sermon a few weeks ago, well, he wasn’t. Caner is giving the Liberty line, to be sure, from what Falwell says here. And what is so tremendously sad is to see the single reference in the entire entry is another “as cited

Below you will find the entirety of the correspondence that has passed between myself, Tom Ascol, Ergun Caner, and Emir Caner over the past few months regarding the October 16th debate in Lynchburg.  I am posting it because the conversation has fallen to such a level that only public scrutiny and input can now possibly convince the Caners to allow

   The following came through our website: I just completed reading your email exchange with the Caners. I am floored by your lack of understanding of the proposed Thesis. Could it be that you are so caught up in your own intellectualism that you miss the simplicity of the Thesis. I had my 13 yr old look at it and he

Well, many thanks to C.S. and T.S. for taking that mess of a correspondence file and typesetting it in PDF format. For those who have struggled to read it, you can now have the entire file in gorgeous PDF format with fully readable fonts and formatting that makes it very clear who is saying what. Click here for the file.

Let me summarize quickly. I will expand upon this on The Dividing Line Tuesday morning when I am joined by Dr. Tom Ascol. 1) I have posted the entirety of the correspondence between myself, Tom Ascol, Ergun Caner, and Emir Caner, that has been written since March on the topic of our debate October 16th. I believe the people of

   No, the Caners remain in silent mode. No responses to any e-mails, no response to the previous blog article, Dividing Line discussions, etc. The silent treatment continues. With the Shabir Ally debate this week (you’d think they would both be quite interested in my engaging one of the leading Islamic apologists, given their background, but despite repeatedly referring to this,

Most of my readers are familiar with BaptistFire.com, the conservative Baptist website that is, sadly, likewise rabidly anti-Reformed, grossly one-sided, and anonymous as to who is involved in promulgating its articles. Well, a number of folks have gotten together to launch www.StrangeBaptistFire.com, a website which will debunk the constantly misleading, imbalanced, and often easily refuted materials posted on BaptistFire.com. Now,

   As I promised last week, I continued my response to Dr. Wright on issues relating to the ordo salutis from our debate in Sedalia in the Bible Study hour at PRBC. I only had about 35 minutes or so, so I had to rush a bit, but hopefully this will be useful. Here’s the link to the discussion (streaming/download).

   Anyone notice a pattern here? Dr. Geisler writes Chosen But Free. I respond with The Potter’s Freedom. More than a dozen different churches, conferences, individuals, attempt to arrange a debate. Dr. Geisler says he will not debate fellow Christians (I guess Randall Terry isn’t a Christian then?). A thirteen page appendix appears in the second edition of Chosen But Free

   I must admit. My job is fascinating. Never dull. Well, almost never dull. This morning while getting a 30 mile ride in at an average speed of 15 mph (yeah, I know—but, I also climbed 2520 feet, which explains the average speed) I was listening to Shabir Ally throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the New Testament, writing mental

   This book came back into print in December. We ordered it. Took months to get it. But once we got it, it took months to get it listed. Finally, it’s here! One of the best defenses of sola scriptura ever written, William Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture is not easy reading, but it is important reading. A must for the