Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

Mr. Enloe just commented on the article I noted yesterday, and in so doing, demonstrated that I completely, and utterly, wasted my time in the recent discussion (well—at least as far as communicating with rC’s, anyway). When someone has decided that they know what you believe, despite your repeated corrections, there really is nothing more you can do. Here is

The title should have warned me, “This article ought to make us yearn for unity…we are not as separated as some would have us be.” Yeah, that non-perfecting, repetitive sacrifice of the Mass is just real close to the Reformed doctrine of atonement. Right next door. Anyway, the article is “more of the same,” but the paragraph chosen for posting

Evidently there is no “tolerance” amongst the uber-tolerant “Reformed Catholics” for believing that the gospel is what defines the Christian faith. One of their number, who has moved a very, very long way away from where he once stood and from what he once professed, taught, and even preached, recently wrote an article titled “Noisy Gongs and Clanging Cymbals.” In

I close with some questions to Dr. White. If he denies that he practices nuda / solo Scriptura, why do his apologetics against Roman Catholics and other Protestants denigrate all authorities except Scripture? Answer: If saying all other authorities are not theopneustos equals denigration, then I guess I’m guilty. But as I have noted, Mr. Enloe simply has no idea

Tim Enloe writes on Dave Armstrong’s blog:    I also as a Reformed Christian want to say to my Catholic brothers that I strongly disagree with the views of my Baptist brothers Drs. White and Svendsen, and all their like-minded friends from other denominations. Nobody on either side of the divide needs to be “reminded” that the issues that separate us

If you have time, you might wish to listen to the late Greg Bahnsen’s sermon on Roman Catholicism, available here.

1) Did Hebrews 8 have a meaning when it was penned originally under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God? Yes. (But that meaning isn’t necessarily identifiable with the assured results of the distinctly Modern and scientific type of hermeneutics that Dr. White practices.) What is “modern” about the examination of the text in its original context? Isn’t the

   In Dr. White’s latest reply to me he says that I provided only one example of his misconstrual of sola Scriptura: his position on paedobaptism. He claims that his exegetical work on Hebrews 8 and 10 in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review proves that my accusation is false. It may be that he didn’t argue that way in the particular

I confess I would rather not write this, solely because I know that it is somewhat like throwing a match into a gas can, but I said I would speak to the issue of the meaning of mercy in the Scripture in response to Mr. Holding’s very odd, way-out-of-center, and simply errant assertions on the subject. And so I shall,

Mr. Enloe has asserted on his blog that I do not hold to a Reformational understanding of sola scriptura. I believe him to be in error, of course, and have asked for examples to substantiate his position. I have spent some time studying the subject, and, in fact, defending the Reformational viewpoint, over the years, so it would be very

Despite feeling like I have one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel, I wanted to very, very quickly respond to Mr. Enloe. I had asked him to provide me with what should be fairly easily provided if, in fact, his assertions carry water. Specifically, should he not be able to provide clear examples from my

Tim Enloe has written on his blog for March 16: Especially as I read some of White’s recent blog posts, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine having to retract many things I have said about his views on this point. I believe that James White is defending what he honestly believes to be true on this point, but at

I mentioned I would provide the link by which you can obtain the sermons from the Midwest Founders Conference, and here it is.

We’ve done a few things like this in the past, and probably need to do them more often. If you glance over to the right you’ll see a link that says “The Defending Calvinism Value Pack” (sounds a bit like something you would buy at a hardware store to apply to your lawn to keep Calvinists off). It consists of

I have often noted the fact that most Christian’s theology, as reflected by their prayers, is a lot better than their theology reflected in their words. When one bows in humble worship and focuses upon the Triune Majesty of God, one’s mouth will not, normally, be filled with the praises of the creature. Calvin well said in the Institutes, III:1.4,

Tim Berends called right toward the end of the DL today and from what Rich tells me, he wasn’t a happy camper about the article I posted about the interview aka debate on KJSL last week. Evidently, he feels I need to retract the piece because 1) Jerry Thornburgh was not on the hour after I was on unopposed, and

I sorta stumbled into my office this morning, doing my best to get the brain working before a 7:15am radio program. I’ve become a bit of a night-owl, as I can get a lot more done in the late hours than in the morning hours, seemingly (fewer distractions, and the phone goes silent!). Anyway, I was on with Tim and

After sending out his “response” (the one I responded to a little earlier) to the same folks he sent out his “White isn’t a Christian anyway” e-mail (and posting it on a yahoo discussion group), Carpenter finally got around to sending it to me, prefaced with the following: On your web site, you have a post entitled “Hyper Calvinism Revisited”

Marc Carpenter of outsidethecamp.org has written another article, “responding” to my comments on his e-mail in which he judges my heart and declares me an unregenerate unbeliever. It is odd indeed, when you realize that this man’s tiny little group seems to encompass, in their thinking, the entirety of the Kingdom of God, that he would be writing and complaining

One of the upcoming debates that is sort of “flying below the radar” is my encounter in April in Oklahoma City with Dr. Robert Wilkin, the Executive Director of the Grace Theological Society. Though we had a fair amount of difficulty getting the debate set up, I think its focus upon the nature of regeneration and the issues of monergism

The folks over at reformedcatholicism.com would like us to think they are still Reformed in some meaningful fashion. But I simply ask you to read their own self-chosen subtitle to their site: Where Being Reformed Isn’t The Dead Faith of the Living, But the Living Faith of the Dead Now, I know it is very dangerous to actually attempt interpretation

Four more devastating refutations (#1, #2, #3, #4) of the man who evidently has no idea how to handle being in way over his head. Yes, I do intend on continuing that series, though given the level to which Holding has sunk in his responses to both myself and Steve Hays, I have no interest at all in engaging him

I noted a while back the response of a hyper-Calvinist to the announcement of the topic of the tenth in the Great Debate Series on Long Island, “Can a Non-Christian Enter Heaven?” Despite my lengthy history of apologetic interaction with Rome, my consistent affirmation of the fact that Rome does not possess the gospel of Jesus Christ, and my defense

Demonstrating that he has significantly more patience with simply outrageous behavior, Steve Hays has responded once again to Holding. One has to wonder when you simply give Holding the last word and find another path upon which to walk. There seems no means to reason with those who are infallible in their own minds. Here are Hays’ responses: #1 #2

OK, so you may need to keep dictionary.com open on your browser, but it is well worth your effort. Steve Hays has commented on the current state of dialogue between myself and Mr. Holding. I truly appreciate the perspective he brings as well as his wit. I found myself chuckling frequently in reading through this article. I appreciated especially the

A very bright (and encouraging!) medical doctor pointed me to the fact that Steve Hays has already said everything I have said in reference to J.P. Holding’s manifold errors, exaggerations, and assorted mis-cues in his article on election. Hays’ response appeared in two parts, found here and here. I would still like to take the opportunity to document the exegetical

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.