Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

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.

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

It started December 12th, with the following entry on this blog:    There are no footnotes attached. No names given. But a paragraph has been added into the middle of Dave Hunt’s desperate attempt to escape Acts 13:48 that, when you consider what it says, is one of the most amazing examples of “destroy the foundations of your entire life’s work

I have found the various attempts to respond to the exegetically-based defense of Calvinism I offered in The Potter’s Freedom both educational and at times troubling. Most responses are tradition driven, but then there are the philosophical ones. These are the ones that only touch on exegesis long enough to find some way of introducing some novelty or some question

Exegesis versus “a word from the Lord.” That’s what I ran into today at the end of my hour long discussion with Chuck Crismier on his Viewpoint program. Here is the program link. Right at the end Chuck got in the “last word” so to speak, claiming that he had “asked the Lord” about John 6 and had been directed,

Just a reminder that I will be back on Chuck Crismier’s Viewpoint program today, 4pm EST. You may recall when I was on back in early December with Dave Hunt. You can still listen to that program, or save it to your system. This is a follow-up with Mr. Crismier himself on the topic of the perseverance of the saints.

A little bird just flew past my window and told me that the next Berean Call newsletter will seek to address the “Hebrew original of Acts 15 prophecied by the Dead Sea Scrolls and spoken of by early church writers translated by unnamed scholars so that Acts 13:48 doesn’t support Calvinism” story. If I may offer some predictions:    “Dead Sea

John MacArthur appeared on the program. It stands out like a sore thumb over against the vast majority of the rest of the programming on the network. I’m referring, of course, to the Comfort/Cameron program, The Way of the Master. I honestly do not watch a lot of TBN, but I have been hearing a lot about this program of

I was sent an e-mail today that was sent out by David Cloud, KJV Only advocate and, of late, another of the many sniping at Calvinism. I say sniping because a sniper never goes toe-to-toe with the enemy. He is always in hiding, firing from a long distance, remaining invisible, and, if he’s good, staying so well hidden as to

Dave Hunt is scheduled to be at Calvary Chapel Finger Lakes in Farmington, NY right now, through Sunday (585-398-3550). If you are in the area and can get out to hear him speak, and to ask him to tell us all how to access his original Hebrew text of Acts 1-15, and to reveal the names of the scholars who

It’s the constant question: do you respond, or do you not? Well, a while back, some less-than-brave soul popped into #prosapologian, our on-line Christian community (sounds so much better than “chat channel,” and in many ways is a lot more accurate a description), and did a drive-by posting of a URL to Kelly Powers responding to an e-mail inquiry about

I’m not sure why, but some folks have been either sending us, or inquiring about, Tim LaHaye’s endorsement of Dave Hunt’s What Love is This? recently. Maybe they are just running into it, I don’t know. There’s nothing new about it. The list of endorsers, and their comments, is rather educational, to be honest. You should check it out. In

I just received Hunt’s January, 2005 Newsletter. At one point we read: Question: James White, on his Alpha & Omega Ministries web page, said that you had “repeatedly agreed in the past” to a “live debate” with him but have gone back on your word and now refuse. What do you have to say? Answer: “Repeatedly agreed in the past”

Delivered by my fellow elder Don Fry at PRBC on the Lord’s day.  Angel took a brief vacation (actually, he’s busy teaching the munchkins at his church), but Tuesday’s DL stirred the creative juices, and when that happens….well, look out! If the above makes no sense to you, you 1) didn’t listen to the BAM debate and hear question after

After making the eisegetical comments noted in our previous entry, Hunt writes, Read the entire text again carefully (John 6:35–65). Christ does not say that all whom the Father draws, but all whom He gives to the Son, will come to Him,and He will lose none of them whom the Father gives Him; they will all be raised at the