Archive for category: Reformed Apologetics

Next Tuesday on the Dividing Line we will discuss yesterday’s In Touch radio broadcast. Charles Stanley not only insisted that conviction of sin is not a necessary part of conversion (conviction of a felt need is), but his comments on John 6 left a number of listeners wondering if he had adopted the Dave Hunt Translation. Remember, the DL airs

I get the Berean Call’s e-mail newsletter/update, and scan through it as time allows to see what comments are made regarding Dave’s anti-Calvinism campaign. I’ve seen some interesting comments. But this one was worth a reply:  Dear Mr. Hunt,  I enjoyed reading Debating Calvinism. I sat in the Calvinist camp for many years….Why don’t Calvinists preach their “doctrines of grace”

As our kind readers have undoubtedly noticed of late, I am spending a lot of time thinking about, and responding to, those who have decided that to be Reformed no longer means we have a clear, compelling knowledge of the gospel itself. While these men continue to call themselves “Reformed,” some cannot even any longer affirm the imputation of Christ’s

I can’t believe this. I was told yesterday that “Lou Rugg–as he is known in that pit of despond, that concentrated mass of theological ignorance called PalTalk (“Don’t have anything meaningful to say? Come on over!”)—has been playing an edited version of our “debate” (talk about using a term loosely) in various rooms in PalTalk. Evidently he has inserted his

I think I would sooner see a person attend a Roman Catholic church than a Baptist or Pentecostal church. and, Why do we let these “Reformed” Baptists get away with this stuff, anyway? They openly separate themselves from the historic Church, so who authorized them to provide the “objective exegesis” about the real meaning of the Mass or whatever?

Evidently they now share a blog! Now that’s just what was needed, another blog! There’s a definite shortage, wouldn’t you agree? 🙂 Sadly, things have started off on the wrong foot (which isn’t overly surprising, given the documented track record we’ve provided over the past few months). Alexander decided to attempt to respond to the Sola Fide entry immediately below.

I am thrilled to link to the statement on justification by the faculty of Westminster Seminary in Escondido. I truly believe over the next decade we will need to continue to epagonizomai in defense of the “once for all delivered to the saints faith” (Jude 3) and that it will be this very area that will be at the center

A major issue that has been lost in the recent “neolegalism” / “Federal Vision” / “I’m into Medievalism, aren’t I cool?” / “Yeah, but I own all of NT Wright’s books, so I’m cooler” debate is what sola fide, “faith alone,” really tells us. You hear it said all the time, “We are not saved by believing in justification by

Some “Reformed Catholics” have become quite adept at mocking the idea of standing for the purity of the gospel, as if that involves reducing the gospel to ethereal, fluffy concepts floating about above our heads. They likewise insist that we are enemies of the gospel because we insist upon “parsing” particular theological statements (i.e., we stand against false gospels). Well,

Douglas Wilson posted this on his blog today: Q. What should the Reformed establishment do with a teaching or doctrine that emphasizes our need to believe all the promises of God, especially those promises that concern our children? Keep in mind that this is a doctrine that underscores the necessity of faith from first to last. The purveyors of said

by Mark Ennis Genesis 4:15-385,  6:5-314, 6:11-314, 18:25-274, 20:6-41, 61, 320, 359, 24:5-341, 24:58-341, 25:23-105 26:29-333, 34:14-287, 44:22-287, 50:20-43, 56, 61, 320, 327, 396, 397, Exodus 4:21-105 7:13-105 7:14-105 7:22-105 8:15-105 9:7-105 9:34-105 9:12-105 9:35-105 10:2-105 10:20-105 10:27-105 11:10-105 12:3-186, 12:6-13-291 n23, 12:7-186, 12:13-186, 12:15-385, 12:22-209, 12:37-38-291 n22, 14:4-105 14:8-105 14:17-105 25:2-311, 25:2-9-356, 33-352, |33:18-34:7-341, 351, 33:19-341, 351, 34:24-41, 359,

The following Calvin quote is given by Norman Geisler in Chosen But Free (page 156-157, 1st edition; pages 161-162, 2nd edition): Eternal Predestination of God IX.5 Mark 14:24. This is my blood- I have already warned, when the blood is said to be poured out (as in Matthew) for the remission of sins, how in these words we are directed to the sacrifice of Christ’s

Just back from Utah! I’ll be reporting on our two debates on The Dividing Line Tuesday, so make sure to listen in. Briefly, both debates went very well. We did not get much cooperation from the UofU as far as the venue was concerned, but we persevered and made it work anyway. The video taping went very well, so keep

A listener to the Dividing Line sent in a URL and asked me to respond to the presentation contained therein.  The link is here.  As the argumentation is sadly common, I hope others are benefited by the continued demonstration of the consistency of God’s Word over against the traditions of men.  My replies are in bold purple and indented. John 6 is one

I do not recall ever having mentioned Bob Ross in anything I have ever written, nor in any of my public talks or sermons. Despite this, for some reason, Mr. Ross has decided to engage in a crusade to warn “true Calvinists” that I am not really a Calvinist. I assume this is because of my recent book with Dave

I was just catching up on comments left by Mr. Enloe in response to my blog (comments that do not use names, but refer to me anyway, as if that somehow allows him to fulfill his commitment to not address me, while accusing me of every kind of sin under the sun anyway….wait, you aren’t supposed to do that, are

There’s no reason to even comment. All possibility of rational dialogue with Mr. Enloe has obviously ended. If you are a glutton for punishment, or for some reason need a sober warning about the dangers of losing balance, see his blog, scroll first to the article from 3/29/04 titled “Reformation Liberty” (the article is a long mockery of myself and

I received at least three copies of Bob L. Ross’s “review” of Debating Calvinism over the past 24 hours or so. I recall Bob Ross going after The Potter’s Freedom as well. Despite how often I say “God ordains the ends as well as the means,” or “God uses the proclamation of the gospel as the means by which he

Yeah, I had never heard of it either. But a listener to the DL wrote and referred me to a discussion of John 6 on the site, and said they found it compelling. So, I have taken the time to reply to it here. If you visit the site, you might find it odd that the very nice graphic with

The following was posted to our channel and on a web board, so hopefully Dennis will not mind my posting it here, too. It seems relevant to the recent discussion of Dave Hunt’s preaching. Arminian grace! How strange the sound Salvation hinged on ME I once was lost then turned around Was blind then chose to see What “grace” is

  Because sometimes a learned minister ventures, in all honesty and discretion, to give a more correct translation of the original, can this justify a foolish unlettered man in altering the original itself, and perverting the sense of a passage? There is an end to Scripture altogether, if license be given to alter its teachings according to our will. To

A lot of folks think that Dave Hunt and I wrote our debate book one chapter at a time. We didn’t. Each of us wrote our 3000 word opening statements (seven of them), then exchanged them, wrote 2000 word replies, exchange them, wrote 1000 word replies, then two more 500 word exchanges for each chapter. Why mention this? Well, it

Want to see the quintessential Dave Hunt Fan? Ran into these lovely lines today. Comments follow briefly…. Because James White could not biblically defend his positions on a limited atonement and that God predestinates sinners to hell, he and others of like minded Calvinist, cult leaders have sought out various publishers in a great effort to keep Dave Hunt from

Since I posted something regarding Norman Geisler’s book, Chosen But Free, below, one of our channel folks forwarded a note wherein he documents a fascinating combination of sources resulting in a fraudulent “quote” from Calvin in CBF. Check it out.

We have gotten a number of inquiries based upon this blog entry, so I’m expanding it and adding two graphics. When Norman Geisler’s anti-Calvinism book, Chosen But Free was first released, I encountered a number of basic errors in the text, not just on the level of theology and argumentation, but errors of fact as well. I even found typographical

The following exchange took place around the year 2000.  If I am recalling correctly, an unsolicited e-mail arrived with a large “cc” list of people.  As you will see, my initial response was very brief, because I learned long ago that these kinds of impromptu e-mail lists will suck the life right out of you if you let them.  False

It’s so great to find various barbs cast your direction first thing in the morning, especially the morning after you teach for five hours straight (which, while tremendously enjoyable, is likewise very demanding). I get to go from the sublime (sitting with bright students reading directly from the text of Ignatius last evening, noting, for example, his tremendous description of