311 search results for: Living out part

   Kevin Johnson has responded to my comments about his “mind of the church” hermeneutic comment last evening. Let’s remind ourselves what he said and the context in which he said it (for that little element got lost in his response): My belief is that context ought to be centered more in the concerns of the mind of the Church rather

   I was listening to a debate while riding this morning (nothing new there). What was unusual was 1) it was cold (for Phoenicians, 43 and windy is cold, and for anyone, really, on a bicycle, that’s cold), and 2) the Christian in the debate illustrated for me yet once again how theology matters. Your theology determines your apologetic, by nature.

   Some of you know Gene Cook had Greg Stafford on his program recently, and that they were joined by Bob Morey. The discussion focused on God’s exhaustive knowledge of all things. Many are unaware that Jehovah’s Witnesses are unorthodox even on the knowledge of God Himself. Their position bears a striking resemblance to Open Theism. In any case, it was

   In our last installment in reviewing Tim Warner’s response to me on John 6 we entered into his assertion that the use of the word “see” in the present tense meant physical sight, so that Jesus was only referring to the Jews of that day believing in Him. Though Warner recognizes that “believing” is likewise a present tense participle (would

   I continue my review of Tim Warner’s attempt to subvert the testimony of John 6 to the sovereignty of God. I note in passing that I have come to understand that aside from misrepresenting and evidently misunderstanding basic elements of the Greek language, such as the subjunctive, Warner’s group likewise seems to promote a form of TR Onlyism, including the

   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

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

John Samson just sent me this article and I thought I would post it as another reminder to those who would follow Dave Hunt’s errors without checking your citations. Every time you hear someone say, “Even Spurgeon denied limited atonement,” kindly pull them aside and say, “You know, you might want to read Spurgeon’s sermons promoting limited atonement before repeating

The e-mail generated by posting the correspondence with Dr. Caner has been most enlightening. The majority have been very supportive and encouraging. Thankfully, my purpose in providing the article was not missed by the ones I am most concerned about. The contrast between the approach and methodology of the two sides has been clearly seen, just as it was in

That’s the description given of Ergun Caner of Liberty University, one which he seems to proudly wear on his own website. Today I read where Dr. Caner said, “Calvinists are much more heinous than Muslims…I assume it is because they are predestined to be….” It just seems to me that if someone is going to promote themselves as fearless and

I continue with what I hope is a helpful series exposing the anti-Reformed polemics of pseudo-Calvinist Paul Owen of Montreat College. We have seen how Owen has manhandled the text of John 6, ignoring its own context and flow, inserting a-contextual concepts here and there and coming up with his eisegetical conclusions. We move on to his next section on

Many believers wonder why it is that they can read their Bibles and see the clear teaching of Scripture, only to go to the voluminous writings of many in academia and find there a muddle of confusion and conflict. Of course, one can find those eagle-eyed men of God who combine a living faith with their academic study and in