The Five Worst Christian Books (Phoenix Preacher)

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”

   Less than a month till “crunch time” for me. Two major debates in three days, the first, October 16th at the Thomas Road Baptist Church on the doctrines of grace, and then, only a few days later, October 19th, on Long Island, my debate with Bill Shishko on baptism! Then I only have a few days home before I head

I made sure I looked both ways before posting. It appeared clear, so cover me: I’m going in.    Kevin Johnson responded to my article on Bullinger. He seemed to understand the implications of Bullinger’s views regarding Rome to some of his own views on the matter, although it seems he missed the larger point of the article. The main objections

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,

   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,

The following is a list of several patristic quotations (previously posted at the link) that relate to the topic of the atonement. Some affirm limited atonement, some are simply germane to the topic of the atonement without necessarily affirming limited atonement. The last two show that interpreting 1 John 2:1-2 the way that Calvin did was not new to Calvin.