[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Monday, November 27, 2006

MetaSchema: FAQ - What is Assurance? // Free Grace Theology Blog -- I Know that I Believe I Have 5 Fingers On My Right Hand

MetaSchema: FAQ - What is Assurance?

Great discussion going on over at Earl's blog on the subject of assurance. I disagree fundamentally with Earl's explanation of assurance.

Matthew, please excuse me for doing this (forgive me, I have never done this before, and I don't plan on doing it again!). I don't wish to take the spotlight off of Earl's post that provides 5 fundamental basis for the appropriation of an "assurance" that, by virtue of its basis, cannot be certain, and all the discussion going on there. It really is great.

Yet, I asked some very vital questions concerning Earl's view on his blog in the comment meta that have not been answered. I took those questions and made them into a post on my blog:

I Know that I Believe I Have 5 Fingers on my Right Hand

Also, Bobby Grow has a discussion concerning assurance on his blog:

Calvin Wasn’t an Empericist: Assurance Found in the Work of Christ vs. the Fruit of the Elect

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving

by HK Flynn

While those of us this side of the Atlantic are rejoicing in God's goodness and enjoying our fat poultry, I know most of the readers of this blog are convicted that this autumnal American holiday may be a sort of celebration of bad theology.

No worry... just be sure to visit Frank Turk's DebateBlog over the weekend. While lately the heirs of the pilgrims seem to be forsaking the second chapter of James, old-school Frank Turk is willing to put up a fight for this strategic bit of turf.

May truth win.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

That Incredible False Christian

by Matthew

Calvinists believe at least some of these interesting things about false professors and hypocrites:

The false professor is a servant of Christ and will be judged with Christ's other servants (Luke 19:22).

The false professor may have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (John 12:42).

The false professor is a branch of the true vine and ought to abide in Christ (John 15:6).

The false professsor's body is a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 6:19).

The false professor may be chastened of the Lord that he should not be judged of the world (1 Corinthians 11:32).

If the false professor is a young widow, her apostasy might have been prevented by her having married a second time (1 Tim 5:14).

The false professor may have been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, have been a partaker of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come (Hebrews 6:4-5).

The false professor may have received the knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10:26).

The false professor may have been sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 10:29).

The false professor may be born-again (James 1:18, 2:14, 5:19-20).

The false professor may have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and known the way of righteousness (2 Peter 2:20-21).

The false professor has an advocate with the Father, who is Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1,3).

The false professor may be a brother to true Christians (1 John 3:15, 5:16).

Is there no chance at alll that some of these false professors might just be regenerate?

Monday, November 20, 2006

The Unescapable Logic that Proves Lordship Salvation and Perseverance Theology = Works Righteousness

by Antonio da Rosa

We always hear Lordship Salvation proponents say that works are not a condition for heaven (actually, there are some who indeed admit it, like John Gerstner and John Piper). They say that works are merely the necessary and inevitable result of saving faith. But in this they qualify what faith is by works! Faith becomes defined by works, thus, for Reformed theology, ipso facto works-righteousness.

Necessary results for which we are responsible are the same as conditions. If works are a necessary result of saving faith and if a man cannot be saved without them (the inevitable works), then the works are, in fact, a condition for salvation.

Faith that has been qualified by works adds works to faith for the enactment and fruition of the intended results: the works becoming indispensible to the result, thus are a very real condition!

Compare two equations based on Reformed theology

Faith ----> Works = Heaven


Faith w/o (or apart from) Works ≠ Heaven

This is obvious works-salvation.

Let us say that a man was getting married to a woman. They love each other and have mutually decided to get married. Let us propose that in their state it is a requirement for marriage to get a blood test. The necessary results of their love and decision to get married is an inevitable trip to the doctor for a blood test. The blood test, viewed in this way, is a necessary result. But viewed in another perspective, it has become a CONDITION for marriage, for they cannot get married without the blood test. It must be, then, both a result AND a condition! The Lordship proponent cannot escape this air-tight logic.

The same goes for works that are the supposed necessary result of faith. Looked on from the Reformed perspective they are the necessary results. But looked on from another persective, the angle of heaven and eternity, which they overlook, they become a condition for heaven, for without the works there is no heaven.

The qualification of faith by works is a huge danger, and poisons the gospel! It is de facto works-righteousness!

One who is neither Reformed nor Free Grace, who nevertheless is symphathetic with both theologies, has suggested that the works are merely "required evidence" (Joe from Joe's Jottings). Yet this leaves them in the same conundrum, no? It begs the question, "Required for what?" It is works required for heaven!


Sunday, November 19, 2006

Johson's 400 pound Gorilla

by HK Flynn

Phil Johnson claims to view our FG challenges as not serious, and that that is his motivation for not allowing a full give and take on his blog. I don't think that deserves much comment, but it is absurd how his repeated announcements that he would respond to any challenge as long as it was over on Pulpit petered out~~vividly demonstrating how non-serious he himself is.

I challenged him on James and his response at first was expansive. He didn't dive into the specifics but talked broadly of James and the commentary tradition. Phil ended his remarks with this statement:
If we’re going to spend time debating this, can we at least deal with the big-picture issues first?

So, we had a few rounds discussing his view of the big picture problems he detects in FG take on James. (semi-pelagian, Hodges insincere motivation in his interpretation of James, and so on) Since he was on vacation I went ahead and posted my own big picture view of James during what I thought was a lull. But it turned out he had disappeared for good. No moving on to the diatribe. No comment on the analogies of faith/works, body/spirit. Phil just disappears. While I was naively checking for his return after a vacation and a trip to Mexico City, he opened up the 400 comment "window" on his own blog. Hilarious.

When I came across Rose's nudge (thanks, Rosie) the comments had exploded to the mid-300's so I quickly slipped in the issues on the demons remark and the analogies, writing:

Phil, you switched your offer. I was waiting for you to finish on James over at Pulpit.

In the NT period, the format of the diatribe (where an imaginary countering voice temporarily entered a prepared discourse) was rather strict for obvious reasons. That is, the listener of the speech had to be confident as to when the main voice reentered the discourse after the "objector's" statements. The main speaker's "re-entry" statement was therefore (1) always sharp and (2) often included a direct address. (Please see 1 Cor 15:35-36 and Romans 9:19-20.) This format proves that the demons remark was part of what was being mocked by the Apostle James. Therefore, the demons remark should never be quoted by you or your theological teammates because it is not what James himself was exhorting. He was mocking it.


And then:

Since these spaces are filling up, I will continue with your 400 spots in mind.

The analogy that closes the section in James 2 on works and faith is a comparison of two pairs. If I were comparing faith and works to a spirit and a body, I would compare the visible and more tangible things, works to body, and also compare faith to spirit, since these are hidden things. But, Phil, James is linking a body with faith. And he is observing the similarities between a spirit and works. For James, works are needed because they animate faith. This supports the idea that the faith in question is a faith in the here and now power of God which easily becomes a platitude-heavy dead-orthodoxy, far better than it supports the idea that it is saving faith that is the topic at hand.


Famous blogger Phil Johnson's serious reply:
I'm not expert in ancient literature, but the problem with your statement is that I cannot find a single credible Bible scholar who agrees with Zane Hodges about that. And I can cite thousands who agree with the historic understanding of the text. Hodges argument looks to me like the very thinnest nearly-invisible gossamer strand—so thin that an intense look at it still doesn't make clear if it's real or an illusion. Yet he's trying to use it to hold up his entire theology. If that's the best no-lordship doctrine has, it would take a fool to abandon the historic understanding of James in favor of Hodges' view—especially when Hodges himself virtually acknowledges that no one in the history of the church has ever understood James that way before.

Apparently, he's a smoke and mirrors kind of a guy, intent on protecting his lambs from the Scriptures.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Peter on election

by HK FLynn

Over at Pulpit, 2 Peter 1 was brought up~ the make your calling and election sure passage~to defend the MacArthur model against a wonderful onslaught by Bobby Grow. That passage used to be a foundational proof text for the Puritans, but it has never taken on the same status for people like MacArthur and Piper. Probably this is because, in the interest of diplomacy, the word "election" isn't dangled in the forefront of their theology anymore. At any rate, as proof (or even evidence) of the truth of perseverance theology, the passage is utterly weak because Peter clearly precludes the idea. I'll post Peter's entire thought:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

2 Peter 1:3-10

Peter's language seems pretty hard to get around. A better explanation is that Peter is referring to the person who is elect to great reward in the coming Kingdom. Peter knew he had not only called, but was chosen as one who would "be welcomed" into the Lord's Kingdom, since Jesus clearly told him he would.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Would Faith in Christ for the Purpose of Receiving a Donkey Result in the Beleiver's Eternal Life?

by Antonio da Rosa

Jesus Christ has an intended guaranteed gift to the believer in Him: the immediate and present posession of eternal life. To believe on Jesus for anything else will not necessarily bring to the believer that which he has believed on Jesus for. For instance, many people believe in Jesus for many things: for temporal deliverance, for positive answered prayer, just to name a few. Yet, to the unregenerate, Jesus only guarantees one gift when a person has believed in Him for it, and that gift is the present possesion of eternal security; eternal life.

Faith alone in Jesus alone will not save unless it is purposeful.

People could have faith alone in Jesus alone for a donkey. This would neither bring eternal life nor a donkey. Jesus does not guarantee a donkey when you believe in Him alone for a donkey, and He does not guarantee eternal life when you believe in Him for a donkey. Jesus says, "If you knew the gift of God and who says to you...". We are believing in Jesus FOR the immediate posseion of eternal life.

Do you see the enormity of the matter here? Many people have been fed the wrong gospel message! They have believed or are believing in Christ for something that He does not have nor dispenses! Their lack of understanding of the simple gospel message has subtly (yet fatally) turned the message of the absolutely free gift of the immediate and present possesion of eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone into a salvation that is contingent on perseverance in faith and obedience. The message they believe is neither the saving message of Christ nor is what they are believing in Christ for the intended guaranteed gift that He offers. Christ's gift is by GRACE through faith and is NOT contingent on perseverance.

Believing in Jesus does not start some kind of contract between God and the sinner that at the end of our lives, if we persevered, we will get eternal life. The believer in Jesus must know what He is believing in Jesus for. Each time that Jesus illicited faith in Himself, He gave the reason. The purpose for the faith is to receive, immediately, eternal life (which is eternal; can't be lost).

In the gospel of John, which is the only explicitly and expressly written book in the Bible written for the purpose of evangelism (John 20:31), the message of Jesus to the potential convert was that to believe in Him for eternal life was to guarantee their eternal destiny. To believe that you have eternal life, to believe in Jesus for eternal life, is to believe that you are eternally secure. If you do not believe that you have "eternal" life, "everlasting" life, if you do not believe you are saved at the moment of faith in Christ, then this reveals that you did not believe the saving message of Christ.

It is philosophically and logically impossible to believe the message of Christ and also believe that it is possible to lose your "salvation", for the guarantee of such is explicit in the gospel message, the saving message of Christ. Jesus in His message guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him for it. If you believe the message of Jesus you will by virtue of that faith, at that time, have absolute assurance of your eternal well-being. This is called assurance being of the essence of saving faith.

To believe one is "saved" is to believe just that, that they have been saved! If they believe that they can end up in hell, if they believe that they can perish, if they doubt that Jesus will raise them up, then how can they say that they have been truly saved? They can't. If they can't say that they have been saved, and have never truly been able to say that, then they haven't believed the message of Christ that saves. Faith in Christ for eternal life precludes the notion (at the moment of faith in Christ) that one thinks that they can potentially still end up perishing; still end up in hell.

Of course doubts may and most often do come later. That is why we grow in the faith. That is why we hide the Word in our hearts. That is why we progress in our disicpleship. I to this day haven't doubted my salvation is quite some time. Reason? I have grown and my faith in this aspect is strong. (I have many other issues I deal with, believe me, that I have weak faith, that I need growth in). People can and do get saved then fall under the false teachings of NOSAS (not once saved always saved).

If a person has never understood at one point in time (the point of punctilliar faith in Christ for eternal life) that they were saved (not saved after all you do, but presently saved), then they have not believed the message of Christ, for assurance is of the essence of saving faith. And this assurance is absolute, certain assurance that you WILL BE resurrected, that you ARE saved, that you HAVE eternal life, that you CAN NEVER perish, that you WILL NOT come into condemnation, and that NOONE can snatch you out of Christ's hands.

If the message is not about eternal security then it is a message about a "salvation" that is in some degree dependant upon the hearer, based upon some perseverance in faith, obedience, and good works; based upon some form of contract between the sinner and God.

It is faith in Christ and His promise of said guaranteed intended gift that brings eternal life and assurance of it. My contention is that when Jesus is trusted for anything else but the intended gift of eternal security, that person does not appropriate eternal life. If they are trusting in Jesus for a gift that will take their perseverance to finally attain, they are not trusting in Jesus for the intended guaranteed gift of the gospel message. Therefore they lack eternal life.

Christ is trusted for the gift. The gift must be known, because faith in Christ must be purposeful for the intended results. Jesus has an intended gift that He guarantees. This gift is the immediate possesion of eternal security.

None of us would admit that faith alone in Jesus alone for the gift of, lets say, a donkey, would bring that particular gift, would we? Why would it not? Because that is not the gift that Jesus gives. There is only one gift that Jesus Christ guarantees to the believer in Him for it: eternal security. If someone is believing in Him for anything else but eternal security, they might as well be believing in Him for a donkey. Our faith in Jesus must be for the purpose that He has prescribed.

Reiteration: Many people believe in Jesus for many things: positive answered prayer or deliverance from temporal difficulties, etc. Jesus does not guarantee those things based upon faith alone in Him alone.

When we talk to potential converts concerning the ability, readiness, willingness and authority of Jesus to guarantee eternal life, we tell them that it is faith alone in Jesus for the purpose of receiving eternal life that they appropriate eternal life. It is the purposeful faith for the intended guaranteed gift of Christ's saving message (which is the present and immediate possesion of eternal security). Jesus does not guarantee anything to the unregenerate received by faith alone in Him other than the gift of the immediate possesion of eternal life.

If we are believing in Jesus for anything else BUT eternal security, then we aren't believing in Jesus for the gift that He offers, for that gift is nothing else but the immediate possesion of eternal security. Faith in Jesus for a donkey, faith in Jesus for an "eternal" life that may be taken away, faith in Jesus for a partially merited "eternal" life that we contribute to, or faith in Jesus for eternal life that will come in the future based contingently upon our perseverance will not bring those things NOR Christ's intended gift of the immediate possesoin of eternal security. Going to Jesus (by faith alone in Him alone) for anything else but His intended guaranteed gift of eternal security is like going to an Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water vending machine for hemlock. It is manifestly evident that you will not receive hemlock out of a water vending machine. The only thing that the machine dispenses is water.

My assertion is that at the moment that faith in Christ is exercised (either for eternal life or throughout the Christian life for assurance) absolute assurance is gained. It is impossible to believe the promise of Christ, that He guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him for it, and at the same time doubt present possesion of eternal life and eternal security.

My point is, what are people trusting in Christ for? Is it the immediate and present possesion of eternal life/eternal security? Is it the future acquisition of eternal life based upon faith in Christ and perseverance in obedience? Is it the present possesion of "eternal" life that can be taken away based upon one's lack of perseverance in faithful obedience?

If Christ is not trusted for eternal security, then final salvation necessarily is contingent upon faithful obedience (works-contingent salvation).

Whenever Christ preached the message of eternal life, His message was one of eternal security. This is what He offered. This is the gift of God. Any other type of "salvation" other than the free gift of one's guaranteed destiny with Christ is one that is not fully based upon Christ, but becomes in one degree or another contingent on the performance of the individual in question.

Here is where Arminianism and Calvinism are exactly the same. If you do not bear fruit you go to hell.

Arminianism: do not bear fruit that perseveres till the end you go to hell (you lose your salvation)

Calvinism: do not bear fruit that perseveres to the end you go to hell (you never were saved to begin with, you had merely a superficial conversion)

Both are bear or burn theologies. Both condition ultimate salvation on perseverance in faith and obedience until the end. Have you seen my quote from John Piper? He says that our salvation is contingent on the works that come from faith.

Often times in the Christians life (especially those who are immature in the faith, who are either newer Christians or ones who haven't progressed far in their faith for one reason or another) faith is easily broken due to circumstances.

Sin is a circumstance that can break one's faith in Christ's promise/guarantee of eternal life to the believer. The darts of doubt from the devil can do the same. Many circumstances can break one's faith in the guarantee of Christ which is His saving message.

In 1 John 5, John is talking to Christians and giving them encouragement to continue to exercise the faith in the Savior which they had already exercised for the appropriation of the immediate and present possesion of eternal security. To those who have lost track of "the testimony of God" which He has given about His Son, John is addressing.

My contention is not that saved people will always have assurance. My contention is much narrower than that when it comes to assurance. It is that noone who believes in Christ for eternal life (at the moment of the reception of the immediate and present possesion of eternal life) can doubt at the same moment that he indeed has eternal life.

Furthermore, those Christians who look to Christ's guarantee concerning eternal security (which is His saving message) in faith will not retain doubts at that moment as well.

The difference between strong and weak faith is this: weak faith can be easily broken and can be like a perforated line, transitioning between faith and doubt; strong faith is not easily broken, because it has been exercised sufficiently to guard against the doubts that arise from circumstances.

My point in this last post of mine is not dealing directly with the issue of assurance, but the topic of it does deal directly with assurance. My aim in this last post was to show that eternal security is a necessary element in the saving message of Christ for 2 reasons:

1) The immediate and present possesion of eternal security is the guaranteed intended gift of Christ in His message. This alone He disepenses/guarantees to the believer in Him for it. He does not offer any other type of salvation to the unregenerate. Eternal security IS the gift of God. The gift must be known, or else why is one purposefully believing in Christ? Is it for a donkey? or some unspecified salvation? Those things are not guaranteed by Christ to the believer in Him for it.

2)If the "salvation" that one is believing in Christ for is not the immediate and present possesion of eternal security then functionally, logically, and necessarily, this salvation becomes contingent upon one's perseverance in linnear faith and obedience until the end.

Either eternal life is divinely bestowed as an immediate and present possesion through the agency of faith alone in Christ alone, or it becomes a future acquisition based upon one's faithful endurance in obedience, which makes it works-contingent; a salvation by works.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

3 Options: Believe you are Saved Eternally, Believe you are Saved Conditionally, Unsure

by Antonio da Rosa

If someone does not understand that salvation is eternal, a once-for-all DEFINITIVE salvation, what are the options?

Flow chart:

Either they believe it is a definitive eternal salvation by faith alone in Jesus or not

If definitive and eternal, then only can be by faith alone into Christ (free gift, free grace)

If not definitevely eternal, then it must be conditional on something OTHER than faith alone into Christ (If it is not a once and for all done deal resulting in an eternal salvation, then there must necessarily be other conditions, not a immediate appropriation of eternal life by the simple exercise of faith)

what are the options?

1) a perseverance in faith
2) a perseverance in obedience
3) keep from sinning mortal sins
4) a combination of the above

In the flow chart I came up with two absolutes:

Either one believes that it is eternal, or one believes that it is conditional

What of the one who is not sure if it is eternal or conditional (like the Arminian and Calvinistic schemes)? He has FAILED to believe, for faith = certainty ONE WAY OR THE OTHER

Christ says:

1) You will never hunger
2) You will never thirst
3) You will never perish
4) You will never come into judgement
5) You can never be plucked from His hands
6) You will never die, into eternity
7) You will be resurrected

How can one say one believes Christ when he is fundamentally denying His salvific promise?

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Herschel Hobbs on the Foreknowledge of God (Is this Old School Non-Calvinism?)

by Herschel H. Hobbs

There are three principal positions in theology with regard to this doctrine. Calvinists hold that since God has willed what will happen in the future, he knows that it will happen. Arminians insist that while man is free, God knows his choices in advance. Socinians contend that God knows all that is knowable, but that events determined by man's free choice are unknowable.

Two questions arise out of the first and third positions. First, does God's foreknowledge of an event predetermine its occurence? The answer is 'no.' To foreknow an automobile accident does not cause it. God's foreknowledge of man's sin does not necessitate it. Or else it is not a matter of free choice, and it makes God the author of evil. God does not cause evil in any sense, nor does he will it. He permits it in that he does not stop it, therefore it must be, is to ignore the holy nature of God.

Second, does man's free choice rule out the foreknowledge of God? Those holding this view insist that foreknowledge is based upon a chain of antecedent events which determine the final result. That free choice is not determined by antecedent events, else it is not free choice. Therefore, God cannot foreknow the choice.

But God's omniscience is not serially obtained. "God knows immediately and directly without the need of inference from antecedent motives" (Mullins). Otherwise, God could not control and guide his universe to his purposeful ends. "Other wills, not his own would fix the corse of events and the destiny of his creatures" (Mullins). The Bible teaches that God does foreknow man's choices( cf. Job 1:8 ff.).

The New Testament uses of foreknowledge relate it to both sin and salvation. Foreknowing man's sin God had foreknowledge of the cross (Acts 2:23). But his foreknowledge did not itself cause them. Because he foreknew sin, he also foreknew the cross, his remedy for sin. Foreknowledge is also related to election (1 Peter 1:2). This refers to the election of individuals only in the sense that God foreknew who would receive or reject his provision for sin(cf. Rom. 8:29a). But even God's foreknowledge leaves man free and responsible in his choice.

Taken from What Baptists Believe, p.24-26

Herschel Hobbs was a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

(This is not a sign that I am in any way turning into a Baptist)

Friday, November 03, 2006

Pulpit's Last Day on Lordship Salvation

by Antonio da Rosa

Today is the last day of John MacArthur's Pulpit series on Lordship Salvation.

Here were my concluding comments:

It has been difficult reading these interactions.

I was told that the second week of the series would have serious exegetical and expositional support of Lordship theology.

We had one article by Matthew Waymeyer that at the least attempted to consider a text. I made several observations about the passage and he failed, as did the rest, to discuss the passage with me and my comments.

Now we spend a week on discussing a book that holds to a soft lordship/soft grace position.

By all intents and purposes, this excursion into Lordship theology has been a major disappointment.

The exegetical and expositional content in Lordship argumentation is in utter lack. The superficiality of the study and comments of the Traditionalist does not cease to truly amaze me. They consider themselves the bastion of truth and objective biblical interpretation.

But they seem rather to be the advocates of rapid fire text-referencing without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.

The support for their position is but a parade of proof-texts strung together by the thread used to fashion the Emperor’s New Clothes.

To which Nathan Busenitz responds by, you guessed it, a VERY LONG RAPID FIRE PROOFTEXT REFERENCING!

to which I responded:

Did I not rightfully say:
But [the Lordship advocates] seem rather to be the advocates of rapid fire text-referencing without the thoughtful and prayerful rigors of exegesis.

The support for their position is but a parade of proof-texts strung together by the thread used to fashion the Emperor’s New Clothes.

I claim the above, and what do you answer my assertion with? A vindication of my charge, for you do none other than paste a “lengthy” rapid-fire proof-texting tirade.

The mere referencing to texts may convince superficial context-rippers and those who have already bought into your system, but it will not persuade the critical, exegetically thinking mind.

Is it as if the Free Gracers have never read those passages you rapid fire proof-text?

Maybe you are expecting the scales to fall off of our eyes as we read the passages that you present without an ounce of support for what you think through them God is conveying to men.

Can you show by a well-reasoned exegetical and expositional treatment of those texts which you drown us in that they are indeed supporting your Lordship Theology?

Or should the mere referencing of, and the superficial, context-ripped reading of Lordship proof-texts persuade the FG as to their errors?

I thought that the Lordship advocates had strong biblical arguments that were to be displayed here. I was under the impression that texts would be treated supporting Lordship doctrine. I was told by Phil Johnson that FGers were not serious. I find just the opposite: Lordship advocates arguments presented on supericial readings and prooftexts.

My disappointment is not disingenuous.

The expectations that I had for critical discussions of actual texts have been dashed in lieu of choir preaching, argument stringing, and proof-text machine-gunning.

Submitted for your approval,


In Defense of the Gospel: The Rich Young Ruler

In Defense of the Gospel: The Rich Young Ruler

A good post from Lou Martuneac.