5 articles/blogs/videos/links to get to; but not enough time right now

1. 5 + hours of 6 chapters of teaching on Galatians
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2017/04/06/5-5-hours-of-teaching-through-the-letter-to-the-galatians-piper-carson-keller-and-more/

2. need to respond to Perry Robinson’s article:
“Are you flying Solo?”

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/are-you-flying-solo/#more-2905

R. C. Sproul has a great answer to this issue in his little book, “Knowing Scripture” on pages 34-36. Basically, we have the right to interpret Scripture, but we do not have the right to distort Scripture and claim it is our conscience or that the Holy Spirit told me. Luther’s statement at the end of the Diet of Worms in 1521 did not mean that conscience can over-rule everything and anything or any interpretation no matter what. We are still responsible to interpret Scripture properly and correctly. So, we are not “flying solo” because we have the infallible Scriptures (Sola Scriptura) and secondary authority in the local church authority and both the right to interpret Scripture, but also the Responsibility to interpret Scripture properly.

3. The death of Jesus and defeat of Islam: by Mike Licona
http://www.risenjesus.com/the-death-of-jesus-the-defeat-of-islam

Paul Williams and other Muslims could not answer this article by Licona

4. Gospel of John history or theology? by Michael Kruger

https://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-gospel-of-john-history-or-theology/

5. Answering Muslim attacks on Matthew 27:46/Mark 15:34
Answering Muslim attacks on Jesus and His cry from the cross:
About Matthew 27:46 / Mark 15:34
“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

Two things:
1. He was quoting Psalm 22:1, which would alert the Jews to refer to it and read the rest of it, and see Psalm 22:8 and 22:14-19 and the fulfillment of several other things in those verses. (see also Matthew 27:43, quoting Ps. 22:8 and Luke 23:34 b is quoting Psalm 22:18 (and John 19:24); and Psalm 22:16 is a description of the crucifixion (they pierced my hands and feet) [ I am aware of the textual variant in Hebrew, but the LXX Greek is clear. ]

2. He is expressing the feelings of being forsaken as He bore the wrath of God against sin. (Galatians 3:10-13; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 53:10) But He was not abandoned, even though it seemed like it, because He was bearing the penalty and wrath of God against sin; He was bearing God the Father’s justice against sin. verses 19 to the end of Psalm 22 shows that God vindicated the Son Jesus; and there is no abandonment or “split” in the Trinity. Feelings of abandonment is not actual abandonment; and bearing the wrath of God was very heavy and serious and He really experienced and felt that.

Posted in Miscellanious, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Good reasons to keep on celebrating (and studying the historical and theological issues) the Protestant Reformation of 1517

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2017/05/good-reasons-to-keep-on-celebrating.html

Posted in Justification, Mariolatry, Mariology, Martin Luther, Reformation, Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Cult of Liberal theology

Another Walter Martin classic. As J. Gresham Machen wrote in his classic book, “Christianity and Liberalism”, “Liberalism (meaning liberal theology) is not Christianity; it is another religion.”

I used to have these messages on cassette tape; and it is refereshing to hear them again on You Tube, after many years of no longer having a cassette tape player or the cassette tapes.

Posted in Liberal Theology, Theology, Truth | Leave a comment

Classics from Walter Martin, the original “Bible Answer Man”

I will never forget when I first heard these in the mid to late 1980s (? I forget exactly when). I thought, “finally!”, someone is speaking out more against the “Word of Faith” / Prosperity / health and wealth / “name it, claim it” prosperity heresies.

Posted in Word of Faith heresies | 2 Comments

Major fail by Dave Armstrong

This is a great quote by Cyril of Jerusalem, bishop from 348-386 AD, which teaches Sola Scriptura in principle:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

see Dave Armstrong’s article here.

Dave banned me completely (from making comments at his blog), it seems because he could not deal with my arguments. I gave up arguing with him for a while, (because he is just too time consuming) but every now and then I venture over there to see what he is saying.  I am amazed that he and other Roman Catholic apologists keep using Cyril’s later statement (18:23) as somehow teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible.

He and other RC apologists make claims of other teachings of Cyril, but when one goes and actually looks at the references, they don’t teach what Dave and other RC’s claim.

The quote from Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 18:23) does not say “the church teaches infallibly”, rather “completely” or “precisely” . It is downright inaccurate and dishonest to say that means “infallibly”.  That is a massive difference and it is wrong for Roman Catholic apologists to claim “infallible” there. Also, there is no purgatory in the reference of 23:10. There are prayers for the dead, yes, but not purgatory; big difference. Also, “real presence” is not a problem for Protestants, but Transubstantiation is, and that was not developed until the 800s – 1215. Furthermore, 1:1-3 does not teach baptismal regeneration, and even seems to teach against it. Major fail on Dave Armstrong’s part.

As Dr. James White says many times, “we can let the early church be the early church; they were neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant”. Even if Cyril did not list the book of Revelation in his canon list, that does not in any way shake us, because no church father is infallible, and we are free to judge their specific musings, interpretations, and ideas as wrong, if they are unBiblical. Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom also did not seem to affirm the book of Revelation as Scripture. (But Gregory of Nazianzus seems to affirm it also, see F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 211, where Gregory says that John visited heaven, which seems to be a reference to Revelation 4:1 ff.) But Justin Martyr (died, martyred in 165 AD), the Didache (70-120 AD), Papias (died, 135 AD), Irenaeus (writing 180-202 AD), Tertullian (writing 190-220 AD), Clement of Alexandria(died 215 AD), Origen (died 254 AD), and Athanasius (367 AD) did affirm Revelation as Scripture, before Cyril of Jerusalem.

Posted in Apologetics, church history, early church history, Roman Catholic false practices, Roman Catholicism, Sola Scriptura

Earliest church history proves Roman Catholicism wrong

Two more of Timothy Kauffman’s articles that have lots of great information on early church history in them and clearly refute the claims of Roman Catholicism that they are the same church of the early centuries.

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/08/02/longing-for-nicaea/

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/08/09/the-object-of-her-irrepressible-scorn/

Posted in Apologetics, church history, early church history, Rod Bennett, Roman Catholicism

Debate Review: James White vs. Joe Ventilacion (Who is God?)

Be sure to watch the video of the debate.

Having come from the Philippines, the Iglesia ni Cristo is not an unknown name to me. They are the second largest religious group in the Philippines, after the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve seen videos of their ministers debating representatives of other religious groups (Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, etc.) before, and I’ve gathered from those debates that the InC has a very specific debating style. It tends to be characterized by showing as much bravado as possible and getting InC members in the audience to cheer as loudly for their side as possible in order to give the impression that their side is demolishing the opposition (not unlike what what most Social Justice Warriors here in the west do in political protests and rallies). Logic and careful reasoning are, at best, secondary to rhetoric and cheerleading.

Hence, I was not at all surprised by how the debate between Dr. White and Joe…

View original post 1,028 more words

Posted in Apologetics, Deity of Christ, The doctrine of the Trinity, Truth