Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Roy Hargrave-Series on the Five Points of Calvinism
The brother who you have seen me Open Air Preaching with (Frank R), gave me an MP3 CD a while back by a man I had never heard of, Roy Hargrave, on the Five Points of Calvinism. To date, I have listened to about eleven of the messages in the series and I think there are two left. It has been very insightful. Pastor Hargrave evidently preaches this series or one like it to his congregation almost annually. Not only does Hargrave do a thorough outline and definition of each of the points in TULIP, he presents compelling counter arguments exposing the Arminian position for what it is. The files on the MP3 I have are purely audio. The videos on the other end of this link (http://www.graceworx.com/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=101&task=videodirectlink&catid=44 ) look to be the same or at least similar to the audio. I have been blessed by this to this point and I hope you will be too. You should be able to click the title of the post to link to the sermons as well.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Response To A Comment Posted About Calvinism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since posting this blog entry, some confusion has aroused about the intent of the person we responded to. The original title was, "Are Calvinists Unloving? - Response to A Comment Posted." We titled it this because of the response that was given to us by this person that included statements such as, "Calvinism does not regard Love for One another", "One problem I have with Calvinism, is there is no understanding given as to the importance of having love for one another. Love for one another is what would be required to be considered holy, or sanctified.", "The Calvinistic view sees it as something that is suggested.", and "Second, Calvinism does not regard Love for One another, the law of the New Testament as something we must do." We came to the conclusion he was saying Calvinists were unloving because of the comments he kept making. We're sorry if we misreprented him. You can read the entire discourse yourself and make up your own mind. We have now changed it to the above title, to hopefully clear up the misunderstanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a comment that was posted about the Election Pure And Simple sermon we posted by Jeff Noblit. Andy made a lengthy response and we figured others might benefit from this response, so we posted it for everyone to read. We left the user's name anonymous.
Here is the original comment written:
Hi thanks for the reply. I'm not hostile toward Calvinism. I'm also not Arminean. I developed my Faith from the understanding of the Greek words for Righteousness and Holiness. In Romans Six, Paul finishes a run on a pattern that ends in 'everlasting life' following holiness, which follows 'righteousness'. In the verse I am refering to, 19, I believe, Paul says, "The benefit we reap". This is "Righteousness". However, if there is any doubt, it is identified earlier in the chapter.I did not need to listen to the entire audio to understand what the minister was saying. In fact, you clarified this for me when you stated what Armenians believe.One problem I have with Calvinism, is there is no understanding given as to the importance of having love for one another. Love for one another is what would be required to be considered holy, or sanctified. This is an act and it is involved in the last part of the formulat Paul lays out for us in Romans six. The Calvinistic view sees it as something that is suggested. Because, 'I'm chosen and God is taking me to Heaven even if I will not to go' type theology.Anyway, I can understand why you don't understand what I am saying. First, I did not care to write very much. Second, Calvinism does not regard Love for One another, the law of the New Testament as something we must do. And third, getting saved does not mean a person will go to Heaven.I do not have a harsh tone in writing this. I am just running through it.I wrote a manuscript at link Love One Another .It may take some time for us to understand what each of us believes. However, if the two of you (I'm not sure who I am writing to) would like to discuss it, I will take the time to correspond with you. J-
This is Andy's response:
Hello, J-. This is Andy, Melissa’s husband. From your comment, “there is no understanding given as to the importance of having love for one another,” I must disagree with your opinion. In your opinion, what is it that makes Calvinists unloving? If you would ever hang around with a group of Calvinists like we do Sunday after Sunday, I feel as if your opinion would change. When Melissa and I began attending our current church, we were both amazed at just how loving and welcoming each member of the congregation was toward us and each other. By comparison, our prior church, an Assemblies of God church, people were in their own cliques and did not talk to us much. We kept to ourselves. At this current Calvinist/Reformed church, strangers approach us and welcome us all the time. As far as they are concerned, we might not even be saved, yet they continue to welcome us, invite us over to get to know us better, and go out of their way to make us feel welcome.
Before service, we hear stories in our evangelism class, how members befriend coworkers or total strangers, build relationships over extensive amounts of time, and eventually share the Gospel with them. When Calvinists are the ones who take the time to do this, how is it they can still be unloving? The only possible explanation I can see for your rationale is that you have had some bad experiences with people you think are Calvinists. That is a shame. I am sorry that has happened to you.
In reality, there are people who are like you describe as Calvinists. People who you call “Calvinists” are actually more like “Hyper-Calvinists” or “Fundamentalists.” I can totally see where someone would say that a hyper-Calvinist would be unloving. But I assure you that true Calvinists are among the most loving people you will meet. If you come away with an encounter with a professing Calvinist thinking the way you currently do, you probably did not meet with a true Calvinist.
Maybe people think Calvinists are unloving because they talk about sin. Most people in this country do not understand sin’s relationship to the Gospel. Calvinists understand that we need to have a proper understanding of our sin and how it offends a holy God in order to be convicted of sin and brought to repentance from sin. How can we repent of sin and be saved from sin’s penalty, eternal hell, if we remove references to it from the gospel?
As far as Jeff Noblit (the one who you listened to briefly) is concerned, I can tell you that we have met him personally and he is a very nice man. The last thing you would ever think about him is that he is unloving. Same for Paul Washer. We have met him personally as well and came away from meeting Paul that he was one of the nicest guys we have ever met. We can say that about both Paul and Jeff. Keep in mind, in these meetings we met these men for the first time. They had no idea we were truly saved. They could have thought we were unsaved, professing Christians because they were meeting us for the first time and most people in this country have a incorrect understanding of the Gospel because we have removed references to sin and hell from it largely. They were so nice to us. In fact, Jeff invited us to lunch with him when we take our trip to visit his church. Isn’t that a loving thing to do?
Again, for anyone to think a Calvinist is unloving, they would have to do exactly what you did: only listen to them for a few minutes, form an opinion based on those few minutes and stick to it. In fact, it sounds to me like you may have formed a quick, uninformed opinion based on a brief experience with one Calvinist, from which you made blanket statements about all Calvinists. That sounds to me like what many people today call being “judgmental,” something which the Bible condemns. If you would give them a chance, you would see your assessment is not accurate. I hope this will encourage you to give us Calvinists more of a chance in the future.
Another point, if we get upset at religious hypocrisy, is that unloving? Many times hypocrisy upsets Calvinists. Hypocrites hear upset Calvinists and call Calvinists unloving. Washer talks frequently about the differences between hypocritical professing Christians and Biblical Christians. I ask you to refer to Matthew 21 when Jesus cleared the temple of the religious hypocrites who were running businesses from inside God’s house. Was that an unloving thing Jesus did? When Jesus repeatedly got frustrated with the Pharisees because of their attempts to try to trap him with their hypocrisy, was he unloving as He revealed their error to them. When Jesus shared the Gospel with the woman at the well, he told her she was an adulterer. Was that an unloving thing to do? When Jesus called the Pharisees “Hypocrites” at least seven times in Matthew 23, was that an unloving thing to do? He pointed out the hypocrisy in their lives.
Calvinists do the same thing to the professing Christians who have the incorrect understanding of man and God (I refer here to the Arminian versus Calvinist view of man’s inherent nature and God’s view of that same nature). Are Calvinists any different when they try to lovingly correct people’s misunderstandings about themselves and God? When people tell you signs that accompany genuine conversion and encourage people to examine themselves (2 Corinthians 13:5) to see if their faith is genuine, don’t they do that because they want to see them genuinely converted? Isn’t that a loving thing to do? Would it be unloving for them to let people with incorrect understandings of the Gospel to continue in those incorrect understandings and ultimately perish in eternal hell as a result?
Calvinists instill fear in people sometimes because that contributes to saving faith (Proverbs 16:6). In the book of Romans, Paul repeatedly alludes to the Law’s role in salvation. Is sharing Commandments with people unloving? Paul says it is necessary to bring knowledge of sin (Romans 7). Jesus did it personally (Matthew 5, Matthew 15, Matthew 19). Jesus brought the knowledge of sin. Is it okay for Him to do, but unloving for us to do? Aren’t Christians supposed to imitate Christ? These are all things Calvinists do? Are Calvinists unloving because they interpret the Bible more strictly than other groups who justify how so many things the Bible clearly says “do not apply today”?
It’s funny to me how whenever someone actually tries to do what the Bible actually says and point it out to other people they are legalistic or unloving. I hope you do not think I am being unloving here. I am not trying to be unloving at all. Rather I am trying to illustrate how the Bible supports my stance, that we need to talk about sin in order to see people genuinely saved. However, there are other people I know who would probably say I was being unloving or intolerant by supporting my opinions with the Bible. I am sure my tone sounds unloving or preachy, but I am really trying to be as nice as possible. All you see is words. You could not get a gauge on my calm tone from reading this. Hope this helps, and God bless!
Andy
Click on the comment section on this post and the post called, "Election Pure and Simple" for the rest of the dialogue between us and J-.
Since posting this blog entry, some confusion has aroused about the intent of the person we responded to. The original title was, "Are Calvinists Unloving? - Response to A Comment Posted." We titled it this because of the response that was given to us by this person that included statements such as, "Calvinism does not regard Love for One another", "One problem I have with Calvinism, is there is no understanding given as to the importance of having love for one another. Love for one another is what would be required to be considered holy, or sanctified.", "The Calvinistic view sees it as something that is suggested.", and "Second, Calvinism does not regard Love for One another, the law of the New Testament as something we must do." We came to the conclusion he was saying Calvinists were unloving because of the comments he kept making. We're sorry if we misreprented him. You can read the entire discourse yourself and make up your own mind. We have now changed it to the above title, to hopefully clear up the misunderstanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a comment that was posted about the Election Pure And Simple sermon we posted by Jeff Noblit. Andy made a lengthy response and we figured others might benefit from this response, so we posted it for everyone to read. We left the user's name anonymous.
Here is the original comment written:
Hi thanks for the reply. I'm not hostile toward Calvinism. I'm also not Arminean. I developed my Faith from the understanding of the Greek words for Righteousness and Holiness. In Romans Six, Paul finishes a run on a pattern that ends in 'everlasting life' following holiness, which follows 'righteousness'. In the verse I am refering to, 19, I believe, Paul says, "The benefit we reap". This is "Righteousness". However, if there is any doubt, it is identified earlier in the chapter.I did not need to listen to the entire audio to understand what the minister was saying. In fact, you clarified this for me when you stated what Armenians believe.One problem I have with Calvinism, is there is no understanding given as to the importance of having love for one another. Love for one another is what would be required to be considered holy, or sanctified. This is an act and it is involved in the last part of the formulat Paul lays out for us in Romans six. The Calvinistic view sees it as something that is suggested. Because, 'I'm chosen and God is taking me to Heaven even if I will not to go' type theology.Anyway, I can understand why you don't understand what I am saying. First, I did not care to write very much. Second, Calvinism does not regard Love for One another, the law of the New Testament as something we must do. And third, getting saved does not mean a person will go to Heaven.I do not have a harsh tone in writing this. I am just running through it.I wrote a manuscript at link Love One Another .It may take some time for us to understand what each of us believes. However, if the two of you (I'm not sure who I am writing to) would like to discuss it, I will take the time to correspond with you. J-
This is Andy's response:
Hello, J-. This is Andy, Melissa’s husband. From your comment, “there is no understanding given as to the importance of having love for one another,” I must disagree with your opinion. In your opinion, what is it that makes Calvinists unloving? If you would ever hang around with a group of Calvinists like we do Sunday after Sunday, I feel as if your opinion would change. When Melissa and I began attending our current church, we were both amazed at just how loving and welcoming each member of the congregation was toward us and each other. By comparison, our prior church, an Assemblies of God church, people were in their own cliques and did not talk to us much. We kept to ourselves. At this current Calvinist/Reformed church, strangers approach us and welcome us all the time. As far as they are concerned, we might not even be saved, yet they continue to welcome us, invite us over to get to know us better, and go out of their way to make us feel welcome.
Before service, we hear stories in our evangelism class, how members befriend coworkers or total strangers, build relationships over extensive amounts of time, and eventually share the Gospel with them. When Calvinists are the ones who take the time to do this, how is it they can still be unloving? The only possible explanation I can see for your rationale is that you have had some bad experiences with people you think are Calvinists. That is a shame. I am sorry that has happened to you.
In reality, there are people who are like you describe as Calvinists. People who you call “Calvinists” are actually more like “Hyper-Calvinists” or “Fundamentalists.” I can totally see where someone would say that a hyper-Calvinist would be unloving. But I assure you that true Calvinists are among the most loving people you will meet. If you come away with an encounter with a professing Calvinist thinking the way you currently do, you probably did not meet with a true Calvinist.
Maybe people think Calvinists are unloving because they talk about sin. Most people in this country do not understand sin’s relationship to the Gospel. Calvinists understand that we need to have a proper understanding of our sin and how it offends a holy God in order to be convicted of sin and brought to repentance from sin. How can we repent of sin and be saved from sin’s penalty, eternal hell, if we remove references to it from the gospel?
As far as Jeff Noblit (the one who you listened to briefly) is concerned, I can tell you that we have met him personally and he is a very nice man. The last thing you would ever think about him is that he is unloving. Same for Paul Washer. We have met him personally as well and came away from meeting Paul that he was one of the nicest guys we have ever met. We can say that about both Paul and Jeff. Keep in mind, in these meetings we met these men for the first time. They had no idea we were truly saved. They could have thought we were unsaved, professing Christians because they were meeting us for the first time and most people in this country have a incorrect understanding of the Gospel because we have removed references to sin and hell from it largely. They were so nice to us. In fact, Jeff invited us to lunch with him when we take our trip to visit his church. Isn’t that a loving thing to do?
Again, for anyone to think a Calvinist is unloving, they would have to do exactly what you did: only listen to them for a few minutes, form an opinion based on those few minutes and stick to it. In fact, it sounds to me like you may have formed a quick, uninformed opinion based on a brief experience with one Calvinist, from which you made blanket statements about all Calvinists. That sounds to me like what many people today call being “judgmental,” something which the Bible condemns. If you would give them a chance, you would see your assessment is not accurate. I hope this will encourage you to give us Calvinists more of a chance in the future.
Another point, if we get upset at religious hypocrisy, is that unloving? Many times hypocrisy upsets Calvinists. Hypocrites hear upset Calvinists and call Calvinists unloving. Washer talks frequently about the differences between hypocritical professing Christians and Biblical Christians. I ask you to refer to Matthew 21 when Jesus cleared the temple of the religious hypocrites who were running businesses from inside God’s house. Was that an unloving thing Jesus did? When Jesus repeatedly got frustrated with the Pharisees because of their attempts to try to trap him with their hypocrisy, was he unloving as He revealed their error to them. When Jesus shared the Gospel with the woman at the well, he told her she was an adulterer. Was that an unloving thing to do? When Jesus called the Pharisees “Hypocrites” at least seven times in Matthew 23, was that an unloving thing to do? He pointed out the hypocrisy in their lives.
Calvinists do the same thing to the professing Christians who have the incorrect understanding of man and God (I refer here to the Arminian versus Calvinist view of man’s inherent nature and God’s view of that same nature). Are Calvinists any different when they try to lovingly correct people’s misunderstandings about themselves and God? When people tell you signs that accompany genuine conversion and encourage people to examine themselves (2 Corinthians 13:5) to see if their faith is genuine, don’t they do that because they want to see them genuinely converted? Isn’t that a loving thing to do? Would it be unloving for them to let people with incorrect understandings of the Gospel to continue in those incorrect understandings and ultimately perish in eternal hell as a result?
Calvinists instill fear in people sometimes because that contributes to saving faith (Proverbs 16:6). In the book of Romans, Paul repeatedly alludes to the Law’s role in salvation. Is sharing Commandments with people unloving? Paul says it is necessary to bring knowledge of sin (Romans 7). Jesus did it personally (Matthew 5, Matthew 15, Matthew 19). Jesus brought the knowledge of sin. Is it okay for Him to do, but unloving for us to do? Aren’t Christians supposed to imitate Christ? These are all things Calvinists do? Are Calvinists unloving because they interpret the Bible more strictly than other groups who justify how so many things the Bible clearly says “do not apply today”?
It’s funny to me how whenever someone actually tries to do what the Bible actually says and point it out to other people they are legalistic or unloving. I hope you do not think I am being unloving here. I am not trying to be unloving at all. Rather I am trying to illustrate how the Bible supports my stance, that we need to talk about sin in order to see people genuinely saved. However, there are other people I know who would probably say I was being unloving or intolerant by supporting my opinions with the Bible. I am sure my tone sounds unloving or preachy, but I am really trying to be as nice as possible. All you see is words. You could not get a gauge on my calm tone from reading this. Hope this helps, and God bless!
Andy
Click on the comment section on this post and the post called, "Election Pure and Simple" for the rest of the dialogue between us and J-.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Election Pure And Simple - Jeff Noblit
Has the doctrine of election always been something that was very confusing or hard to understand? Have you never gotten a good, simple explanation of election? If not, this will be of great benefit to you, even if you think you may understand it already. Also, on the Amazing Grace DVD by The Apologetics Group, it speaks about this subject as well among other things, and we HIGHLY recommend it. Click here for more info. He also discusses the common objections against election and he refutes them.
What is election pure and simple? -
"We come to the third view of election and that is what I call election pure and simple. Election pure and simple, and I want you to hear very clearly this very simple definition.... God chose those whom He would save, and He secured their salvation. God chose those whom He would save AND He secured their salvation. From before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 4 and other texts, God elected, chose, selected those He would save. And then in time and space history, He sent His Son to die. His Son paid for the sins of His people on the cross. And then also in time and space history, He called those whom He had chosen, whom His Son paid their sin debt to come to Himself and believe in Him and be everlastingly saved. That's election. Pure and simple." ~ Jeff Noblit
"This little ol' pitiful god of the Arminian, this little ol' anemic, impotent little God that sits in heaven and wrings his hands and hopes somebody might receive him and accept him somehow and make poor little ol' Jesus feel better about dying on the cross. Hogwash! That's not what God teaches! God teaches that all of those whom Jesus Christ paid for on the cross who are foreknown and predestined will be called, will be saved, will be glorified and Christ's holy bride will be complete in heaven for all eternity, just as God designed from the foundation of the world!" ~ Jeff Noblit
You can find it by clicking here.
What is election pure and simple? -
"We come to the third view of election and that is what I call election pure and simple. Election pure and simple, and I want you to hear very clearly this very simple definition.... God chose those whom He would save, and He secured their salvation. God chose those whom He would save AND He secured their salvation. From before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 4 and other texts, God elected, chose, selected those He would save. And then in time and space history, He sent His Son to die. His Son paid for the sins of His people on the cross. And then also in time and space history, He called those whom He had chosen, whom His Son paid their sin debt to come to Himself and believe in Him and be everlastingly saved. That's election. Pure and simple." ~ Jeff Noblit
"This little ol' pitiful god of the Arminian, this little ol' anemic, impotent little God that sits in heaven and wrings his hands and hopes somebody might receive him and accept him somehow and make poor little ol' Jesus feel better about dying on the cross. Hogwash! That's not what God teaches! God teaches that all of those whom Jesus Christ paid for on the cross who are foreknown and predestined will be called, will be saved, will be glorified and Christ's holy bride will be complete in heaven for all eternity, just as God designed from the foundation of the world!" ~ Jeff Noblit
You can find it by clicking here.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
How do I know if I'm one of God's elect?
Once someone learns of the doctrine of election, this is usually the next question to be asked. Mark Kielar puts this question in perspective and shows that if you're an unbeliever, this isn't really what you should be concerned with yet.
"This video is called, "How Do I Know If I'm One of God's Elect?" (Mark Kielar)" and you can find it at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RClNArrlt7A .
"This video is called, "How Do I Know If I'm One of God's Elect?" (Mark Kielar)" and you can find it at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RClNArrlt7A .
Friday, July 18, 2008
Is there such a thing as free will? - Spurgeon
FREE WILL - A SLAVE by C. H. Spurgeon
"I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright....." ~ C.H. Spurgeon
Full text here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm
You can download this yourself at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7170545810 .
"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here & there a heretic, of no very honorable character, might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church." ~ C.H. Spurgeon
"I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are: First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words "will," or "will not" in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, "If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright....." ~ C.H. Spurgeon
Full text here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm
You can download this yourself at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7170545810 .
"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here & there a heretic, of no very honorable character, might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church." ~ C.H. Spurgeon
Monday, July 14, 2008
Amazing Grace Update
Hi everyone.
You may have remembered us posting about "Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism," the DVD from the Apologetics Group. We got it in the mail a short while ago and watched the first six or so chapters Sunday evening. This video is fantastic! It explains so well not only that the Reformed road is in fact the narrow road and the difficult way that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14), but is does an impeccable job explaining WHY it is the correct way. If anyone thinks you are in a cult because you are "Reformed," get this DVD, and show them the "Church History" section that will explain where the modern Gospel came from and how hundreds and thousands of years of church history are not in support of the modern Gospel, but rather, in support of the Reformed way of thinking.
Incidentally, we found out after we got the DVD, that our Pastor, Dr. Thomas Ascol, is one of the contributors to the DVD. So, if you live in or near Lee County, Florida and you are looking for a doctrinally sound true church, check out Grace Baptist Church of Cape Coral, Florida. If you disagree with my stance, please find the DVD online yourself and check it out. Pay particular attention to the list of names in the Church History section. If you are going to disagree with this way of thinking, you will have to disagree with all those names in that list and several hundred years of church history. Are you prepared to argue your case about that with God? Please come into it with an open mind. It is our prayer that God will "reform" the hearts that need "reforming" and save them that believe. I would like to hear feedback from anyone who gets this DVD and sees it. Thanks all.
You can find the video at: http://www.theapologeticsgroup.com/cms/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,shop.flypage/product_id,67/category_id,1/manufacturer_id,0/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,1/ or by clicking on the title of this blog.
Andy
Thursday, July 10, 2008
By Their Fruit Parts 1 and 2 - Paul Washer sermons
This pair of Washer sermons are perhaps as good as "Tests of Genuine Conversion." This is about how historical Christianity differs from contemporary American Christianity.
By Their Fruit - Part 1 Matthew 7:13-20
You can find this also at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=47081358368
By Their Fruit - Part 2 Matthew 5:1-13
You can also find this at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=47081404610
By Their Fruit - Part 1 Matthew 7:13-20
You can find this also at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=47081358368
By Their Fruit - Part 2 Matthew 5:1-13
You can also find this at: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=47081404610
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Five Solas in simple terms
Here's a simple explanation of what the "Five Solas" are. These are the basic essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Every Christian should know these.
These images are from: http://www.whatissola5.org
These images are from: http://www.whatissola5.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
