Category Archives: Theology

Is God Omnibenevolent?

From a discussion on the Calvin page, on the concept of God’s Omnibenevolent.

Sacred struggler writes:

I’m talking about God’s omnibenevolence, not the world’s. This is all about God’s character here. I can’t imagine anyone trying to argue that the world has no evil in it.

“Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning “all”, and benevolent, meaning “good”)[1] is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence”. It is often held to be impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such property along side omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence. ” This is from the article. This is what we’re talking about. Of course it’s hard to defend that God is good, it doesn’t make it false though.

My response:

Not sure I’m buying the term itself perhaps because of the idea of benevolence itself. I believe God is infinitely good, but has a hatred of that which is evil. Infinite benevolence seems to suggest that He is infinitely good apart from His anger and wrath toward a rebellious world. In other words, He is infinitely good toward the rebellious, which one could argue He does the moment He shows any goodness or kindness to anyone. But does this infinite goodness, being all present at all times in every place completely and beyond measure, be present in a world in which evil exists at all?

Comment in comment section.

15 Comments

Filed under Theology

Top Ten Songs from Hell

I got this idea for this Top-10 List from from Comedian Tim Hawkins who posted on his Facebook page that the NAPA Knowhow song just broke into Hell’s Top 10 playlist. He has a point. That song is about as irritating as it can get. Most songs from radio commercials are irritating on one level or another. I believe that is because there is a course in advertising school that teaches people that if you cannot come up with a catchy, good tune or song for your commercial, then you should make it as irritating as possible. Since that is so much easier, it happens all the time.

For instance I can sing the song for Heritage for the Blind. It’s about donating your old junked up car so they can sell it and help the blind. The song is so terrible, so off key, so through the nose of the guy singing, that it’s unforgettable. You know it’s bad when I can discern that the song is flat, off-key and through the vocalist’s nose.

But I digress. This is about pop-culture songs that are straight from hell or about hell, or both. A song qualifies if it gets stuck in your head and… you hate it. A song also qualifies if it is about hell, or the devil or it’s so bad, it makes you want to go there to get away from the song. Therefore…

10. Bat Out of Hell — Meatloaf. Come on, it’s by a guy named Meatloaf! It has to make the list! Plus, I was introduced to this over-dramatic song by a teacher in high school while we were on a One-Act play trip to some place in central Texas. She kept playing it over and over again and I really wanted to send that bat right back to hell.

9. Call Me Maybe — This one qualifies because I’ve only heard it maybe five times, but it’s played inside the recesses of my brain at least a billion times. It went from being a cute song, to… a hellish song. I’ve only seen the artist who sings it in a video once. The other times had the US Olympic Swim team singing it and a bunch of Republicans from Chicago singing it (should we not consider the phrase Chicago Republicans a contradiction in terms?)

8. Sympathy for the Devil — by the Rolling Stones. This song has always given me the creeps and I can only attribute that to the fact that the Rolling Stones capture one aspect of Satan so well. Some writers have even suggested that this song inspired many other entertainers to try and entertain us about hell/Satan, etc. I just have one question for Mick Jaegger and the boys: “with a song like this, exactly where do you plan on spending eternity?”

7. Stairway to Heaven — I know, this seems like it should appear in the Top-Ten Songs for Heaven, but it actually is about a woman trying to buy a stairway to heaven all the while wearing a bustle in her hedgerow. Or something like that. I never have been able to discern much of what Robert Plant is actually saying in the songs he sings. Since this song actually opposes the gospel, it’s actually about getting into hell, in the sense that someone thinks they can buy their way into heaven. But that is probably far too deep for the average listener of Led Zepplin, even though many believe that Led Zepplin is actually really deep. How could one possibly know? You can’t understand half of what Robert Plant is actually saying.

BTW, I don’t believe that if you play Led Zepplin songs backwards, that you can hear Satan’s voice chanting some dirge to delude the people. I do believe you can hear Tiny Tim’s voice as he sings Tiptoe Through the Tulips… our number six enter.

6. Tiptoe Through the Tulips — by Tiny Tim. O what an abuse of the name Tim! Someone please hide the ukuleles.

5. Highway to Hell — AC/DC’s contribution to the list. Given that the lead singer of the band that sang this song died from choking on his own vomit, makes one wonder if he made his destination.

4. Running With the Devil — Van Halen’s contribution to the list.

3. Hotel California — this one rates at number three because it has caused countless millions to sing along without realizing they are singing about hell. The song comes from the apostate Don Henly. It is not really about hell, but about the “high-life” of LA… wait, isn’t that the same thing?

2. House of the Rising Sun — listen to this one too much and you get put on suicide watch. This folk song was popularized by the Animals back in 1964. It’s not just that the song is so utterly depressing, as Blues tends to be, but misguided Christians keep trying to co-opt the tune and put the words of Amazing Grace to it. This shows the unheavenly nature of the song and causes it to rise to such a high level of disdain.

1. Red Solo Cup — Straight from the Department of Monotony, this one is not only mind numblingly repetitive, but there is so little substance to it that it has become the national anthem for every frat boy in the country. Musically this song only rises to the level of the gutter vomit that it leads to in countless frat houses. May it depart from the recesses of my brain as quickly as the word “moderation” does at a keg party.

OK, you probably have your own list. Let me know in the comments section.

8 Comments

Filed under Entertainment, Hell, Humor, Pop Culture

The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

Sometimes the best way to learn is to read what we don’t believe the Bible is saying. The following is a parody of what a Semi-Pelagian would state in their catechism if they believed in using a catechism at all. It’s meant to be humorous, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Hattip: Kenneth

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian’s chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour

4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner’s Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God’s entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

18. Q: I’m so happy, what’s the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys’ Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

25. Q: What doth the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord’s Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

26. Q: What’s the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul’s health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

28. Q: Who is on the Lord’s side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

31. Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ’s command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.

32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

35. Q: What meaneth “The Priesthood Of All Believers”?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

38. Q: When will be the “Last Days” of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The “Last Days” are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.

46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”

47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.

48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

4 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Arminianism, Calvinism, Christian Education

Roundup That Matters — On Preaching and Doctrine

There seems to be a host of posts that have come across my line of vision in the last couple of days dealing with preaching and doctrine. I can honestly say that both topics are dear to my heart, that is sound preaching and excellent doctrine. I strive for both, so much so, that while discussing doctrine, I will often go to preaching. I humbly tell the listener when I do that this is an “occupational hazard.” The point is that as a pastor, and any elder for that matter, both sound doctrine and good preaching should always be our goals.

Don’t Settle for Mediocre Preaching — Paul Tripp counsels preachers that the real problem with preaching in America is… the preachers. Tripp writes:

Preaching is more than regurgitating your favorite exegetical commentary, recasting the sermons of your favorite preachers, or reshaping notes from one of your favorite seminary classes. It is bringing the transforming truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ from a passage that has been properly understood, cogently and practically applied, and delivered with the engaging tenderness and passion of a person who has been broken and restored by the very truths he now stands to communicate. You simply cannot do this without proper preparation, meditation, confession, and worship.

Amen and amen. If we haven’t lived the sermon, chances are, we probably won’t preach it very well. I’m not talking about personal testimonies every time we step into the pulpit. What I’m talking about is the fact that the Spirit has worked in our lives in the way that the text calls for. Pastors should expect the Spirit to work on us as we are preparing the sermon throughout the week. My wife can tell you plenty of stories about this as it has happened to me. I usually have to live the sermon before preaching it.

One more thought from Tripp’s piece:

There simply is no way that you can begin to think about a passage for the first time on Saturday afternoon or evening and give it the kind of attention that it needs. You will not be able to understand the passage, be personally affected, and be prepared to give it to others in a way that ontributes to their ongoing transformation. As pastors, we have to fight for the sanctity of preaching, or no one else will. We have to demand that our job descriptions allow for the time necessary to prepare well. We have to carve out time in our schedules to do whatever necessary for each of us, given our gifts and maturity, to be ready as spokesmen for our Savior King. We cannot become comfortable with patterns that denigrate preaching and degrade our ability to represent a glorious God of glorious grace. We cannot allow ourselves to be too busy and too distracted. We cannot set low standards for ourselves and those we serve. We cannot be self-excusing and self-accommodating. We cannot allow ourselves to try to squeeze a thousand dollars worth of preparation into dime moments. We must not lose sight of the excellent One and the excellent grace we have been called to represent. We cannot, because we are unprepared, let his splendor appear boring and his amazing grace appear ordinary.

Tender Mercies has an excellent post on Why Doctrine Matters, quoting from R. Scott Clark. I told him that I wished I had seen the post last week, since I was preaching upon Christ’s doctrine. I would have used the following quote from Mr. Clark dealing with the fact that doctrine is unavoidable. This is similar to what I tend to say about us being theologians. We are all theologians, the question is whether or not we are good, biblical theologians or idolatrous theologians. Here is Mr. Clark’s quote:

Non-doctrinal Christianity is impossible. The teaching of non-doctrinal Christianity is doctrine. It is bad doctrine, but it is doctrine nonetheless. Some argue that “doctrine divides,” and, therefore, that we should avoid it. True, doctrine sometimes divides, but that is what the Lord intended. In Luke 12:51–53, our Lord expressly taught that He came not to bring “peace on earth” but rather to bring “division,” even among family members. We cannot hereby justify schismatic behavior in the church, which Scripture condemns repeatedly, but we cannot accept the notion that division is inherently evil.

The real question is not whether Christians will have doctrine but which doctrine or whose doctrine? Our Lord and Savior Himself advocated a host of doctrines. The Gospels are replete with His doctrinal teaching. He taught about the nature of God (John 4:24), humanity (Matt. 10:28), creation (Mark 10:6), sin (John 8:34), redemption (John 3), the church (Matt. 16), and the end of all things (Matt. 24). He taught doctrines about the history of salvation and how it should be understood (Luke 24). Anyone who advocates non-doctrinal Christianity must do so without Jesus.

But obviously, the LORD didn’t want me using that quote in my sermon. However… it’s great for a blog post.

Heath posted on Why Pastor’s Need to be Readers and quoted from several different sources. This one from Spurgeon:

We will LOOK AT [the Apostle Paul’s] BOOKS. We do not know what the books were about, and we can only form some guess as to what the parchments were. Paul had a few books which were left, perhaps wrapped up in the cloak, and Timothy was to be careful to bring them. Even an apostle must read…A man who comes up into the pulpit, professes to take his text on the spot, and talks any quantity of nonsense, is the idol of many. If he will speak without premeditation, or pretend to do so, and never produce what they call a dish of dead men’s brains—oh! that is the preacher. How rebuked are they by the apostle! He is inspired, and yet he wants books! He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books! He had seen the Lord, and yet he wants books! He had had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books! He had been caught up into the third heaven, and had heard things which it was unlawful for a men to utter, yet he wants books! He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books! The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, “Give thyself unto reading.” The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. Brethren, what is true of ministers is true of all our people. You need to read. Renounce as much as you will all light literature, but study as much as possible sound theological works, especially the Puritanic writers, and expositions of the Bible. We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure, is to be either reading or praying…

What struck me is that this quote reminded me of Heath’s earlier post about a man who came back from the dead, saying that he could tell us what Jesus looked like and sounded like. Quite a stretch of a story, but it struck me from Spurgeon, that if the Apostle Paul wasn’t at liberty to speak about the third heaven in which he was privy to, why did the man who came back from the dead think he had the right to tell us what Jesus was like? Why does anyone listen to such claims when the Apostle Paul himself was forbidden from speaking such truths? Listen to Paul’s words: 1 Corinthians 12:3-4 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Yet some bozo comes along who has had a vision thinks he is the one to share Jesus with the lost. Not the Jesus of the Bible, mind you. As Heath noted, the man wanted nothing to do with the Bible. He wanted to share the Jesus of his own personal vision. If the vision were true, it is still not lawful for him to share it.

Finally, Tim Bayly has an excellent piece called The Redemptive-Historical Preaching Fad… Redemptive-historical preaching is the model that turns every story in the Old Testament into the story of Christ. I think there is a bit of legitimacy with the model, but recognize what Bayly is attempting to get us to see. When we do this, we lose the heroes of the faith in our quickness to jump over their courage, faith and obedience in order to get to Christ Himself. Bayly writes:

The failure of men who take pride in being Christ and Gospel-centered isn’t that they’re wrong in affirming how types and examples point to Christ. Reading, teaching, and preaching Christ in all of Scripture is foundational. Obvious.

Their failure is that they deny the morals and virtues of the types and examples–the flesh and blood of history, if you will. It’s as if no one is capable of loving David as a man and desiring to be like him while also loving the God Who made him as he was and worked through him to accomplish his sovereign decrees, including the very public execution of blaspheming Goliath, the very public vindication of His Name resting on Israel, the eventual replacement of King Saul with this man whose Davidic Line would end with our Messiah, and so on.

To speak of courage and faith together does not tie even, or especially, very young boys’ brains in knots. They get it. God has made man capable of amazing intellectual feats and those feats are often seen at their most brilliant in little people who haven’t yet had blinkered professors tell them they can’t think that way. Those possessing wisdom rather than degrees are fully capable of thinking both ways at the same time, and for intellectuals to tell them that they must choose one way and delete the other from their mind, also deleting all those obvious paths criss-crossing between both ways, is for professors of hermeneutics and exegesis to chain Scripture to the same pulpits the Roman Catholics had chained it to back at the time of the Reformation.

Bayly then quotes Rob Rayburn:

[I]n my opinion, the men of this (redemptive-historical) school of thought and preaching in the 20th century have not been strong on practicalities of living the Christian life, such wisdom as the Puritans were master teachers of. The redemptive-historical men so fear moralism they seem afraid to draw out of the text the perfectly obvious lessons that may be found in it on obedience and disobedience, sin and temptation, faith and doubt, the life of prayer, and so on.

For, the fact is, the biblical history is a “thick” history. That is the term the literary scholars have invented and I like it. It has layers. It can say many things at the same time and teach many lessons. If the first lesson here is about Israel’s deliverance through a deliverer that God supplies her, the second lesson is surely that the way of that deliverance is the way of faith. David is an exemplar of the believing man just as he is the exemplar of Jesus Christ himself.

There is so much on that one post, that I may draw from it again, since it has given me a lot to think about concerning my approach to preaching. I do focus on our responsibility as believers, which I think is part of the problem of much of preaching. My point is that if we have been saved, and born again, to what end? To live as the rest of the world, tattoos and all? No, not at all. Christ redeemed us from that lifestyle and we are to live as He lives, with the reality of His Spirit dwelling in us, turning from sin, not embracing it as so many in our culture and the church tend to do. If the Bible declares something to be sinful, then we should turn away from that which is sinful and live as the holy people we are. Not so that we earn righteousness, but because we have been given righteousness. We need to live as those we are called to be, not as the world or what we were before the grace of salvation came to us.

3 Comments

Filed under Preaching, Sound Doctrine

Guess what I did Today – I Met a Man who Came Back from the Dead

Heath being witnessed to by a man who came back from the dead. An excellent post on the centrality of the Gospel and the necessity of God’s word.

Guess what I did Today – I Met a Man who Came Back from the Dead.

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Gospel, Theology

Jerry Johnson — A Skinny Jean Wearing Calvinist?

Several weeks ago, pastor Ed Young out of Dallas went on an anti-Calvinist rant for some odd reason, accusing them of … and I’m not making this up… of wearing skinny jeans. For those of you who know a Calvinist, you know we are hiding under our desks with this new charge! Yes, we’re guilty of wearing skinny jeans. However, I have not worn any skinny jeans since some time in the 1980s.

Of course, I’m jesting. There is nothing wrong with wearing skinny jeans as long as you are skinny. I am not, so I like to wear relaxed fit jeans. Not baggy, gang banger jeans, but jeans with some room in them so I don’t look quite so fat (apparently I am, a friend who turns 99 next November accused me of such while I was on vacation.)

The point is that Ed Young ripped into us Calvinist accusing us of all manner of things, like wearing skinny jeans, in order to tell his congregation of 24,000 that we are … nasty bad people and that he doesn’t like us very much. Poor Ed Young did an absolute terrible job of showing how we are bad, after all, the Scripture never says anything about wearing skinny jeans. BTW, for those of you who do not know, Ed Young is absolutely enamored with what pastors wear since he has started a fashion web site to help inform us that we need to dress more like him.

This tirade of Young’s was answered by those who are bona fide Calvinists and know what we actually believe. You can see Neil’s post here, and James White’s response here. You may remember I met James White back in April.

Young didn’t seem to really know what we believed. Give what his tirade was over, Young might be hard pressed to give one theological distinctive of Calvinism. James White shows that Young really doesn’t know…

BTW, this is one of the reasons I believe in denominationalism. If he were a member a true denomination, they could actually rebuke and deal with Young. But given the state of the non-confrontational churches, there is no real oversight or accountability for people like Young. One reason why he may have gone off the deep end.

In the video below, Jerry Johnson gives his take as well.

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Calvinism

Do You Take the Bible Literally?

I don’t, and guess what? I’m still a Christian. I know many of my brothers from Dallas Theological Seminary are taught that if we do not take the Bible literally, then we are not true Christians. The problem is: what does “literal” actually mean? According to Charles Ryrie, it means the normal usage of the word in the text. The problem with this is: who gets to determine what “normal” means?

The True Church has always let Christ and the Apostles define the terms since that puts Christ and the text of Scripture at the center of defining terms as opposed to men being at the center of those definitions. What Ryrie, and the rest at DTS, fail to see, is that they have set themselves up as the final authority’s on what the Bible means. This is a man-centered hermeneutic instead of a Christ-centered hermeneutic. In other words, this type of Bible interpretation is Solo Scriptura instead of Sola Scriptura. It is man-centered instead of Word centered.

For more on this, watch the video below from Jerry Johnson and Against the World.

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Dispensationalism, DTS, Reformed Theology, Theology