Archive for May, 2012

I was asked by a friend to have a look at this book – i may see if i can grab it and review it, in the mean time, from what I have heard of it, im pretty concerned about its teaching, if some things found in the below link are accurate…

If you want to have a proper idea about this subject of forgiveness and confession of sin in the life of the believer, please listen to this sermon by John Macarthur:

I would also highly recommend this video – Dr Michael Brown deals with pretty much most of the arguments that are used by the hyper-grace teachers:

This will clear up the whole issue, and help you in your Christian walk with God! We DO need to confess our sins!

As i posted previously on this issue:

I’ve heard there is a teaching going around that says that once you are a believer, and are forgiven of your sin, you no longer have to confess your sins that you commit post conversion to God in prayer because He has already forgiven you, and if your conscience is bothering you, its not God…

What does scripture say?

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 [1 John 1:9 was written to BELIEVERS to tell them how to know if they are genuinely saved or not – confession of sin in life is a sign of a genuine believer!]

Confess here in the Greek is in the present tense, giving the sense of repeated or continuous action. Could be rendered “if we are confessing our sins”. Confession and repentance of sin is part of the Christian life.

What does Jesus himself teach about prayer ?

Luke 11:1-4

“1 It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.”
2And He said to them, “When you pray, say:
‘Father, hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.

3‘Give us each day our daily bread.

***4‘And forgive us our sins,
For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.***
And lead us not into temptation.’””

I think if the Lord Himself taught us to pray in this way, that makes it pretty clear cut?

Lets just say for sake of argument that the folks want to take verse 4, and say it is not relevant for us today – then they have in effect thrown out the entire Lords prayer for the Christian today – if they want to deny one part of the prayer, they have to deny all the prayer, you cannot pick and choose what you believe. Just look at all the sections of the Lords prayer as we know and pray it today (most of us, by heart). Is it not true that we should pray for God’s will in our life and that He be glorified in this world? Is it not true that we should pray for God’s provision in our lives? To keep us from temptation?  Are these not all true for the believer today, and can be shown from other NT scripture? From where, then, comes the charge that the Lord’s prayer is redundant ?

Again I would urge you to listen to the sermon above i posted from!

Any questions, then please drop a comment in the comment box and ill get back to you ASAP 🙂


“A former classmate who serves as a professor at the college level sometimes has students who come to his office expressing doubt about the existence of God. Before engaging them in any sort of intellectual conversation, he wisely asks such students, “What sin are you currently struggling with?””

Read the rest of the article via The Unbelievers Problem.

A good short summary!

What to Say When Someone Says, “The Bible Has Errors” | The Resurgence.

I do think we need to make sure though that we make the distinction between textual variations (the transmission errors) and that scripture is inerrant in the autographs – ie, the copy the author wrote. The variations are simply down to transmission, but they are faultless in the original, and whatever God wanted to have written, was written. Also I think it is still a good thing to call them out on their supposed claims when they say the Bible has contradictions/errors/whatever else! It does amuse me the number of times atheists make wide general sweeping claims, but then pushed on them, you get nothing…

I would also suggest James White’s book “The King James only Controversy” found here :

“Dealt with approximately 25 minutes of audio from three lengthy Theopologetics podcasts on annihilationism, the presuppositional commitments that are brought to the text, and on the basis of that reading, affect the theology they teach. Had Ben, Matthias, and Justin in with me at various points. We didn’t get to all of it, as we had a near catastrophic recording failure toward the end, where you will hear the audio quality/texture change, and I then make some comments specifically to Chris. Thankfully, it was recovered, and all was then right with the world. ”

Take a listen to this podcast here: Point of Contact – Life, Death and Theology.

Enfield on Spotify!

Posted: May 28, 2012 in Worship (music)

I’m excited/happy because my favourite worship band ‘Enfield’ are now on spotify!! 😀

If you are looking for some old hymns re-done in a modern style, or just some excellent edifying songs, take a listen! No theological fluff found here!

The 1st resolved enfield hymn sessions:

Hopefully should be something in there musically for everyone, as a lot of the songs are quite different from each other style wise!

Was Jesus a “Calvinist”?

Posted: May 25, 2012 in Calvinism

Is what Calvinism  teaches today consistent with what Jesus taught? James White has a radio “debate” on this with David Instone-Brewer on the Unbelievable radio program.

Here’s the link:{D4E01CE8-0DDD-4C4A-BCF0-9E8B4D98166F}

“Accordingly, we have to synthesize the new facts with the old facts. Then when we have done that we must proceed once more to see what the new facts thus related to the old facts together reveal about God and reality in general. In this respect the process of knowledge is a growth into the truth. For this reason we have spoken of the Christian theistic method as the method of implication into the truth of God. It is reasoning in a spiral fashion rather than in a linear fashion. Accordingly, we have said that we can use the old terms deduction and induction if only we remember that they must be thought of as elements in this one process of implication into the truth of God. If we begin the course of spiral reasoning at any point in the finite universe, as we must because that is the proximate starting point of all reasoning, we can call the method of implication into the truth of God a transcendental method. That is, we must seek to determine what presuppositions are necessary to any object of knowledge in order that it may be intelligible to us. It is not as though we already know some facts and laws to begin with,irrespective of the existence of God, in order then to reason from such a beginning to further conclusions. It is certainly true that if God has any significance for any object of knowledge at all, the relation of God to that object of knowledge must be taken into consideration from the outset. It is this fact that the transcendental method seeks to recognize.The charges made against this type of reasoning we must turn upon those who made them. It will be said of this type of reasoning that it introduces the subjective element of belief in God, which all men do not share. Of this we can only say that all men should share that belief, and before the fall of man into sin man did have that belief. Belief in God is the most human attitude conceivable. It is abnormal not to believe in God. We must therefore hold that only the Christian theist has real objectivity, while the others are introducing false prejudices, or subjectivity.The charge is made that we engage in circular reasoning. Now if it be called circular reasoning when we hold it necessary to presuppose the existence of God, we are not ashamed of it because we are firmly convinced that all forms of reasoning that leave God out of account will end in ruin. Yet we hold that our reasoning cannot fairly be called circular reasoning, because we are not reasoning about and seeking to explain facts by assuming the existence and meaning of certain other facts on the same level of being with the facts we are investigating, and then explaining these facts in turn by the facts with which we began. We are presupposing God, not merely another fact of the universe. If God is to come into contact with us at all it is natural that the initiative must be with him. And this will also apply to the very question about the relation of God to us. Accordingly, it is only on God’s own testimony that we can know anything about him.Even in paradise it was God’s verbal self-disclosure, and the disclosure of his will for man’s activity in relation to the created cosmos, that was indispensable for man’s ability to identify any fact and to relate any fact properly to any other fact. Applying this to the Scripture, it is but natural that we should accept the Scripture testimony about itself. If we did anything else we would not be accepting Scripture as absolute. The only alternative then to bringing in a God who testifies of himself and upon whose testimony we are wholly dependent, is not to bring in God at all. And not to bring in God at all spells nothing but utter ruin for knowledge. In that case knowledge may be said to be reduced to the pass of drawing circles in a void. Hence we must return the charge of circular reasoning to those who made it. On the other hand, we are happy to accept the charge of circular reasoning. Our reasoning frankly depends upon the revelation of God, whose “reasoning” is within the internal-eternal circularity of the three persons of the Trinity. It is only if we frankly depend for the validity of our reasoning upon this internal circular reasoning in the triune God that we can escape trying in vain to reason in circles in a vacuum of pure contingency.The charge has been made that it is an a priori procedure to bring in God at the beginning of the process of knowledge. This too is a charge that acts as a boomerang. A priori reasoning is reasoning that does not start with the facts. Now antitheism has arbitrarily taken for granted that God is not a fact, and that if he is a fact that fact does not have any bearing upon the other facts. This we must hold to be an a priori procedure. We hold that the so-called “facts” are wholly unintelligible unless the supreme fact of God be brought into relation with them. We are willing to start with any fact as a proximate starting point, but refuse to admit before the investigation has begun that there can be no such fact as God…..”


…..Our reasoning then must always and everywhere be truly analogical It matters not whether we are reasoning inductively or deductively, whether we analyze or synthesize, whether we reason in a priori or a posteriori fashion, If we only reason analogically we are true to our principle and may expect results, and if we do not reason analogically we are not true to our principle and may not expect any results.

The necessity of reasoning analogically is always implied in the theistic conception of God. If God is to be thought of at all as necessary for man’s interpretation of the facts or objects of knowledge, he must be thought of as being determinative of the objects of knowledge. In other words, he must then be thought of as the only ultimate interpreter, and man must be thought of as a finite reinterpreter. Since, then, the absolute selfconsciousness of God is the final interpreter of all facts, man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge. Since all the finite facts exist by virtue of the interpretation of God, man’s interpretation of the finite facts is ultimately dependent upon God’s interpretation of the facts. Man cannot, except to his own hurt, look at the facts without looking at God’s interpretation of the facts. Man’s knowledge of the facts is then a reinterpretation of God’s interpretation. It is this that is meant by saying that man’s knowledge is analogical of God’s knowledge.We must now consider more fully the question how one who has thus become convinced that analogical reasoning is the only type of reasoning that gives us truth at all, must face one who is convinced that univocal reasoning is the only type of reasoning that can possibly bring one into contact with truth.In the preceding chapter we have seen that the point of contact that we may presuppose is that man, as a matter of fact, never exists in such independence as he thinks he does. He remains accessible to God always It is this that gives us courage to proceed. And with this conviction we proceed with assurance of success. It is this that gives us courage not to condescend to any form of univocal reasoning.When we approach the question in this way we should be willing to start anywhere and with any fact that any person we meet is interested in. The very conviction that there is not a single fact that can really be known unless it is interpreted theistically gives us this liberty to start anywhere, as far as a proximate starting point is concerned. If we thought that the fact of God’s existence had no significance for physics, we would have to seek to bring our opponents at once into contact with the more specifically religious problem. But that is exactly what we need not do. We can start with any fact at all and challenge “our friends the enemy,” to give us an intelligible interpretation of it.Since the non-theist is so heartily convinced that univocal reasoning is the only possible kind of reasoning, we must ask him to reason univocally for us in order that we may see the consequences. In other words, we believe it to be in harmony with and a part of the process of reasoning analogically with a non-theist that we ask him to show us first what he can do. We may, to be sure, offer to him at once a positive statement of our position. But this he will at once reject as quite out of the question. So we may ask him to give us something better. The reason he gives for rejecting our position is, in the last analysis, that it involves self-contradiction. We see again as an illustration of this charge the rejection of the theistic conception that God is absolute and that he has nevertheless created this world for his glory. This, the non-theist says, is self-contradictory. And it no doubt is, from a non-theistic point of view. But the final question is not whether a statement appears to be contradictory. The final question is in which framework or on which view of reality—the Christian or the nonChristian—the law of contradiction can have application to any fact. The non-Christian rejects the Christian view out of hand as being contradictory. Then when he is asked to furnish a foundation for the law of contradiction, he can offer nothing but the idea of contingency.”