Oneness Pentecostalism: The Real Issue

I recently ran into a Oneness Pentecostal acquaintance of mine. We talked for nearly 2 hours. We caught each other up on new developments in our lives and we also discussed our differences concerning the nature of God. I am supposed to meet with him as well as a mutual acquaintance (who preaches at the University of Maryland for a particular oneness parachurch group known as “Impact UMD”) in the near future. If you are unfamiliar with Oneness Theology, click here to read more. In light of these recent events, I wanted to post a summary statement of the real … Continue reading Oneness Pentecostalism: The Real Issue

Ezekiel 18:20 and Original Sin

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” This is text is presented as a “knock down” to the Pauline doctrine of Original Sin. They don’t realize that the issue isn’t about Adam’s sin , but generational sin and this karmic thought that the Jews ascertained while in exile. This ignores the fact many reformed Christians have already responded to this charge. … Continue reading Ezekiel 18:20 and Original Sin

The Wills of God

1 Thessalonians 4:3-4: “ For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,” This verses above are used to show God has a second will that fails to save the reprobate. The distinction in wills has historical routes in the Reformed faith but it is more a confusing linguistical tradition than anything else. I asked Steve Hays thoughts and he said this: I doubt 1 Thes 4:3 is using God’s “will” in the rather recondite, specialized sense required … Continue reading The Wills of God

Original sin is unjust?

Steve Hays in his “I’m glad you asked” blog series deals with common objections to the Christian faith. Here’s his response to those who attack original sin. http://triablogue.blogspot.com.br/2004/04/im-glad-you-asked-7.html?m=1 “Original Sin I suppose most folks have an intuitive resistance to original sin. It seems unfair. Yet what, exactly, is it that prompts this instinctive reaction? There is a difference between being blamed for doing some I didn’t do, and being blamed for something I didn’t do. The former is unjust because it is untrue. But the latter is subtler. When men rankle under the dogma of original sin, I doubt that … Continue reading Original sin is unjust?

Timeless foreknowledge?

Dr. Paul Helm wrote this in his work ‘Eternal God: A study of God without Time, Second edition’. Pages 98-100 What is it that the timeless foreknowledge is before? It cannot be before anything for the timeless knower, for him there is no temporal before or after, since he occupies no position in time. Thus for a timeless foreknower the statement: (a) I foreknow that A Where A is some event or action in a temporal ‘stream’, is necessarily false, since for it to be true A would have to stand in some temporal relation to the foreknower, which is … Continue reading Timeless foreknowledge?

Faith alone implies Christ alone

It’s been said that I reject Grace alone and faith alone by Christian Anarchist and his friends. This is another false charge of “Spiritually Dishonest Ministries”. Anarchist has had a problem with me and now wishes to move from attacking my character to that of attacking my doctrine. Just not on an issue of mere simple doctrine , but on the heart of the Gospel. In leveling these charges he attacks my place before God. Which is something I take seriously. While he supports sodomy he condemns me as unorthodox. I think he needs to read up. The questions now … Continue reading Faith alone implies Christ alone

Does God love everyone?

Introduction:  Most people think that God loves every individual human that has ever existed. For such a universal dogma, you would expect it to be explicitly said all over the bible, but there’s no explicit statement that actually says that. So, they rely on deduction to derive this doctrine. We will see if they are successful in proving such. That isn’t to say that it is invalid to use good and necessary consequence, but I don’t think that they adequately apply such. We should also keep in mind the doctrine of impassibility. I’ve already shared resources on that before and … Continue reading Does God love everyone?