Posts

Tackling Tradition 82: Acts 19:1 - 7

Those who make much of New Testament baptism have been known to assert that one must be baptized in the name of Christ in order to have received the Holy Spirit.       Some go so far to say that one must be baptized in order to do so.   One of their major prooftexts is Acts 19: 1 - 7. 19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spiritwhen you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophe...

The Biggest Lie Told During Pride Month

Generally speaking, Mike Winger is a pretty good Christian apologist, but like many theologically Evangelical (& Non-Evangelical) Christians these days, his heart & mind are still in the thrall of Liturgical Philosophy & Ecclesiastical Tradition.  According to him , the other side of the ecclesiastical ideological aisle is guilty of lying this time of year.   He could not be more wrong.   In truth, the biggest Pride month lie is the tradition bound view on homosexuality.  The reader is invited to refute this by way of using the Bible only & commiting no exegetical, epistemic, & logical fallacies.  First, let’s outline the texts of Leviticus 18 & Romans 1:18 - 32 together in tandem.    Why?  Because Leviticus 18 is inerrant & infallible case law, & Romans 1:18 - 32 is verbal, plenary inerrant & infallible didactic material that follows the same outline & serves as an inerrant, infallible commentary on L...

Calvinism & The Salvation of Infants

1. From the beginning a few held with Zwingli that death in infancy is a sign of election, and hence that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into glory. After Zwingli, Bishop Hooper was probably the first to embrace this view. It has more lately become the ruling view. 2.    At the opposite extreme a very few held that the only sure sign of election is faith with its fruits, and, therefore, we can have no real ground of knowledge concerning the fate of any infant; as, however, God certainly has his elect among them too, each man can cherish the hope that his children are of the elect. Peter Martyr approaches this sadly agnostic position. 3.Many held that faith and the promise are sure signs of election, and accordingly all believes and their children are certainly saved; but the lack of faith and the promise is an equally sure sign of reprobation, so that all the children of unbelievers, dying such, are equally certainly lost. The younger Spanheim...