The Prophetic Presbyterian & His Narrow Way

The 1946 argument is just a distraction.       It amounts to looking at one or 2 trees in the forest & not the forest itself.       The argument centers on the meaning of 2 words in 1 Corinthians 6.     Those 2 words are derived from Leviticus 18, where the subject matter is most certainly homosexual behavior done in the service of one or more pagan pseudodeities, so the issue isn’t whether or not the words refer to homosexuality.   The issue is what sort of homosexual behavior are in view.  There’s a history to the translation of “maltakoi”    & “arsenakoitai,” in 1 Corinthians 6 & 1 Timothy 1.    Ask yourself what readers of the Geneva Bible thought the term “buggerers” meant or what “abusers of mankind” meant in the days of King James.      In other words, focusing on these 2 words translated as “homosexuals” in the ESV doesn’t really do anything to confute the tradition bound view e...

From time to time, you run into someone who thinks that Christ’s being theandric means that He automatically knew what other people thought because, “Jesus is God in flesh,” without thinking about what that really means or entails.     That’s why it’s important to know & understand terms like “theandric” & incorporate them into everyday faith & practice, &, if at all possible, their everyday speech.   As to His divinity —- omniscience.     As to His humanity— He muddled through just like the rest of us.    Therefore not omniscient.      Why? Because Yeshua has a fully human soul/spirit.   Jesus Had A Human Mind : The fact that Jesus “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52) says that he went through a learning process just as all other children do — he learned how to eat, how to talk, how to read and write, and how to be obedient to his parents (see Heb. 5:8). This ordinary learning process was part of the genuine ...

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...

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...