Tom Hicks

Oh I don’t think so. “Daddy who are Calvinists?” “They believe God decreed the death of Christ, the most horrible and wicked sin imaginable, and that He had a good reason for it.” “Who are Arminians?” “They are people who don’t believe God has a morally sufficient reason for ANY evil that exists and that He enables people to commit such evils, and still asks you to trust Him.”

@TomHicks2LCF P.S…this is a losing battle for you Tom. Because your theology is abhorrent blasphemy, your apologetics are dog vomit, and your wit is vapid.

“Daddy, what are Arminians?” “They are the people who believe God wants to save everyone but fails.”

@Michael1Pet315 “Daddy what are Arminians?” “They are people who think God gives child rapists unfettered freedom to rape children.”

@TomHicks2LCF “Daddy, what are Calvinists?” “They are the people who believe God gets glory for child rape.”

@MrTimothyRenfro Sin is not good but it must be good that sin is or it would not be. Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God **meant it [evil]** for good.”

@TomHicks2LCF If it is a failure if God doesn’t get what he wants, and God doesn’t want sin, then every time we sin, God fails, right? Or does God want sin, according to you?

@MrTimothyRenfro I’m a Calvinist so, no. 😜 But you would need to say that, right?

@TomHicks2LCF By that logic, you would have to say that God “failed” the moment the angels and Adam and Eve sinned in the first place.

"Legalism is simply separating the law of God from the person of God. Thus the essence of legalism is rooted not merely in our view of law as such but in a distorted view of God as the giver of his law... The simplest way to think of antinomianism is that it denies the role of the law in the Christian life. At root then antinomianism separates God’s law from God’s person, and grace from the union with Christ in which the law is written in the heart. Antinomianism and legalism are not so much antithetical to each other as they are both antithetical to grace. This is why Scripture never prescribes one as the antidote for the other. Rather grace, God’s grace in Christ in our union with Christ, is the antidote to both." —Sinclair Ferguson

The Bible applies both to the redemptive and common modes of Christ’s kingdom, but it applies to them differently, according to their jurisdictional boundaries.

Wow this looks great!

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. – 1 Corinthians 10:31 foundersseminary.org

This is most of the inaugural class of elder-qualified, church-recommended men of @FoundersSem. Pray for them, that the Lord will grant them Sharp minds Warm hearts Steel spines

This is worth your time to watch. I need to own the fact that as one of the three board members who resigned from Founders, I was fooled. I trusted that there was reason to believe there could be a serious cover up of sexual abuse in the SBC. I was wrong. While there has been sexual abuse in the churches of the SBC, there was no criminal conspiracy or coverup at the level of the national convention entities. This documentary brings out a number of very important lines of evidence that shed light on what was happening at the time. I continue to maintain that without evidence, the @CrossPolitic trailer for By What Standard should not have made accusations without grounding them in fact. Doug Wilson's men did not simply "question" Denhollender in the trailer as they claim here. They associated her with powers of darkness. If the original trailer and documentary had contained anything even approaching the evidence presented in this one, I would not have objected to it. I believe in following the biblical rules of justice for accusations, especially for members in good standing of orthodox Christian churches, which Denhollender was. I maintain, along with @CrossPolitic, that accusations must have two or three witnesses or two or three lines of evidence. One weakness of this documentary is that it pretends we can know the motives of others. But that too is unjust, unless it can be proven with the rules of biblical justice, which it was not in this documentary. I would only ask that @CrossPolitic seek to follow God's law themselves rather than merely requiring it of others.

@SteveMeisterVDM @PastorRyanA Got it. How do you take “sincerely obey the gospel” (3.7) and “obey not the gospel” (32.2)? I think I know what you may say but wanted to ask.

@TomHicks2LCF @PastorRyanA I think “evangelical” proves the point. It’s not “gospel,” but an adjective, as in “related to the gospel [evangel].”

*taps the sign* Stop using “gospel” as an adjective. The gospel is the good news of God’s work in Christ, not a modifier of our work as Christians.

“The saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical [gospel] obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed to them.” 13.3 I still think we need the modifier to distinguish it from legal obedience.

@PastorRyanA No adjectival use flies. The gospel is an announcement and news. You can live *according to* it, but you cannot live it.

We have to examine ourselves to see our great sins against God's good and holy law, or else we won't feel the need for the gospel of God's great redeeming grace in Jesus Christ.