But dust and ashes

@ShawnWGillogly @philipnation Do you know where?

@butdustandashes @philipnation It promotes EFS.

What is the most helpful Study Bible that you have owned?

The more I see of Andreas J. Köstenberger writings the more I like of him. Does anyone know anything about him? Whats your point of view of him?

102 books. One winner. Over $2,000 worth of theology written by Southern Seminary faculty. Commentaries. Theology. Biblical studies. Ministry. Church history. Counseling. Preaching. Ethics. Christian living. This is the kind of library pastors spend years building. Now we’re giving it away to one person. Learn from the faculty shaping churches, classrooms, and pulpits around the world. In partnership with @Logos , we’re giving away a theological library filled with trusted resources for ministry and Christian scholarship. To enter: • Mark sure you are following @SBTS • Repost this post • Fill out this form: vist.ly/55rin Open to U.S. residents only. Winner will be chosen and contacted Friday, June 5.

@ShawnWGillogly @philipnation While I like that one, I think the ESV study Bible is better for most Christian’s. It’s just a little easier for them.

@philipnation Reformed Heritage Study Bible Connecting Scripture NT is close though. Probably will be best when the OT is done.

@RyanHurst171 @ClubCalvinist @KnoxiteTheocrat Oh, can you share with me on discord a link to Henry’s view. That would be interesting to hear about. Ty.

I've heard the opposite about OPC and PCA, also, no we aren't. I don't agree with RZs view of schism and I don't even think his understanding of Rutherford is proper either. From what I've been shown RZ takes his views farther than Rutherford would. Either way I hold to Matthew Henry's view of schism.

No one should leave the OPC, PCA, EPC, ECO, etc for the PCUSA. You know what they have in the PCUSA? They have a sinking ship of libtard octogenarians. There is nothing here or value. There’s some money and institutions, yes, but neither are used for anything truly beneficial

@RyanHurst171 One is taking holiness seriously (while being a little excessive) the other allows abominations and female pastors. This is a no brainer choice.

This is gross

@newkingej @ReformedCaio @Soteriology101 of what Caio is claiming (he hasn’t killed anyone) and remember, just because you kill someone (even if in this case it was at worst by proxy) doesn’t mean you get to lie about them. David DID kill someone, but he is still viewed as a man of God. Use equal scales.

@newkingej @ReformedCaio @Soteriology101 So, to use your words, “Why don't you speak to the substance instead of incidental peripheral nonsense?” And deal with what Caio said. What happened Michael is a messy event all the way around and isn’t as black and as white as people like to pretend, deal with the substances…

Dr. Flowers, as we have demonstrated several times before, Calvin nowhere denies permission. He denies “mere” or “bare” permission. Why do you have such a hard time with citations? Why leave out the word “merely”? Did you look up this quote yourself and copy it, or was it found through another source online? Surely if you copy/pasted the primary source then the word “merely” wouldn’t have gone missing, unless you copy/pasted from a secondary source without checking for yourself?

@profitecpro @ReformedCaio @theo_bruv Also, man, you got to love talk to text. “Him coming in the flashes…”

@profitecpro @ReformedCaio @theo_bruv My apologies, I read you wrong. I thought you were the one saying Christ having two natures was irrelevant. Thank you for your clarification.

I would honestly have hoped to see more non-Calvinists commenting on this guy’s posts, correcting him for his attitude and willingness to promote blatant lies for the sake of defeating Calvinism. I’ve only seen one individual do it so far, so thank you @theo_bruv. But so far I’ve seen a few prominent non-Calvinist voices quote this guy favorably, and that exposes a lack of theological discernment.

Question for anyone on X, would you say the person being quoted here is denying providence? Especially in the areas between 👉👈? If not, can I have your reading of it?

@Pastor_Gabe P.s. I think all of America would get a letter if written by Paul. And after his usual greetings it would say something like… “seriously?!? I do not even know where to start with you guys.”

@Pastor_Gabe Besides the silliness of the letter point, what did they do now that would earn this joke?

Which means nothing. The Romans, Ephesians, and Philippians got letters that did not have the tone of the letters sent to the Corinthians and Galatians. Do I think Paul would rebuke the SBC for many things? Yes. But I think we all have our own lists as to what that might entail.

@TurretinFan @Soteriology101 While I know Dr. Flowers you have me blocked, I would love to hear your understanding of providence and how God works all things. As this is a pretty standard historical belief. I know you love Tozer and he even explained this principle.

@TurretinFan @Soteriology101 God, in some way, working in any and all evil. Be it by sustaining them to commit evil, using it for a great end or some other reason He may have for permitting that evil to accrue. (Dr. Flowers also does deny we can use the term permission due to the language of WCF 3.1.)

The same anti-Calvinist account posted both of these statements. And - at the moment (because of the pin) - they are adjacent posts. Let's address both briefly: 1) Everyone recognizes that there is a difference between doing something evil and allowing someone else to do something evil. 2) The "pinned" post seems to acknowledge that God does by some means bring about heinously evil events. The post also seems to acknowledge that God can have a legitimate justification for doing so. 3) Given (2), however, there cannot be an objection *based on a general principle* against God "by some means" bringing about every evil event. God can always have a legitimate justification for doing so. 4) The author of the pinned post would seem to intend to respond to (3) by saying that even if there is no objection on general principle to God doing so, it doesn't automatically follow that God does so all the time. 5) By way of illustration of (4): there can be no general "on principle" objection to God raining down manna from heaven, but that doesn't mean that God always rains down manna from heaven. 6) The rebuttal to (4) and (5) is not to suggest a lack of internal logic in the argument. Instead, the rebuttal involves providing a more robust and Biblical theology, in which God is omniscient, omnipotent, and interested in this world. 7) After all, once you acknowledge that everything matters to God, that God is infinitely wise, and that everything depends on God not only for its initial creation but also for its very continued existence, it becomes impossible to deny that God also, in a meaningful sense, brings about every calamity, but without Himself doing any moral evil. 8) Moreover, "theistic determinism" has nothing to do with the above seven points. The same answers I've offered could be offered by a Molinist, just to give a non-controversial example of someone who isn't a "theistic determinist." 9) Finally, this is just a gentle reminder that "theistic determinism" is functioning as a scarecrow term in the pinned post.