Liberty University's Strange Bedfellows: Benny Hinn; Glenn Beck
Liberty University in April stirred controversy with seemingly endorsed appearances by Mormon talk show host Glenn Beck and the world’s most famous “faith healer” Benny Hinn.
The main page at BennyHinn.org featured a video showing Hinn holding up a framed Liberty University diploma and asking, “How would you like your name to be on a diploma that says Liberty University?”
Appearing on the video with Hinn and long-time Liberty donor Dan Reber is Ron Godwin, Liberty University’s senior vice president for academic affairs. The text announced that Hinn and the Liberty University Institute of Biblical Studies in Lynchburg, Va., were forming “a powerful, worldwide ministry connection.” Reber’s company markets the Institute....
Like CAB wrote: Reading Swentin is like reading CAB. He does both your side and his. No room for error I guess that way, those who believe different than him don't define their beliefs he does it for them. Cool, maybe he could debate himself on the matter.
That would make great reading. A bit like a script for a comedy show.
Reading Swentin is like reading CAB. He does both your side and his. No room for error I guess that way, those who believe different than him don't define their beliefs he does it for them. Cool, maybe he could debate himself on the matter.
"Therefore for you 4 pointers to suggest that God intended something which in effect clearly HE did not actually do - is deceit at best and heresy at worst."
The poor misguided 4 pointer suggests that God offered the salvation to everybody, based on the completely erroneous or heretical fallacy of man believing unto salvation all by himself.
Simple observation of the human race can see that to be a ridiculous idea.
Amyraut was the inventor of 4 pointer or Amyraldism as it is called. To achieve his doctrine Amyraut taught God is divided in HIS salvation theology. He taught that God has a TWOFOLD WILL of God in predestination. 1. A universal and conditional will. 2. A particular and unconditional will.
# 1 requires the works based salvation of human belief. This of course is exactly what the Arminian heretic believes. Man can save himself without God's intervention.
#2 Is the Biblical fact of Limited Atonement - IE God remains sovereignly in charge over who gets saved - And consequently saves the elect.
It amazes me that heresy is still so entrenched in the church today that some sinners can actually believe they can save themselves. Even many who sit in pews and preach in pulpits get this wrong as can be observed below. The arrogance of man???
What God's intentions are can only directly come from the Bible, now as I pointed out Calvin himself could have been a 4-pointer, [URL=http://vimeo.com/channels/465140/page:5]]]Calvin's Wayward Children.(Fifth Video down)[/URL]. The Bible said nothing that limited the effectiveness of Christ's death to all the world.
1 John 2 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.---[URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
God chooses who He wills, but Christ's death covers all, as you can read in the summary for the sermon, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=211131516260]]] Why the Son Took On Flesh & Blood[/URL].
Ah, didn't get the name, but yes, as far as it goes the two anti-Christians that Liberty U., honored says just about everything, except the error of mixing poltics and religion started with it's founder Jerry Falwell.
Swentin wrote: Therefore for you 4 pointers to suggest that God intended something which in effect clearly HE did not actually do - is deceit at best and heresy at worst.
My recommendation is that you read Pastor Gil Rugh's take on the subject, and get it clear in your mind, so that you do not write deceitful posts.
Sorry for the butt in, but I do not like misinformation.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Now too bad you're Christ didn't have enough power to die for the whole world, but mine does!
You need to address that complaint to God it is His divine plan.
God did intend salvation from the beginning. God did intend Christ would die for the express purpose of atonement of saving in His blood. God did intend to save the elect only. God for a fact DID NOT intend to save everybody.
Therefore for you 4 pointers to suggest that God intended something which in effect clearly HE did not actually do - is deceit at best and heresy at worst.
Moses Amyraut to achieve this heresy of hypothetical universal predestination taught that God has two wills for salvation which are diametrically opposed. Obviously he did not know God.
As for Calvin; "But as the Lord seals his elect by calling and justification, so by excluding the reprobate either from the knowledge of his name or the sanctification of his Spirit, he by these marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them. I will here omit many of the fictions which foolish men have devised to overthrow predestination" (Inst ch. 21)
Thus if God excludes the reprobate then it would be UNJUST of God to require Christ's blood and hell's punishment for the same sinner.
William S. Sutherland wrote: And the beat goes on and on and on and on..................... [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=39751]]]http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=3975..[/URL]
Yup....just another day on "as SermonAudio turns."
takeheedthatnomandeceiveyou wrote: Ah, the beauty of SermonAudio comments-we are all entitled to an opinion until the moderator saith otherwise and when he does the comment is removed. I personally think John Y has spent years (not weeks) repeating the same RC ecumenical mantra and needs to be rebuked every time he calls an evangelical Protestant 'Psychotic'! Or promotes RC. Or just leave him alone? You made reference to a 'gobshite' 6 days back on a news thread about 'Greeting Cards'-though there is nothing about such in the article. gobshite:Loud-mouthed person who talks a lot, but nothing with any value etc. It would be offensive in England, but some might think it fits certain RC promoters on here? Of course you used an opportunity to help Christopher see what another poster meant and . The problem is that a Rc, an ecumenist, a conspiracy lover, arminians, Calvinists, Fundies and a whole host of others are going to comment. And you are right, we need to disagree in the right manner, but where!
William S. Sutherland wrote: I think that the more he is hammered, the more he digs in his heels. I still contend that the reason for the comment section at the bottom of the article is for comments on that article. Misrepresent me if you want,
Ah, the beauty of SermonAudio comments-we are all entitled to an opinion until the moderator saith otherwise and when he does the comment is removed.
I personally think John Y has spent years (not weeks) repeating the same RC ecumenical mantra and needs to be rebuked every time he calls an evangelical Protestant 'Psychotic'! Or promotes RC. Or just leave him alone?
You made reference to a 'gobshite' 6 days back on a news thread about 'Greeting Cards'-though there is nothing about such in the article.
gobshite:Loud-mouthed person who talks a lot, but nothing with any value etc.
It would be offensive in England, but some might think it fits certain RC promoters on here?
Of course you used an opportunity to help Christopher see what another poster meant and .
The problem is that a Rc, an ecumenist, a conspiracy lover, arminians, Calvinists, Fundies and a whole host of others are going to comment. And you are right, we need to disagree in the right manner, but where!
Jim Lincoln; Even you don't believe the verse means everybody is saved - Here is an important teaching for you.
"the Amyraldians create larger problems that require resolution. The same objection that can be applied to Arminianism regarding the extent of the atonement can also be applied to Amyraldism. If Christ died for all men as it says in 1John 2:2, then we have a problem; namely, there are people in hell right now who have had their sins atoned for. The Arminian would respond by saying that they didn’t activate their salvation by believing in Christ, and the Amyraldian would respond by saying that God didn’t elect them. Yet, that does nothing to resolve the dilemma. Whether or not they responded in faith or God elected them, their sins have been atoned for and they should not be in hell! If Christ died for my sins, then my believing it or not believing it doesn’t make it any less true. If my sin debt has been paid, then I should go to heaven, not hell where I will pay for the same debt for eternity. In fact, Amyraldism makes things worse than Arminianism because it posits God passing over people for whom Christ died." (S. Michael Houdmann) www.gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.html
No, Swentin, it's trying to paste an extra leaf onto a 4-leaf clover, a 5 leaf one isn't worth it.
1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.---[URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
Now too bad you're Christ didn't have enough power to die for the whole world, but mine does! The selection is weeded out by election, not what some people purportedly said Calvin supported, and there's good evidence he didn't support limited atonement. Go watch/listen to, [URL=http://vimeo.com/channels/465140/page:5]]]Calvin's Wayward Children.[/URL], it's, oh, fifth on the list. One nice thing this way, you can pause it for a coffee break and then you can have Don Goertzen start right up again! Oh, the booklet that Don mentioned is a free PDF on the internet also, [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/resources/booklets/calvinism-and-arminianism]]Calvinism & Arminianism[/URL].
Jim Lincoln wrote: My church believes in Amyraldism (Four point Calvinism), and since
Now Jim, as you will know from your gardening experience when a flower starts to lose its petals then it is dying. Your T.U.L.I.P. Has lost its central petal which means your doctrine flower is dead or dying.
T. Is for the best Biblical description of sin dominating man. U. Is for God's best choice made for His elect disciples to save them only. I. Is for the incredible news for the elect who will receive God's graceful call which will save them. P. Is for the wonderful gift of God who keeps His elect in faith by His power alone eternally.
Jim. The central petal of this Biblical divine TULIP is of course the work of Christ absolutely crucial to the other petals, without which the flower would die. The L for Limited Atonement tells us that God elected and predestinated the elect only for salvation. It does not suggest as your 4 point ideology does, that Christ's work failed for the majority of humans.
You have taken away the central pillar of the building of the doctrines of grace collapsing the promise of God.
Some of you have either misunderstood my points or you are intentionally misrepresenting them. I NEVER said there is no place or time for contending for the faith. I'll argue for what I believe as much as the next guy. I do not expect to go to heaven on "flowery beds of ease while others fought to win the prize and sailed through bloody seas."
Whether it's politics, religion, or whatever, I am willing to voice my opinions and beliefs. Jim Lincoln can testify to my critizism of him when he blames "baby Bush" for the sins of the Impostor from Kenya."
My point was that when you read an article and then you scroll down to the comments section, you expect the comments to relate to the article. It used to be that most comments related to the article. It seems now that every thread is either an opportunity to rag on John Yurich or to fight over doctrine. Do I believe that John should leave the RCC? Absolutely! But that does not mean I have to pound on him in every thread. I think that the more he is hammered, the more he digs in his heels. I still contend that the reason for the comment section at the bottom of the article is for comments on that article. Misrepresent me if you want, that does not improve your position or add validity to your desire to bite and devour one another!
Dr. Steven J. Lawson | 6/23/2017
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
