Marlo;

Did you read my post? I explained the context of Jeremiah 29:11 and why it would be erroneous to apply it to everyone. Verse 14 makes it clear who the "you" is and what the "plans" are.

Mr. Seabrook, thank you for your post.

You say in your response

"Kinists have written a great deal on this topic, and before you attempt to denounce Kinism as a heresy, you need to deal with it."

I'm not sure if you listened to the podcast in its entirety, or at least very carefully, but I make mention that I've dealt with the issue of Rahab, and intend to deal with the issue of Ruth in a future post, let alone do I make mention that I've written other posts on Kinism on my blog. Likewise, I've dealt with the "Rule of Kin Law" as well as the passages in Ezra and Nehemiah (which are actually handled in one of the Rahab posts). If you look at the Kinist tag on my blog, or click on the Kinist tag on this very post, you'll see those articles, where I go into greater detail than a one-hour podcast can get into. To accuse me of not dealing with something before calling it a heresy is, ironically, not dealing with something before giving a criticism. Likewise, to accuse me of having "evaded the Kinist arguments," when 1) I've got a limited amount of time on a one-hour podcast to touch on the subject, and 2) I, once again, say in the podcast that I go into more depth on my blog, is both completely untrue and completely ungracious.

Also, regarding your comment here:

"The task at hand is for you to produce the biblical proof that I am to be convicted of sin for requiring that my grandchildren should be of my own people."

As the father of a little girl, I'm not going to argue about whether or not a parent has authority over a child. However, to in essence argue "Prove it ISN'T a sin!" is to shift the burden of proof. If I'm to tell my daughter it's a sin (not just unwise, or arbitrarily forbidden, but a sin) to marry a black man, I need to have biblical grounds to do so. Kinists believe they've presented a case for it - but I've examined their case, and it's scripturally unsound. I dealt with it somewhat here in the podcast, and I deal with it elsewhere on my blog (and intend to continue dealing with it).

Mr. Augustine, thank you for your post. I think you may have misunderstood a few things in my post, however.

For one, I did not say that "Apokatasis doesn't work"; what I said was that I was not equating the Apokatasis view and the view of judgment in "The Shack" as equatable, only that "The Shack" and William Paul Young's view of judgment was much closer to an ancient heresy than orthodox, historical Christianity.

For another, you say that I said Young's book was "Classical Christian Liberalism (experiential via Schleiermacher) vrs Reformation thought (Sola Scriptora)." Actually, what I pointed out in the article was the appeal by IHOP-KC and "Shack" defenders of the experience people have reading the book or watching the movie. In other words, who cares about the error within, so long as someone feels emotionally fulfilled, or has some life-altering realization from it? In fact, when I bring up sola scriptura, it's actually to show the faults in IHOP-KC's thinking. The section where I quote sola scriptura in full:

Sadly, that such a mindset is coming from IHOP-KC does not surprise me. When speaking to members in the past, and attempting to show the errors of Mike Bickle's teachings, the most common response I get is, "I feel personally fulfilled, that's how I know it's right." When you listen to the testimonies of those who have joined IHOP-KC, one common theme is that they were personally moved by what was going on, and that was why they joined. This is simply the logical conclusion of the Charismatic doctrine of solus adfectus, or "emotions alone," over and against sola scriptura. If someone is moved to tears, and it involves God, then it doesn't matter what else we know about it - it has to be real. When we adopt such a mindset, we shouldn't be shocked if unbiblical portrayals of God seem alright to us, based mostly on the notion that someone is emotionally "healed" by it.

Mr. De Leon, thank you for your post;

I would advise that you look at my other posts on IHOP-KC, which examines their doctrines and teachings. What has been found, over and over again, is that Mike Bickle and his peers continually twist and mishandle scripture to get it to say what they want. They continue to read an end times movement into passages where no such movement exists.

Given all this, I cannot truly believe, after being a good Berean, that IHOP-KC is led by the Holy Spirit.

What?

Mel, thank you for your post.

Where are you getting that Eve didn't have another child for 130 years? I think you're being confused by Genesis 5:3, where it says Adam was 130-years old when Seth was born. This doesn't tell us how old Adam was when he and Eve had Cain and Abel.

As for the two stories of creation, one is a summarized version, while the other is a specific account of what happened that day.

Jeff, thanks for your post;

I sort of "discovered" I was a Calvinist myself, long ago. I was coming out of Eastern Orthodoxy and just repeating what scripture said, and kept getting told, by EO and non-EO alike, "You're sounding really Reformed." I had to come to the realization Reformed theology is in scripture, whether I like it or not, ha. For me that's the bigger issue; we can argue all day about how "big" or "small" we make God, but if scripture teaches how God is and what He does with His plan of salvation, who are we to argue with it?

And yeah, some people try to put too much stock in Calvinism with the person of John Calvin himself. I'm not going to dis Calvin at all (the man could theologize me under the table), but he didn't invent the doctrine, and he certainly wasn't the "pope" of it by any means. Calvinism is just a historical name for the doctrine, just as "Nestorianism" isn't necessarily tied to Nestorius himself.

As for the Arminians you're dealing with, I don't know what advice I can provide specifically as I don't know the exact nature of what you're dealing with. If they're being ungracious and cruel, I wouldn't engage with them at all, to be frank. Don't throw pearls before swine, or what is holy to the dogs. If they're showing an interest and want to have honest discussions, as Whitefield and Wesley did, then by all means talk with them. If it's getting to the point where you're facing harassment or some level of abuse, I'd confront them about it, and if they don't listen, get some friends in on it. If that doesn't work, go to your pastor again, and make it clear that you've tried all avenues of approach (eg., Matthew 18) and it's getting to the point where coming to church is no longer edifying. I'm sure a lot of other Arminians out there would agree with me that the way they're treating you is disrespectful and dishonorable to God's people.

I hope this helps. God bless.

Hello Edzel. I don't mind you copying parts, so long as you give me proper credit, of course :) What do you need to copy it for?

Mr. Norseman, thank you for your post;

Where are you getting a "spiritual tribe of Issachar"? I know you reference Rev 7:7, but that section lists many tribes, which some commentators take as being literal members of the Jewish tribes, while others consider it to be within the body of Christ, but not with any special gifts attached to them. Where are you getting that this is a "spiritual tribe" with a special gift?

Mr. Norseman;

Far as I know, your comment went through without a problem. As you can see above, it's right there. I don't know where you're getting the deletion charge.