Γεγενναμαι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ✝️
Joined October 2023
- Tweets22K
- Following756
- Followers2.2K
- Likes31.8K
Jon Bowlin retweeted
There is not a single text in all of scripture that demonstrates man has salvific faith apart from receiving Gods Sovereign Grace.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
The Church Fathers unanimously taught that Super Mario Bros. 3 is the best video game ever.
You won't find a single quote from a Church Father explicitly saying that any video game is better than Super Mario Bros 3.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
The Christless Nationalists are proving, with their own words, just how Christ-less they truly are today.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
R.I.P. to Mr. John Anderson. To me the most underrated country singer of all time, the pride of Apopka Florida
Jon Bowlin retweeted
Calvinism is nothing more than a nickname for biblical Christianity.
Charles Spurgeon
Jon Bowlin retweeted
This is wild. When the Papists are accused of idolatry they all go up in arms. But when a cartoonist depicts God the Father holding a rosary, indicating that He is praying to Mary, they seemingly don’t care.
This is what pure blasphemy looks like.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
The first Adam said, “Don’t blame me, blame my wife.”
The second Adam said, “Don’t blame my wife, blame me.”
R.C. Sproul
Jon Bowlin retweeted
Oh goodness...MM vs. SS? What could go wrong? :-)
The sad thing is, MM really seems to believe his own PR. It is so wonderful to be Reformed at a moment like this...not the "dress like me, talk like me, sing like me" TR type Reformed...those of us who know Christ wins, we endure all things for the sake of the elect (2 Tim 2:10), He will save all those the Father has given Him, and we get to be instruments in His hands to His glory. The Spirit gives sight, opens eyes, and allows passages like 1 Cor 8:5-6 to sing in the hearts of His people, and all the blatherings of the Unitarians will never silence our praise.
Imaginative. I think Mike is borrowing an argument Dustin Smith used in his debate with James White.
There is no allusion to Psalm 110 in 1 Cor 8:6. None.
Paul does adapt the psalm later in the same letter (15:25), where the language of reigning until every enemy is under his feet is unmistakable. But 8:6 contains *none* of that vocabulary - no “right hand,” no “sit,” no “enemies,” no “footstool.” To say the “one Lord” here is “explicitly” the “Lord” of Psalm 110 is to read a text the verse never cites.
What the verse does do is rework the Shema. Compare the Greek:
Deut 6:4 LXX
κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
“the Lord our God, the Lord is one”
1 Cor 8:6
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ … καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
“one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ”
Paul takes the two titles of the Shema and splits them across two persons while keeping the monotheistic “one,” set over against the many gods and lords of the pagan world. The parallel structure is deliberate:
-εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
- καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
“From whom / for whom” / “through whom” is creation/agency language (Rom 11:36), not the enthronement scene of Psalm 110. Importing that psalm to define “Lord” here as a subordinate ruler is *not* exegesis of the verse; it is an external framework the text itself never supplies.
The irony is that any Jesus who is not equal to the Father in all things ends up being precisely what Paul is condemning. Since worship is restricted to YHWH, a Jesus who is a mere creature - no matter how exalted or deified - becomes a “god” in some sense, the very thing Paul rejects. That reading leaves Paul in double-talk and apparent contradiction.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
Imaginative. I think Mike is borrowing an argument Dustin Smith used in his debate with James White.
There is no allusion to Psalm 110 in 1 Cor 8:6. None.
Paul does adapt the psalm later in the same letter (15:25), where the language of reigning until every enemy is under his feet is unmistakable. But 8:6 contains *none* of that vocabulary - no “right hand,” no “sit,” no “enemies,” no “footstool.” To say the “one Lord” here is “explicitly” the “Lord” of Psalm 110 is to read a text the verse never cites.
What the verse does do is rework the Shema. Compare the Greek:
Deut 6:4 LXX
κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν
“the Lord our God, the Lord is one”
1 Cor 8:6
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ … καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
“one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ”
Paul takes the two titles of the Shema and splits them across two persons while keeping the monotheistic “one,” set over against the many gods and lords of the pagan world. The parallel structure is deliberate:
-εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
- καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ
“From whom / for whom” / “through whom” is creation/agency language (Rom 11:36), not the enthronement scene of Psalm 110. Importing that psalm to define “Lord” here as a subordinate ruler is *not* exegesis of the verse; it is an external framework the text itself never supplies.
The irony is that any Jesus who is not equal to the Father in all things ends up being precisely what Paul is condemning. Since worship is restricted to YHWH, a Jesus who is a mere creature - no matter how exalted or deified - becomes a “god” in some sense, the very thing Paul rejects. That reading leaves Paul in double-talk and apparent contradiction.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
Let me state this plainly. The Triune God didn’t peer down through time to see who would exercise their free will to choose to respond to and receive Jesus Christ.
God’s plan of redemption for His elect wasn’t based on an assumption of who would be saved. He elected those whom He sovereignly chose to save in eternity past for His own good pleasure—not based on human free will.
“All the elect were present in the mind of God, and the mind of the Son, and the mind of the Holy Spirit, when the plan of redemption was laid out, and all of them were in the mind of God, when the plan of redemption was executed and accomplished in history.”
- John MacArthur
Jon Bowlin retweeted
If your biggest concern after reading Aquinas is for how avid a reader a 20th Century theologian was of Aquinas's works, you're missing the point.
You should be more concerned over the false doctrines Aquinas preached which were later used in the counter-reformation.
Jon Bowlin retweeted
Hebrews 1 already identifies the Son as the eternal, divine Creator, superior to angels - the exact imprint of the Father’s nature.
Hebrews 2:17 then says this same One “had to be made like His brethren in all things” (ὤφειλεν … ὁμοιωθῆναι) - “since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same.”
If He were merely a man from the start, the language is incoherent. He would already be like them. The aorist treats full humanity as something assumed, not always possessed. Same logic as John 1:14: ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
John Owen: “There is supposed in them his pre-existence in another nature… He was before, he subsisted before, or he could not have taken on him what he had not.”
Jon Bowlin retweeted
The Jesus of the Bible is Yahweh Himself.
If you don not believe this, "you will die in your sins."
#realJesus
Jon Bowlin retweeted
I just saw this on Facebook in a ‘refutation’ of Limited Atonement: “If Limited Atonement is Biblical, then how could we tell everyone that Christ died for them?”
I have a better question: How about we present the gospel to the lost the same way it is presented throughout the New Testament?
Jon Bowlin retweeted
The only freedom that man ever has is when he becomes a slave to Jesus Christ.
R.C. Sproul
Jon Bowlin retweeted
“The only One that had to accept the atoning work of Christ was the Father. Not us.”
-@DrOakley1689
#TheologyMatters #THIA #Atonement #DearProvisionists
