Web Development, Hosting, & Website Maintenance
Buffalo, NY
Joined December 2008
- Tweets1.8K
- Following602
- Followers125
- Likes3.5K
THE PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES - A second-century book, falsely attributed to James, the brother of Jesus. The earliest written source for the belief that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after Jesus' birth. This is Roman Catholic teachings on Mary started
thescriptcenter retweeted
President Trump should send the National Guard to the Florida Panhandle.
I swear, it’s third world here right now. It has been 8 days since the Hurricane and some people still have no power and no internet.
There are food distribution sites giving out food to people whose homes have been destroyed.
It feels like the cleanup has been very slow. People are so pissed off.
I imagine Martin Luther thinking: "Once we discuss these sale of indulgences matters, I'm sure everything will get sorted"
🤖 Made with AI
Still waiting for @elonmusk to come out with his own cologne company and call it "Elon Musk - the smell of success" - you're welcome..
thescriptcenter retweeted
Nigeria: Innocent Christians flee for their lives as heavily armed Muslims conduct large scale, coordinated attacks against them in broad daylight.
This is being allowed to happen.
It must be stopped.
H/T - @masskeemz
thescriptcenter retweeted
You might also find it strange, @DineshDSouza (many will surely find it ironic here) that Martin Luther—who championed the Reformation’s key idea that salvation is received by faith alone—preached God’s unconditional election of individuals to salvation years before John Calvin was even a Protestant.
Does this mean that Luther himself attacked the Reformation? That would be strange, wouldn’t it?
And yet, on August 19, 1527, a little over a month after Calvin’s 18th birthday, during the year by which his friends were acquainting him with Luther’s teachings for the first time, Luther preached the following on 1 Peter 1:1:
“St. Peter declares that they are chosen. How? Not by themselves but according to God’s arrangement. For we shall not be able to bring ourselves to heaven or to create faith in ourselves. God will not admit all men to heaven; He will count His own very exactly. Now the human doctrine of free will and of our own powers no longer amounts to anything. Our will is unimportant; God’s will and choosing are decisive.”
— “Sermons on the First Epistle of Peter,” Luther’s Works (LW) 30:6.
Calvin (1509-1564) was a young humanities student at the University of Paris’s Collège de Montaigu when Luther (1483-1546) preached this. He wouldn’t become a Protestant for another five or six years (late 1532 or 1533).
Luther, on the other hand, was still serving as Professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg and as a preacher at the Wittenberg City Church nearly 10 years after he posted the Ninety-Five Theses, going on 7 years since his clear declaration of justification through faith alone in The Freedom of a Christian, nearly 6½ years after his stand at the Diet of Worms, and coming up to 2 years after he published The Bondage of the Will, in which he referred to,
“…that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients and partakers of his preached and offered mercy. This will is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored, as by far the most awe-inspiring secret of the Divine Majesty, reserved for himself alone and forbidden to us…”
— LW 33:139.
And, of course, The Bondage of the Will was Luther’s contribution to the Luther-Erasmus debate you said you were studying 11 days ago, and as you scored it, “Luther wins on points” (although you said you’d “rather have dinner with Erasmus”).
Your remark here is interesting since The Bondage of the Will is an extended polemic against the notion that the fallen human will can do anything good, which includes having true saving faith, apart from a sovereign act of God’s supernatural grace.
In it, Luther wrote:
“Now take the saying of Christ in John 6[:44]: ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him.’ What does this leave to free choice? For he says that everyone needs to hear and learn from the Father himself, and that all must be taught by God. He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father himself speaks, teaches, and draws inwardly. ‘No one can come,’ he says, ‘no one’; and thus that power by which a man is able to make some endeavor toward Christ, or in other words, toward the things that pertain to salvation, is asserted to be no power at all.”
— LW 33:285-286.
Thus, for Luther the only way a sinner can have true faith in Christ is if God gives it to him, and the only sinners He gives it to are those he’s chosen—the elect, or predestined.
So, is Luther “attacking” his own Reformation? Or is he perhaps just being inconsistent?
Neither, as far as he was concerned.
In fact, he believed he was being eminently consistent because he considered sinful man’s total inability to be the actual heart of the matter concerning salvation, so much so that he was grateful to Erasmus for bringing it into the spotlight by challenging it:
“Moreover, I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success.”
— LW 33:294.
Yes, the same Luther who inspired the adage, “Justification is the article by which the church stands and falls” (though that’s not an exact quote of what he said) also repeatedly declared that the sinner’s inability to believe is an even more fundamental truth:
“You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.”
— Ibid.
More people probably know that Calvin regarded man’s inability to believe as foundational than know that Luther affirmed the same view.
Fewer probably know that Calvin used the same “hinge” metaphor that Luther uses here for that inability, except to declare the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone:
“The theme of justification… is the main hinge on which religion turns…”
— John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.1, Battles translation, 1:726.
This is because Calvin wasn’t “attacking” the Reformation any more than Luther was.
He was getting right to the heart of the matter.
Justification by faith alone is vital to true religion because it establishes the means of our right standing before God in Christ.
The self-induced (and therefore totally culpable) Total Inability that results from our Total Depravity is foundational to understanding why God must give us that faith that justifies us in Christ.
It’s tragic how few long-time professing Christians today have even the slightest awareness of this.
🔗: xitter.cf/DineshDSouza/status/20…
thescriptcenter retweeted
UK: The historically Christian nation of Britain is being collapsed from within.
The invasion is organized, funded and facilitated by its own Far Left government.
In Portsmouth, invaders from non-Christian lands arrived to pre-planned tents, welcome packs, free phones, fresh clothes and luxury bus transportation to waiting accommodations.
Local British nationals, meanwhile, who rushed to the beach to protect their city were targeted by authorities.
We are witnessing the intentional demolition of a historically Christian country.
thescriptcenter retweeted
So about thirty six years ago I wrote, and published, this little piece. It is in the back of my first full length book on the doctrines of grace, which came out, as I recall, in 1990. You will note...the passage of three and a half decades has not changed the questions, and the objections. But, I will have to say, social media has made it more likely that the level of conversation today is significantly lower than it was back then.
The Sovereign Grace of God: A Biblical Study of the Doctrines of Calvinism
Appendix C
Answers to a Few Common Objections
In this appendix we will provide short, basic answers to some of the most common objections that are raised against the Reformed perspective. The listing of questions is purposefully short, as are the answers. I do not believe that these answers will convince anyone who is looking for reasons not to believe. But they will provide help for those seeking a consistent understanding of the issues.
Q. 2Peter 3:9 indicates that God does not want anyone to perish. Doesn’t this disprove the doctrine of election?
A. We must always apply sound rules of exegesis to the Scriptures. Peter accepted the Old Testament’s teaching about the nature of God. He knew Psalm 135:6 and Psalm 115:3, and the truth that whatever God pleases, He does. And, since we have already seen that repentance is the gift of God, could He not give repentance to anyone He chooses? Finally, the context of the passage must be consulted. 2 Peter is written to the elect, as 2 Peter 1:1 shows. In chapter 3, Peter is explaining the delay of the parousia, that is, the coming of Christ. He explains that Christ will indeed return, and that the delay is in order that God may gather His people. “He is patient with you,” Peter writes to God’s people, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” The “everyone” is in reference to all of God’s elect. The only reason that you are reading this book nearly 2,000 years later is because God has been patient, giving the world all this time, so that all of God’s elect could be gathered in.
Q. 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. Doesn’t this disprove the concept of election?
A. Again, the entire context of Scripture, as well as of the passage, must be considered. Aside from all the passages that clearly indicate God’s ability to save all men, and bring all men to a knowledge of the truth if He so desired, we again note the context of the passage. 1 Timothy 2:5 speaks of the mediatorship of Jesus Christ, and, as we saw in our examination of the atonement and intercession of Christ, this work is undertaken in behalf of God’s people. Therefore, the term “men” in verse 5 is limited to the elect of God. As John Owen noted in this regard,— What then, I pray? what will be concluded hence? Cannot Christ be a mediator between God and men, but he must be a mediator for all men? Are not the elect men? do not the children partake of flesh and blood? doth not his church consist of men? What reason is there to assert, out of an indefinite proposition, a universal conclusion? Because Christ was a mediator for men (which were true had he been so only for his apostles), shall we conclude therefore he was so for all men73? The same is to be said for verse 6, where the ransom sacrifice of Christ is mentioned. We have seen that this sacrifice was made in behalf of the people of God, not for each and every individual. Therefore, if verses five and six specifically mention the work of Christ in behalf of the elect, verse four does as well. This fits consistently with the entire teaching of Scripture. “All men” here is the same “all” that are given by the Father to the Son in John 6:37.
Q. Doesn’t the Bible exhort “whosoever will” to come?
A. Yes, it does. The Gospel message is addressed to all men. However, just who “wills” to come? We know that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14) and that no man seeks after God (Romans 3:11). We also know that the Lord Jesus said that no man is able to come to Him unless the Father draws him. So, outside of God’s initial move in regeneration, no man will “will” to come to Christ.
Q. If God has already chosen who will be saved, why share the gospel, since they will be saved whether we are involved in evangelism or not?
A. This is probably the most common objection that is voiced against the doctrine of election. There is a clear answer, but before getting to that, we should note that the question is not a proper one; that is, our questions should be based upon the teaching of the word of God, not what we can or cannot necessarily understand. Even if we did not have an answer to the question, would this necessarily mean that Ephesians 1:11 does not teach what it obviously teaches? We do have an answer though. First, we evangelize to glorify God. We do not go out to “save” anybody, since we are incapable of doing that in the first place. We share the gospel because by so doing, we bring glory to God. If that is all the reason we had, it would be sufficient. Yet there is more. We know that God has given us a great privilege to be used by Him in His work in this world. He has given to us a blessing to be able to share the gospel with men. God has decreed both the ends and the means. He has decreed to use men in sharing the gospel with His elect. Why has He done so? I do not know. I only know that His Word reveals that it is so. God has not seen fit to give us knowledge of who is, and who is not, His elect. Therefore, we share the gospel with all men, and trust God to honor the proclamation of His message by drawing the elect unto Himself. We can share boldly with all men, knowing that God is powerful to save, and as long as we seek to glorify Him, He will care for us and bless us with His Spirit.
Q. But doesn’t the“Calvinistic” view of God characterize man as nothing but a puppet or a robot?
A. While this is often asserted, I have found few who have thought through their question. What is really being said is that a sovereign God cannot produce living, responsible beings (like man). Unless man himself is autonomous, that is, absolutely free to determine his own destiny, then he is not free, but is simply a puppet or a robot. But why is this? Why can God not remain sovereign and create man in His image? There are many things that God is that we are not— God is eternal, we are not; God is omniscient, we are not; so, if God is sovereign, why must we be autonomous? The Bible tells us that God loves us, and has sent His Son to die in our place. We have been united with Christ, and we have a relationship with God through Him. Christ does not die for puppets. His blood was not shed for robots. Automatons do not enter into personal relationships. What we really see in this question is a common, human assertion: if God’s truth cannot be easily understood by the human mind, then it must not be true. Is it necessary that God reveal how He could create us as responsible beings and yet remain the sole sovereign of the universe?
Q. Do you expect me to believe in a God who would force people to be saved?
A. I don’t believe in such a God. Dead men have no ability to resist the sovereign grace of God, so how can the word “force” have any meaning? To “force” someone assumes that they are able to resist. God never forces anyone to do anything against their “will,” for those who are left in their sin are enslaved to evil and do not desire to follow after God. Those whom God regenerates are made new creatures by His work, and therefore desire His will, His purpose. They are no more “forced” to be saved than Lazarus was “forced” to come out of the tomb.
Q. Doesn’t Galatians 5:4; and Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that we can lose our salvation?
A. Galatians 5:4 is written to those who attempt to be justified by their works. They refuse God’s grace, God’s way of righteousness. It is because of this that they are said to be severed from Christ, and to have fallen from grace. These men were not Christians to begin with. There are a number of passages in Hebrews that provide “warnings” to the Church. In each instance, the entire Christian fellowship is addressed. The book of Hebrews is written to all who are a part of that fellowship— including non-believers, some
of whom were not completely convinced of the superiority of Christ over the old law, others who were simply hypocrites. The warnings that are provided are needed since we, as human beings, cannot see into the hearts of all men. We cannot assume, simply because someone sits in the pew next to us each Sunday, that they are of God’s elect. The minister of God’s people must exhort his people to examine their lives— knowing that some who sit before him are not actually followers of Jesus Christ. However, are we justified, in light of all the plain Scriptures affirming the security of the believer, to take warning passages to the Church and use them to deny that Christ will save His people? Are warning passages sufficient basis to assert that Christ can fail to do the will of the Father? Is this consistent biblical interpretation? I think not.
White, James R.. The Sovereign Grace of God: A Biblical Study of the Doctrines of Calvinism (pp. 184-188). Kindle Edition.
thescriptcenter retweeted
Damour massacre: 20 Jan 1976, Lebanese Civil War. PLO (Fatah, as-Sa'iqa) and leftist allies overran the Maronite Christian town after a siege, in retaliation for the Karantina massacre (18 Jan, 600-1500 killed by Christian militias).
Estimates: 150-582 deaths (mostly civilians; common figures 150-250), with executions, rapes, home destruction, cemetery desecration. Survivors (thousands) fled by sea. PLO resettled Palestinians there until 1982 Israeli invasion; original residents later returned. Fueled further war cycles, including Tel al-Zaatar.
thescriptcenter retweeted
“It is an Islamic mission and duty from Allah and Muhammad to destroy the West and eliminate Christianity completely.”
Pay close attention!
thescriptcenter retweeted
Muslims have a plan to make America a Muslim nation.
Marxists have a plan to make America a Marxist nation.
Secular Progressives have a plan to make America a Secular Progressive nation.
Christians seem to always have a plan to keep Christianity from further influencing our nation by discipling people into political apathy (“we don’t get political”) or political ambiguity (“Jesus isn’t a Republican or Democrat, neither Right nor Left” = primary application of gospel to culture)
^^^this has had very predictable results for the last few decades
thescriptcenter retweeted
There is no false dilemma at all, Jenna. I did not present a dilemma; I asked a simple question.
You wrote, "Faith originates in response to God." That places the origin of faith with man because it is man who responds. This is not what the Bible teaches.
Man cannot have faith on his own. He cannot generate faith on his own. Faith does not originate with man, it originates with God and God grants that faith to fallen man whose will is in bondage to sin.
"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" - John 6:29.
"For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but to suffer for His sake" - Phil. 1:29.
This makes it crystal clear that belief (faith) in Christ has been granted to us. It is a gift. There is no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics that can get around this text.
"And as many as had been appointed unto eternal life believed" - Acts 13:48.
Who believed? The "who" and the "why" are the same. Those who were appointed to eternal life believed, and they believed because they were appointed. God does the appointing, and so their belief originates with Him.
"To those who have received the same kind of faith as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1.
Faith is received by man, not generated by man. God grants faith. It is His gift to us.
Though not specifically about faith per se, John 6:37 states, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." Who comes to Christ? Those whom the Father gives Him.
Jesus expounds on this in John 17. "...even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life." Who receives eternal life? Those whom the Father gave to the Son.
In John 10:26, Jesus told the gathered Jews, "You do not believe because you are not of my sheep." Why did they not believe? It wasn't because they were not smart enough to figure it out. They did not believe because they were not of His sheep. Jesus continues, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."
The Jews gathered there did not believe because they were not of Christ's sheep. The Father had not given them to the Son. You see, when a person gets saved, that is not a goat turning into a sheep. Goats don't turn into sheep. Sheep don't turn into goats.
Before our conversion, we were still sheep; we were just lost sheep. But then one day, when our heads are down, grazing in the pasture of life, we hear a voice. We hear the voice of the Shepherd calling - summoning - His lost sheep to Himself.
Both faith and repentance are gifts granted to us by God. We cannot believe on our own, nor can we repent on our own. God grants these gifts to us (See also Acts 5:30-31; 11:17; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). They originate and come from Him.
thescriptcenter retweeted
Before I left Islam, I was debating a Sudanese Christian who challenged me to name one good thing about Muhammad. Just one.
I thought: easy. We Muslims practically worship Muhammad as the greatest man who ever lived.
So I tried to recall good qualities, honesty, compassion, mercy, love, anything, any single story, and I couldn’t remember one.
So I went to Google and typed: “the qualities of the Prophet.”
Islamic websites came up, and I thought, good, now I’ll have plenty of examples for this guy.
I opened them and was stunned: even the Islamic websites offered no good qualities in the sense he’d challenged me to find.
They praised his courage in spreading Islam, his fighting of Allah’s enemies, his physical strength, and his strictness.
Not one of the qualities the man had asked for.
Even the famous mercy at Mecca, sparing the people who had supposedly persecuted him, turned out to be for strategic reasons.
And when I started digging into the Quran and the sira for myself, I found that he married a child, he took Safiyya, a Jewish woman, the same day he killed her father, her brother, and her husband, trading his companion Dihya seven other captives for her, and posting a guard by the tent in case she tried to avenge them while raping her.
He had the men of the Jewish tribe beheaded, down to boys checked for pubic hair.
He raided trade caravans and took other tribes’ treasures.
He lied and broke truces he asked for.
He slept with all of his 9 wives the same night.
He killed anyone who mocked him.
He recruited raiders with the promise of other cities’ women.
And when his own fighters hesitated to touch married captives, because their husbands were alive and watching, Muhammad told them it was fine because allah said so.
Even the pagans of Arabia had higher morality than he did.
Every one of these acts was stamped with Allah’s approval.
He even married his adopted son’s wife by divine decree.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I left Islam when I met this disgusting man, a man who turned his qualities into a religion, transmitted it to every generation of Muslims since, and made himself the ceiling of their morality.
This is the man Mamdani wants you to learn from.
Mawlid al-Nabi Mubarak to Muslims in New York City and around the world.
Today, we honor the life and enduring legacy of Prophet Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him), whose teachings of compassion, generosity, justice, faith, and service have inspired communities for more than 1,400 years.
Here in New York City, his example reminds us that caring for one another, embracing our diversity, and serving our communities, makes us stronger as we work to build a better New York City for everyone.
Wishing joy, peace, and blessings upon all who celebrate.
