Newsletters, audio, and videos
Early Church Documents
Join Us: THEOLOGY & APOLOGETIC CLASSES, taught by Dr. Edward
The Incarnation of God the
Most Misinterpreted Passages
The Divine Name King James Bible
See More Articles here
A Word on
The cross-work of Jesus Christ does not put the elect in a
potentially saved state; rather it secured salvation for the ones
that the Father gave to Christ: (John
Christ’s death also secured reconciliation for His elect
(cf. Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Col. 1:21-22; Heb. 9:12). He
voluntarily gave Himself as a ransom for His chosen, on their
behalf (cf. Mark 10:45; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Eph.
5:25-26; 1 Thess. 5.9-10; 1 Tim. 2:6): “For He has visited us and
accomplished redemption for His people” (Luke 1.68).
Note the usage of the Greek preposition
behalf of,” “instead of”) to describe the actual and literal
substitutionary death of Christ: “[the Father] delivered
[paredōken; i.e., delivered up for sacrifice] Him over
for [huper, lit., “on behalf of”] us all” (Rom. 8:32;
emphasis added); “who gave Himself for [huper] our
sins” (Gal. 1:4; emphasis added; cf. 3:13); “Christ also loved
the church and gave Himself up for [heauton paredōken
huper] her” (Eph. 5.25; emphasis added).
Further, to emphasize the nature of the
of Christ on the behalf of His elect, the preposition anti
is utilized in Mark 10:45: “For even the Son of Man did not
come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a
ransom for [lutron anti] many” and Matthew
20:28, which reads identically. After careful lexical and
linguistic study, Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace, concludes:
The Incarnation of God the Son
Scripture explicitly stresses both the necessity and
importance of the incarnation—namely, knowing and
understanding that Jesus Christ became man and thus remains the
God-man forever (cf. Acts 17:31; 1 Tim. 2:5; esp. 1 John 4:2-3).
Hence, we must always include the incarnation and deity of the Lord
Jesus Christ in our proclamation of the gospel, just as biblical
authors and the early church did—not merely on December 25th.
. . .
Name King James Bible
“new” translation is here! In light of the growing biblical
illiteracy among professing Christians, “new” biblical translations
that attempt to “dumb down” and/or smooth out so-called rough edges
to an already doctrinally suffocated church only perpetuates the
problem. Although not technically a translation, but merely a “new”
version of the KJV, which, as the publishers state, “restored the
name Jehovah 6,972 times into the text [OT & NT] of the King James
Bible.” Also, comparable to the claims of the Watchtower (JWs), the
publishers falsely and groundlessly claim, “Almost every translator
in the past 400 years has or have removed the Divine Name from
'their' Bibles.” Of course, what they mean here is that the
so-called divine name “Jehovah”
Top Misinterpreted Passages
Although there are countless
passages that can be offered, we have selected (in order of usage)
John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; Jeremiah 29:11; Matthew 18:20; 1 Peter 2:24;
Revelation 3:20; 1 Timothy 3:16; 3 John 1:2; 1 John 2:27; and 1
John 3:16 is arguably one of the most frequently quoted passages in
the Bible, it is one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted
passages. Basically, the problem is two-fold.
1) Coming to the text
with the presupposition of
universal atonement (i.e., Jesus’ atoning cross work was for
every single person, but for
in particular). Hence, many “traditionally” quote the KJV
mistranslation of the Greek adjective
pas (which the KJV renders
2), along with
pas, a universal meaning
is also imposed on kosmos
(“world”). . . .
(“world”)—every single person?
Due to the presupposition of autosoterism (self-salvation), chiefly
promoted by the Arminians, kosmos is assumed here to mean
every single person, thus embracing the “traditional” (not
exegetical) view of a universal atonement. . . .
(lit., “believing”). The verb here is a present active
participle—denoting a present ongoing action—“believing”. . . .
Grammatically, the adjective pas (“all/every”) modifies the phrase
ho pisteuōn (“the one
all the ones believing. As noted, both vv. 15 and 16 contain the
same participle phrase: pas ho pisteuōn (“every
. . .
Revised, Updated, and Expanded:
Look at Oneness Theology:
In the Light of Biblical
Dr. Edward L. Dalcour (2016) --
"Oneness theology is nothing more than the crass
unitarianism of that of Judaism and Islam"
As with the previous editions, the 4th edition of A
Definitive Look at Oneness Theology
contrasts Oneness theology and its claims with biblical
theology. The 4th edition contains
additional material both textually and historically as well
as expanded commentary on particular passages--
Oneness Pentecostals and other Oneness (i.e., “Jesus Only”) groups
make up one of the largest and fastest growing anti-Trinitarian
"professing" Christian constructs world-wide--and yet, they are one
of least written about and evangelized non-Christian cults.
Look at Oneness Beliefs
Short Comparison Tract: Trinitarianism or Oneness-unitarianism:
It Does Matter
Oneness pastor T. D.
Jakes Changes his Doctrinal Statement
Oneness advocate and popular
TV evangelist T. D. Jakes (of
the Potter's House church in Dallas, TX)
has changed (reworded) his doctrinal statement regarding God.
"Regarding the Son": The Father's
Affirmation of the Son's Deity
Aside from the confirmation of the OT prophets, NT
apostles, Christ Himself, God the Father affirmed His Son’s
ontological status as God by 1) making open declarations as
to Jesus’ Sonship, 2) commanding all of the angels in heaven
to worship the Son, and 3) directly addressing the Son as
“the God” whose throne is eternal and as the Yahweh of
Psalm 102:25-27, the unchangeable Creator. This is
devastating to Oneness advocates who see the “Son” as
representing merely the humanity (non-divinity) of Jesus
and, of course, most challenging for Muslims and JWs who
likewise deny the deity of the person of the Son --
Short Comparison Tract:
Trinitarianism or Oneness-unitarianism---It Does Matter
We pray that God saves the Oneness
believer who reads this tract and safely deliver him or her from the darkness of
Oneness doctrine and cause him or her to see and embrace the truth of the true
Jesus Christ of biblical revelation--Amen
KJV Onlyism and the Deity of Christ:
Textual & Translational Deficiencies
Opened page of the KJV 1611 (which contains the Roman Catholic
Especially on the deity of Jesus Christ, the KJV is simply less
accurate in its representation of the original writings of
Scripture than that of modern translations However,
KJV does communicate essential Christian doctrine, and thus, the
gospel of Jesus Christ, as with all other “recognized” biblical
Unfortunately, KJV Only advocates are blind-sided by
intoxicating and inflexible anti-intellectual arguments derived
from unchecked traditions, which result in high emotion and low
facts. In many cases,
KJV Onlyism obstructs a proper and simple evangelistic
presentation—redefining evangelism as the “good news” of 1611
KJV translators! Thus, it is
quite challenging to have any meaningful dialogue with KJV Only
advocates. . . .
Test of Christian Orthodoxy: The Perpetual Incarnation of God the
Our celebration of Christmas is a celebration of the incarnation
of the Lord Jesus.
Jesus Christ, God the Son, became flesh in order to live the
perfect life and die on the cross fulfilling the requirements of
God’s perfect law and justice—on our behalf: “For our sake He
made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might
become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Gal.
3:13). The incarnation of the Lord Jesus is the necessary
and only means of propitiation (atoning sacrifice).-
THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
Having a set or firm foundation as to one’s
Christian faith is simply having a solid biblical understanding
of the essentials of Christian doctrine especially pertaining to
the gospel. Without a set-foundation, biblical error is
too many Christians although having a significant (yet cursory)
knowledge of Christ and the gospel, they either preach, embrace,
and/or hold to a wide range of erroneous and distorted doctrines
. . . Read More
A Brief Commentary of John
. . . Especially in verses 17-24, Jesus makes striking and
undeniable claims of His deity, that is, His equality with God
the Father. They also supply an unambiguous proof that Jesus’
unique claim of being the Son of God was an
undistinguishable claim of being God the Son—namely, God
Himself (cf. John 1:18).
“My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”
Here Jesus responds to the charges brought against Him. . . .
"Jesus said to them, “I
am the bread of life; he who comes [Gk. "coming"] to Me will not
hunger, and he who believes [Gk. "believing"] in Me will
never thirst (John 6:35).
The Christian life is one of Present Active Participles (i.e.,
"ing" verbs): believing, seeking, coming, hearing, praying to
and worshiping Christ, etc., and defending and affirming the
gospel of the Son.
If professing Christians would credential their pastor, favorite
preacher, and/or anyone else who they are doctrinally following
with the same scrutiny and research of qualification as they
would their child’s doctor or own physician, there would be less
theological error, nonsense, and biblical ignorance in the
The Preincarnate Christ
as the “Angel of the LORD” (YHWH)
While all unitarian groups (esp. Muslims, JWs, and Oneness
oppose any implication of the deity and thus preexistence of the
Son, Jesus Christ, the biblical evidence points to the
preincarnate Christ as the identity of the angel of the Lord.
For example, Genesis 19:24 reads:
The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. Then
[YHWH] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire
from the LORD
[YHWH] out of heaven (emphasis added).
This point here cannot be
missed. YHWH did something (rained brimstone and fire) from
another YHWH in heaven! This can only be consistent with
biblical monotheism in the context of Trinitarianism. . . .
of the Lord, as He claimed, was the “the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”—YHWH,
yet a distinct person from another YHWH (cf. Gen.
19:24; Zech. 1:12). In the highest probability, the identity
of the angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Christ, God the
YHWH Himself, second person of the Holy Trinity. .
. . -Read
The Error of
Oneness Theology &
Isaiah 9:6--"Everlasting Father"
a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the
government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be
called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince
of Peace. Because of the phrase Eternal Father”
Oneness advocates argue that the passage is teaching that the
prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ, is the Eternal Father. Aside
from the fact, that nowhere in the NT is Jesus ever called
“Father,” there are several flaws in this kind of modalistic
1. Oneness teachers commit the fallacy of equivocation by
asserting that the term “father” has only one meaning. The term
father (ab) has various meanings in the OT,
depending on the context.
2. When the term father is applied to God (or YHWH) in
the OT (only nine times), it denotes His parental character to
His children, namely, Israel (e.g., Isa. 63:16) Primarily
though, the usage of father denoted God as Creator. As a matter
of fact, the term “father” is not even a standard recurring
title for God in the OT; it is used only nine times. . . .
for Trinitarian Studies and Apologetics (Vol. 1)
Order the Journal here
The Journal for Trinitarian
Studies and Apologetics
is a theological journal with a focus on the Triune God. For the
academic and layperson. The contributing authors of this edition
Robert M. Bowman Jr.
Triadic New Testament Passages and the Doctrine of the
Hiram R. Diaz III
The Two Natures of Christ in Genesis 3
Chap. 3 Mike Felker
Preexistence in Mark: A Cumulative Defense
Edward L. Dalcour
Jesus’ Claims to be God: Answering the Objections
Scotty G. Neasbitt
God the Son in Select Theophanies of the Old Testament
Michael R. Burgos Jr.
Anthropological Monism and its Incompatibility with Biblical
"Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor homosexuals. . . . will inherit the kingdom
of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NASB)
A Doctrine of Tolerance
The two key Greek terms (both in the plural) in these passages
(1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10) are MALAKOS translated as
“homosexual” or “effeminate” and ARSENOKOITĒS also translated as
“homosexual” or more literally, “sodomite” (NKJV) or “men who
have sex with men” (NIV). To circumvent the obvious meaning in
these passages, liberals and pro-homosexual “professing”
Christians make eisegetical leaps arguing that these terms are
narrowly referring to “promiscuous” homosexuality, pederasty,
prostitution, etc., and not a monogamous loving relationship
between two of the same sex. . . . --Read More
The glory of God the Son in Hebrews 1:3
And He [the Son] is the radiance of His glory and the
exact representation of His nature " (NASB)
The prologue of Hebrews is one of the most Christologically
significant prologues in the NT.
Only within the context of Trinitarianism
can the Son be justly worshiped (1:6) and be identified and directly addressed as
both “the God” (1:8) and the “Lord,”
that is, the YHWH of Psalm 102, the immutable Creator
(1:10-12), by God the Father.--Read
Quick View: "Another Jesus"
The Jesus of
Muslims are taught that Jesus was true prophet of Allah,
sinless, virgin born, preformed miracles, etc. they reject that
He was eternal God in the flesh, crucified, and resurrected from
the dead. We know by now that the
rejection of the deity
of the Son, Jesus Christ, (and the Trinity) is common to all
non-Christian cults and false religions.
As with Jehovah’s
Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals, Muslims embrace a fixed
unitarian/unipersonal assumption, that is, they believe God to
be one sole Person. As they argue, Jesus cannot be another
God besides the one true God, “Allah.” However, biblical
monotheism (one God) is not equated to unipersonalism.
The Trinity states that there is one true God (one Being)
revealed in three Persons (not three Gods)—the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.
of Romanism is an impotent Savior whose atoning cross-work was
anything but sufficient. Rome teaches that the work of Christ
merely made a “way” for man to justify himself by adding his
“required” meritorious creaturely works (such as baptism,
charity, religious devotion to Mary and Rome, faith, etc.) to
the work of Christ. Rome has man assisting Christ in
salvation—hence denying that Christ alone saves. Refuting
this false notion, Paul points out clearly that it is “by His
doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us
wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification,
and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). Therefore, a Christ who did
not become our righteousness, as Rome teaches, is not the Christ
that Paul preached. It is
God alone that saves
(cf. John 1:13; 6:37-40; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 2:8-10;
2 Thess 2:13)—God does not need our help.
(“Jesus Only” churches):
of “Oneness” theology (historically, Modalism) is both
the Father and Son (and Holy Spirit). Oneness advocates claim
that Jesus has two natures, divine as the
Father/Holy Spirit and human as the “non-divine,”
“non-eternal” Son. Thus, the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy
Spirit” are not three Persons, but rather the three roles or
modes that Jesus manifested. Since Oneness theology maintains
that only Jesus as the Father is God (as “Son”
only represents the non-divine human nature of Jesus), it denies
the Trinity and deity and pre-existence of the Son. Hence, God
is defined from a unitarian perspective: only the Father is
God (i.e., Jesus’ divine nature). Clearly, Oneness theology
is heterodox embracing a false non-divine Son different
from that of the biblical revelation of the divine Son: “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father”
2:23). Oneness doctrine indeed denies the biblical revelation of
both the Father and the Son.--
of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, near identical to what Arius taught,
is “a god” (John 1:1; NWT), but not God almighty. They teach
that Jesus was Michael, the created, archangel
being the “firstborn” of Jehovah’s works. They even use some of
the same passages as did Arius to prove their position (e.g.,
Prov. 8:22; Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14) in the same erroneous way.
Again, it is because of their prior theological commitment of
unitarianism (God as one Person) that they deny that Jesus
Christ is fully God.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):
Jesus was one of many other Gods, thus being one of the
Gods of a tritheistic (i.e., three Gods) Godhead for this
world, As Founder Joseph Smith declared:
I will preach on the plurality of Gods
. . . I have always and in all congregations when I have
preached on the . . . subject of Deity, it has been
the plurality of Gods. . . . God the Father, and
that the Holy Ghost . . . these three constitute three
distinct personages and three Gods (Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370; emphasis added).
denies the concept of an eternal God, rather
[God] was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father
of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself
did. . . . and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves .
. . the same as all Gods have done before you (ibid., 345-47).
LDS theology, neither Jesus nor the Father are eternal
God—rather, they both had to become God by
obedience to their God. Also, the LDS Jesus was married to Mary
and Martha (cf. Journal of Discourses, 2:82; 4:259).
Further, the LDS teach that Jesus was “begotten” by means of
sexual relations between God the Father and the Virgin Mary.Brigham
The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of
our children; it was the result of natural action . . . was
begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.
. . . (Journal
8:115; emphasis added).
LDS Apostle and scholar Bruce R. McConkie tells us:
Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same
way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.
. . . as the literal Son . . . he was born in the same
personal, real, and literal sense that any
mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing
figurative about his paternity (Mormon
Doctrine, 546-47, 742; emphasis added) --Read
the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity:
We believe that the
Scriptures teach clearly that there is one true and living God
eternally existing in three distinct Persons—the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
the three Persons are coequal, coeternal, and coexistent sharing
the nature or essence of the one true God. Being distinct in
Person, but by virtue of their distinguishing offices, function
together in harmony in the works of creation, providence, and
redemption (Jer. 10:10-11; Gen. 1:1; Matt. 28:19; John 1:1-3;
Rom. 1:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 4:5-6; Col. 1:15-20; Titus
3:5-7; Jude 1:20-12; Rev. 5:13-14) ---Read
The Trinity in the
Recorded live at ABN in Detroit MI,
Sam Shamoun, Edward Dalcour, and
Recently, a doctrinal lightning bolt has struck the Southern
Baptist Convention. It centers on the open declaration of some
Arminian SBC members affirming their doctrinal position and thus
openly denying the doctrinal position of the Calvinistic members
of the SBC. . . .
The “Rock” of Matthew 16:18
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not
This passage is the so-called hallmark proof-text that Rome uses
to teach that Peter was the “rock” (and thus, the first
“Pope”) upon which Christ built His church. This
notion also spawned other false Catholic doctrines such as the
“infallibility” of the Pope when speaking, ex cathedra—“from
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely
necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be
subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope
Boniface VIII, papal bull,
A.D. 1302; emphasis added).
However, as with any text of Scripture. . .
Mormon Faith Confusion & Tolerance
The current 12 LDS Apostles
Romney became the a presidential candidate, the hot media topic
these days centers on his Mormon religion, formally called,
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Unfortunately, many Christians are unfamiliar with the fundamental
differences between the LDS doctrine and historic biblical
Christianity. However, when Christian leaders and pastors do not
understand even the central differences and thus declare the Mormon
faith as a truly “Christian” faith, there is no excuse. This kind of
irresponsible thinking and lack of discernment removes the
evangelical necessity to the Mormon people. . .
Muslim Challenge: “Where did Jesus say, “I am God worship Me?”
Jesus never literally stated, "I am God,"
claims to deity were much stronger and clearer than if He had
said, “I am God.” In fact, some
of Jesus' claims to deity
were only used of YHWH alone. The specific claims of Jesus to be equal
with God were not used by nor were they applied to humans or angels,
as with the term “God” --Read more
THEOLOGY & APOLOGETIC CLASSES
Come join us. We hold
free on-going theological and apologetic classes
held in Tarzana, CA conducted by Dr. Edward
EVERY TUESDAY NIGHT @ 7:40 PM
Call us at 818-377-5272 or email
for directions and/or questions.
BEING READY TO MAKE A DEFENSE
In the first century
the axiom of the church was: "Contend for the
Faith" (Jude 3), but
regrettably that has changed. Through the Apostle
Peter, God commands all Christians to
always be ready to provide a defense (apologia)
and reason (logos) for their faith (cf. 1 Pet.
3:15; Titus 1:9, 13). If Christians do not speak out
against false teachings that confuse as well as deny
definitive Christian theology, thus deny Christ, the
false teachings will be construed as truth. Christian
should be able to reasonably and biblically communicate
essential Christian doctrines such as the
doctrine of the
Deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God and
Rise of False Teachings within the Church
The five sola's
Solo Christo, Sola Fide,
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”) opposes Rome’s view that
justification comes by the grace of God and the meritorious
works of man, which includes water-baptism (which Rome calls
“the laver of regeneration”), performing the sacraments, good
works, and esp. acknowledging all Marian doctrines, which
includes religious worship to Mary.
(“Christ alone”) opposes Rome’s view that the sole work of
Christ is not sufficient. For Rome teaches that one must
merit his or her justification in addition to the work
of Christ. Further, doctrines
such as Purgatory deny that Christ totally and perfectly
propitiated (appeased) the Father (viz. His sacrifice averted
God’s wrath *literally* taking away sin). However, that
salvation is through Christ alone does not mean that the Father
and the Holy Spirit did not participate in the salvation of the
believer. For salvation from start to finish rests on the work
of the triune God: God the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner
(cf. Titus 3:5) after which the *gift* of faith is granted by
God and then exercised by the sinner as a result of being
regenerated (cf. John 1:12-13; Phil. 1:29) after which the
Father justifies the sinner (cf. Rom. 8:33) and, through that
faith alone, imputing to him or her the righteousness of His
Son (cf. Rom. 4:4-8). Christ alone simply means that the
sole work and righteousness of Jesus Christ passive
(allowing Himself to be crucified) and active (His
perfect obedience to the Father) is the very ground of
salvation. Thus, salvation is through His righteousness alone.
(“faith alone”) opposes Rome’s view of faith + works. The
Council or Trent (1546-63) states categorically:
If any one
saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such
wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in
order to the obtaining [of] the grace of Justification, and that
it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed
by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema (Canon
sharp biblical contrast, the very ground of justification
is the work of Christ (as seen above) while faith being the
very instrument that God uses to justify the sinner. As
mentioned, faith is never said to be the cause or ground of
justification (lest it would be a “work”), but rather the sole
instrument (cf. Rom. 5:1; see chap. 1, note 11).
(“Scripture alone”) opposes Rome’s view, which asserts that both
Scripture and tradition (viz. oral traditions not contained in
Scripture) are equally the word of God: “Both Scripture and
Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence” (Catechism of the Church, para.
82). “Tradition” as defined by Rome is basically the writings of
the early church Fathers. Even though there existed thousands of
traditions many upon which were in disagreement among church
Fathers (such as the Matt. 16:18 interpretation), Catholics must
believe without question (fides implicita) how
Rome defines tradition.
(“to the glory of God alone”) is in light of all the sola’s.
Hence, it is by God’s grace alone (not man’s
participation) that He saves sinners. We cannot merit any aspect
of saving grace (otherwise it would not be grace). By God’s
grace alone He us grants saving faith (the alone instrument) in
which He instrumentally uses to impute (not infuse or
impart) us with the very righteousness of Christ. Thus, it is
Christ’s perfect cross-work alone upon which a sinner is
justified and the alone instrument being faith. The
sole grace of the Triune God infallibly accomplishes
salvation from start to finish—therefore, it is the glory of God
alone, soli Deo gloria.
the sola Scriptura was another very important concept:
toto Scriptura (all of Scripture). The
Reformers, like many of the early church Fathers, followed the
apostolic teaching that clearly emphasized: Scripture alone
and all of f Scripture should be taught and valued as the Word
of God. In his farewell letter to the elders at Ephesus,
Paul declares to them: “Therefore,
to you this
that I am
of the blood
I did not
to you the whole
of God (Acts 20:26-27; Paul may be
alluding to Ezek. 33:6).
Paul understood the severity of preaching only “parts” of God’s
Word or “toning down” what God has said, as many do today. God
takes a dim view at pastors and teachers who preach an edited
version of the Gospel; dodging judgment and apologetic
passages in the Bible—toto Scriptura, that is, all of
Scripture must be proclaimed.
The atoning cross-work of God the Son
was not a vague non-specific universal work for which no one is
actually (but only potentially) atoned, but rather it was a *definite
atonement and according His
and pleasure of His own will (cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11).
Therefore, having been
justified by faith,
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Department of Christian Defense
E & J WebSite