Who are we?
We are a group of young (mostly), Evangelical (we think the term is still good to use), “apologete” (defenders & proclaimers), politically incorrect, culturally insensitive unashamed of the Gospel, and passionate followers of Jesus Christ.
What do we like to do?
We love to make an apologia for our belief.
Who’s who
SlimJim (Jim Lee) is a youth pastor in California. Currently, he is completing a second master’s degree in theology. He is a faithful servant of the church and his Saviour. Although young in age but he is already a formidable opponent to the atheists and cultists. He is a debater and a preacher. He is very active in evangelism and apologetics in the campuses of Southern California. His interests include Christian history, military history, apologetics, philosophy, politics and theology. He is a United States Marine Corps veteran.
Zephanja M. (EvangelZ) is a Christian who desires to be set apart for Christ. It is by the grace of God that he is to continue to hate what He hates and love what He loves. Christ is his magnificent obsession. He wants the Lord to be your magnificent obsession as well. Z is currently a seminary student in Southern California. He is passionate about sharing the gospel and evangelizing on university campuses. A Paul Washer and Steve Lawson enthusiast, Z is also passionate about open air preaching. In addition, “Z” also enjoy Reformed Rappers such as LeCrae and Shai Linne, and also writes and raps himself.
Andy Chu is a pastor in Los Angeles. Andy’s testimony of how he came to know the Lord is an inconceivable story of God’s saving grace. He came out of a life of extreme spiritual depravity. He was in the military, police and corporate business before entering the Kingdom work. Andy’s passion in life is to worship God through the study of His inerrant, authoritative and inspired Scripture, live a Christ-like life and to proclaim the truth. His present study interests include philosophical theology, and epistemology. Andy is very involved in evangelism and apologetics at the campuses in Southern California, and have experience in teaching apologetics and theological subject both local and overseas. He thinks that the Piper-like pastor is a rare commodity today (scholarship and holiness). A former table tennis competitor (he still has his Waldner blade with Waldner & Pronte rubber).
Thank you for linking my blog to your blog. In a few days I will link your blog to my blog.
Claude Mariottini
Interesting description of yourselves; referring to yourselves as culturally insensitive. I sometimes get concerned with those who treat culture as if it were the “anti-Christ.” Jesus did say that we should not love the things of this world. Yet, that does not mean that we eschew the stewardship of things God created because they are of this world. Culture is as much a part of God’s creation, fallen as it might be. There are things there, in the garbage dump his creation has become through sin, that still reflect the beauty of the Savior and the beauty of his creation. My experience, and please forgive my “self-righteousness,” has been that Christians who generally fall into hyper-reformed categories are less loving than they should be toward what they consider “the world.” It is important to defend and to proclaim. However, most of the time it is more powerful and effective to simply love, listen and build relationship with “the least of these.” Just a reflection…..
dumbsheep,
Thanks for your comment and observation. My original intent of the phrase “culturally insensitive” was on the proclamation of the Gospel over being concerned about how people would view us. Perhaps I would one day change it to “unashamed of the Gospel.”
btw, you mentioned hyper-reformed, would you kindly tell me who (within the last 50 years) would fall into such a category?
also, if you notice from our blog that we do not use vulgar language and we try to be as respectful as we can. Therefore, we are not culturally insensitive in regards to being respectful towards people.
I apologize if this is the wrong spot to post this, but i couldn’t find any email addresses on the site.
In the post with all the Bahnsen links, comments were recently closed. Why is this? In any case, I did ask the host of those files about copyright, and here is his reply:
“As far as I know, the audios between Bahnsen and Stein are NOT copyrighted and I definitely did NOT get them from a copyrighted source. No one has asked me to take them down either…God Bless…”
You might want to make that information available to your readers.
Richard,
the comment was open for issues relating to the debates or about the articles. Not on copyright stuff.
But, we will let you comment on it.
“Love not the world….” I John 2:15 is not a quotation from Jesus. I have, as a Calvinist preacher, always noticed that anyone who is consistently reformed is usually anathamatized as a hyper-calvinist. I don’t want to apear obtuse but what do you mean by all 8 ponts? Some include preterism, dominion theology, etc… but I’m not sure how you mean it. God bless, RLJ
On logic– inductive reasons are always false because they have more in their conclusion than they have in their premises:
All men are mortal,
Socrates was a man,
therefore Socrates had to shave every day to avoid growing a beard.
Now it may be true that Socrates faced the necessity of shaving daily to avoid facial hair accumulation BUT it does NOT follow, logically, from the premises. Silver Blaze, to state Holmes’ argument correctly and make it a valid argument would go:
Slver Blaze is EITHER at place A or place B.
Silver Blaze is not at place A
therefore
Silver Blaze must be at place B.
Just because an argument is valid does not mean what it says is necessarily true.
Mermaids can breath underwater,
Beings who breath underwater can live in the sea,
Therefore mermaids can live in the sea.
Most people don’t believe in the existence of mermaids, self included, but it is a valid argument, the conclussion follows from the premises although they are not true. When you say Neil Armstrong went to the moon, you do not say Neil Armstrong went and STAYED on either the moon or Mars. To say in a conclussion that he is not [now] on the moon is equivocating, or at the very least casting a shadow of ambiguation on the exact intended meaning of your premises. When you say he went to either the moon or Mars it can be understood to say he VISITED either the moon or Mars. I peronally feel this is the way many people would take that statement. To suddenly change horse midstream and assert he is not ON one or the other is to begin comparing apples and oranges. We are wanting to know where he WENT and NOT where he IS. I take the time to go through this point because, in my experience in apologetics, most cult members as well as atheists are extremely irrational (as you have well pointed out above.) Albert Camu, who, as an existencialist didn’t believe in right or wrong or moral absolutes, once made the statement that France’s involvement in the war of Algier was immoral. Go figure. On the blog called The Atheocracy, they often loudly deny universal morals and then turn around and say Christians are immoral for condemning homosexuality. I like to pont out that God also hates adultery and fornication as well. I am used to atheists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons using faulty logic. I don’t like to see us, as Christians, make irrational leaps of logic. Irving Copi and Patrick Hurley have both written excellent text books on logic. The short primer LOGIC by the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark and published by the Trinity Foundation is good too. RLJ
Oops! I posted this in the wrong place, it was a comment on the post What is wrong with this argument from where I went to a site called a quick introduction to logic. Sorry about any confussion. RLJ
Richard Leo Jackson,
Don’t worry about the wrong post on the wrong blog. As part of the 8-points Calvinism which is forgiveness, we forgive you =)
Btw, what I mean by 8-point is non-literal but in general to include other important areas such as special revelation, Scripture, deity of Christ, etc. In total, it is probably a few hundred-points. What was originally intended is that we do not focus only on the 5-points.
Didn’t know where else to put this.
Yall seem to know a fair amount about reason.
I have used a verse for my belief (i think there are many verses) for Perserverance of the Saints in which I think I am using good reason.
You probably have heard it.
Hebrews 3:14 “For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance film until the end.”
My reasoning: Only those who hold fast were partakers of Christ.
I think the key phrase is “have become”
Does that reasoning hold up. (I do not know what devices I am using to make the conclustion).
Is there a way to present it that would have more “strength and validity”
Any thougts would be appreciated.
TLT,
We agree with what you are trying to present, that those who are firm until the end and have become partakers of Christ will indeed be saved by peserverence.
Do you have any systematic theology book at home? Curious…
SLIMJIM said:
“Scott
You posted a link to your website three times and it didn’t even talk about Swinburne per se.
You go around spamming three times here, and come back wondering why your comment was deleted. Got to be the funniest question I heard all week.”
Scott replies:
Dear Mr. Slim Jim. I am sincerely sorry. I didn’t know that my posts were spam. But I am glad you got a hardy laugh:)
In the FIRST post I mentioned Richard Swinburne quite directly. I mentioned that Richard Swinburne is an Orthodox Christian.
This fact, that he is an Orthodox Christian (Not in the slightest or remotes sense a Calvinist), seemed quite relevant, since Richard Swinburne is Orthodox and you are a group of reformed pastors, with a web site presenting items from from a Calvinist perspective, not from an Orthodox perspective.
I listed the link to an Orthodox podcast sight, because this is relevant to Richard Swinburne and his entire ethos.
In the SECOND post, I listed the website again because I thought the second link would be more useful, than the first link I posted, to anyone who was interested in learning about the Original Church, which still exists today, that has formed the mind of Richard Swinburne.
My THIRD post, simply asked an honest question. I did I see any way to contact anyone privately (just as now). and as I didn’t know to whom I was addressing my question, I listed the link again for that persons reference, so that they might answer my question.
And it worked. You answered my question. A bit rudely I think, but I have learned to expect nothing less from my younger Calvinist friends, so no offense taken.
Any hoot. You don’t need to reply to me…you can if you want…I will be happy to follow up with you, although I would recommend doing so via private email. But that is your decision.
In closing, it appears that the earlier comments I made are now visible, but only in part. Your comment however is fully visible.
It seems only fair, to me at least, to make my comments fully visible as well and also post this reply. But that’s just my opinion.
Thanks so much Mr. Slim Jim.
In Christ,
Scott Neufeld
I find it ironic you find my comment rude, but spamming the same link all three times within a 24 hours period (even though there was nothing directly about Swinburne mentioned in the link itself that is visible) does not strike you as rude.
The only thing that was removed in your comment was the same links you kept giving.
Just so you know Scott, in order to spare the commerical spammers on wordpress from getting your email, I’ve deleted your email address above, to spare your inbox, as they have been popping in here a lot and making their presence known.
Dear Mr. SlimJim,
One quick question…
In my first post, did I mention specifically that “Richard Swinburne” was an Orthodox Christian?
In Christ,
Scott
P.S. Thank you kindly for removing my email address as to protect me from commercial spammers. I gave the email address for your use, if you desired to contact me privately.
Scott
Yes, you mentioned specifically that “Richard Swinburne” was an Orthodox Christian.
The issue is you spamming the links.
Is it so difficult to see that your trolling is unwelcomed?
I don’t see how this can further the Eastern church’s cause.
Dear Jim,
I just don’t get this “spamming” charge you keep making.
1- You will have to explain, please.
——————————————————————
The site I listed does not currently have any Richard Swinburne lectures posted, but as I have stated prior, Richard Swinburne’s Orthodoxy is quite relevant to any Richard Swinburne lecture, Bahnsen or Van Til would certainly agree.
Here is an Orthodox site that has a Richard Swinburne audio…#8
http://myocn.net/index.php/Table/CRTL-Archives/
2- For listing this site above, would you consider me a spammer?
———————————————————————
You said “Is it so difficult to see that your trolling is unwelcomed?”
Perhaps you will have to define “trolling” to me as well.
I Googled for Richard Swinburne audio. I found your site.
I downloaded one or more of the audio files listed. I listened to them.
I enjoyed them.
I am thankful that you had them listed.
I then posted a comment with a link to an Orthodox Podcast site, with speakers similar to Richard Swinburne.
I then posted a better link to other speakers similar to Richard Swinburne.
3- Is what I have described “trolling”?
In Christ,
Scott
Dear Brother Jim,
On another note away from the spamming charges etc….
You said:
“… the Eastern church’s…”
I am curious why you used the word “Eastern”?
Is there a Western Church and a Northern Church and a Southern Church?
In Christ,
Scott
Dear Scott,
I don’t have the time to pursue this trivial trail concerning your spamming.
If you think posting links to that website each time you commented on our blog in your first three comments was not an indication that you were out to spam a link, I don’t know if any further discussion about your behavior is going to be meaningful. As I said, and I will say it again, your links were not even about Swinburne.
What I meant by “Eastern” is in reference to the Orthodox tradition.
I don’t know if it would do any good for us to continue this.
Anyways, I hope you have a good day.
Dear Brother Jim,
You said:
“perhaps it was unnecessary comment.”
Well, was it or was it not an unnecessary comment?
Your apology for the comment is no apology at all if you can’t man up and say that indeed the comment was flatly wrong.
In Christ,
Scott
Dear Brother Jim,
I don’t know what to say. I have clearly and I think politely told you my precise actions, which were in no way spamming or trolling or mean spirited.
I downloaded and listened to the Swinburne files.
I have even recommended your site to others who were looking for Swinburne files.
I posted a comment that was very relevant to Richard Swinburne and his ethos.
I posted a corrected site link.
I asked a honest question when I noticed that my earlier post had been deleted and for your reference sake I included a web link.
You replied to my question by calling me a spammer and by your “best laugh all week” comment, you were basically referring to me as an idiot.
You could have just as easily responded to my question by stating something like the moderator judged that link was not relevant since it did not mention Richard Swinburne by name and thus the comment was removed.
But you didn’t. Instead using your free will you chose to call me a spammer and intone that I was an idiot.
That being said, I wish you nothing but the best.
As per your wishes I will post no further on this topic.
In Christ,
Scott
Scott
If it makes you feel better:
“The moderator judged that link was not relevant since it did not mention Richard Swinburne by name and thus the comment was removed.”
That was the essence of what I originally said: “You posted a link to your website three times and it didn’t even talk about Swinburne per se.”
You said “I asked a honest question when I noticed that my earlier post had been deleted .”
You insist your comments were deleted, but your comments were not except for the links.
I called it spam because your first two comments were in the wordpress editor’s spam box.
I apologize for saying the “funniest question” comment, perhaps it was unnecessary comment.
Hey Scott,
If I can share some honest assessment: I don’t know why you are still going with this discussion. I wonder if this is a morbid way of promoting something, by continuing this discussion concerning you putting links on our page. It just seems so characteristics of trolling.
This discussion is rather fruitless, as you can make your own blog and put all the links you like on it, which will be more edifying than the comments you have been making.
You said, “Your apology for the comment is no apology at all if you can’t man up and say that indeed the comment was flatly wrong.”
By way of observation, I don’t think an apology is only an apology if one has to say their action was “flatly” or totally wrong: One could apologize for a “grey” area situation, and take the higher ground of “why not be wronged instead?”
For the sake of making peace with you, I apologize for writing my remark that your question has “Got to be the funniest question I heard all week”.
Had I known how you were going to make this an issue, (though you said no offense was taken in your forth comment on our blog, but perhaps this discussion shows the contrary), I would have not made my statement.
Again Scott, I apologize.
You said, “Well, was it or was it not an unnecessary comment?”
My particular comment was not required (necessary) to get the point across that I was then trying to make: your spamming was not going to fly.
I didn’t think you read my comment and thought I was referring to you as an idiot. I felt bad because of how you must have felt. My comment at the time was simply an honest observation of the iorny of what appear to be a spammer asking why his comments was deleted (even though in actuality, the comment was in the spam box).
Had I known you took it that I was name calling you, which stirred you to keep on commenting, I would not have written the last part on my first comment.
Again, my comment originally was honestly pointing out the iorny that someone was spamming the same links in three comments in less than a 24 hour period, and was wondering why their comment got deleted. That was simply what the comment said.
I don’t think it necessarily implied I called you an idiot, just the same way that no one should think you imply that you are calling me a woman or unmanly when you wrote, “Your apology for the comment is no apology at all if you can’t MAN UP and say that indeed the comment was flatly wrong.” And if you were to state that comment to someone, and he thought you called them a woman or some other gender that’s not male (it just comes with our times), what can you do in response but to say sorry, that perhaps the wording “you can’t man up” was unncessary (but not necessarily evil) to get your point across?
Again as I said, I apologize.
I also apologize that your comment has to be done in public. After those three link promotion, I rather not take the risk by personal email.
To be frank, I think it’s time you move on, and call it a night.
Dear Brother Jim,
You know I used to really be into Bahnsen and Van Til. I devoured anything I could get on those two. Been a few years now though. Although I think I could probably still quote large chunks of the Bahnsen/Stein debate.
Now, I have continued this conversation because I did not spam you. You keep saying I did, but I did not.
I downloaded audio files and listened to them.
I posted 2 comments which included a harmless web link. I believe the comments and the links were relevant to Richard Swinburne.
Many hours later, a friend emailed me with a question, and I’ll be danged if Swinburne hadn’t addressed his question in one of the audios listed on your site.
So I went back to your site in order to copy the link to send to me friend. That’s when I noticed that my comments had been totally deleted. Not partially, but totally. No comments listed at all. (only later in day were my comments were partially restored…missing the links.)
I thought, hmmm that’s odd, I wonder why they deleted my comments?
So I asked. That’s it.
Now you have said…
I wonder if this is a morbid way of promoting something, by continuing this discussion concerning you putting links on our page.
To which I reply…dude please give up the accusations and name calling….you are wearing me out.
You also said…
It just seems so characteristics of trolling.
To which I reply… I don’t know what trolling is.
Now, the original web link that I listed (which I have not listed again in our discussion today) …I have nothing do with this group at all. I don’t know who they are. I know they have a ton of Orthodox speakers, and I have found their audios to be very beneficial personally.
I did hear an interview once with someone on their staff and if I remember correctly, they get something like 250,000 subscribers per month…so I don’t they need my little 3 posts on your tiny site.
You know what really gets me Jim. All day long I have told you again and again, that I did not intend any harm or foul play. I have expressed this over and over again. And yet all day long you keep saying in essence, yes you did, yes you did.
You found my comments in your spam inbox. And so forever in your mind I am a spammer?
My own testimony about the incident and my intentions etc etc etc, mean nothing?
The spam filter never lies? Then why do you check your spam inbox? Surely you must be looking for relevant messages that got flagged as spam?
You said that at least one of my posts was not flagged as spam? So maybe I am only a partial spammer? Or no that one surely slipped thru the spam filter…no I am 100% spammer.
Again I ask does my own testimony about the incident and my intentions etc etc etc, mean nothing? I have gone on and on with you all day and this means nothing to you and it only acts to well up in you fears that I have ill intent?
How often have you had a spammer or that other thing you called me…trolling…how often have you had these people converse with you all day long, pleading their innocence?
Lastly, my comment to you about “man up” was completely necessary and not evil in the slightest and right on target. You have hedged all day long. It’s a destructive habit.
Really lastly, I have enjoyed the Swinburne audios today. Thanks for posting them. Have you ever listened to them?
Swinburne’s voice is grand.
In Christ,
Scott
Scott,
Swinburne’s Coherence of Theism and Existence of God are both well done and his Faith & Reason is most welcome.
There are a lot to be said about Swinburne’s contribution to Christian philosophy however, no man is perfect, his contribution to Christian theology is detrimental especially his open view of God.
Scott,
I think you need to take a chill pill, some of your rhethorics is getting kind of strong and a little over the top.
Remember the bigger picture now, you are on someone’s else blog and you posted some unwanted, and not directly related links. The perogative is on the owners to remove whatever content they wish. Let’s not ruin a good thing with what you have heard with Dr. Swinburne, by continuing these unhealthy and unwholesome comments. I don’t want to be so frank as to be rude, but if I wanted to delete your comment, hey, it’s my perogative. Even then, your comment was never deleted, only the same link continiously promoted.
You are making this into a moral crusade, charging me of wrong doing. Sometimes its easy to get tunnel vision with self-righteousness, but remember the big picture perspective, you are on someone’s blog and you are saying all kinds of stuff about one of the blogger who just removed the links you are trying to promote. I never engaged in name calling you (and calling a spam a spam is not name calling you, it’s just calling an act for what it is, kind of like calling shooting, shooting), nor did I called you an idiot, which is indicative of more of how you felt than what I wrote. I have already apologize that my comment about your question as funny, made you felt that way, and now I do not know what else to say, nor why you continue these unedifying comment. I am wondering what more do you want? Neither did I ever say you were foul playing, nor that you were dishonest, nor was I making some grand moral accusation against you. Those were never the issue, and you accuse me of me that I have been charging this against you. I plead with you to re-read my comment again, perhaps in a more charitable light. You also assume to put words into my mouth, for instance: “You found my comments in your spam inbox. And so forever in your mind I am a spammer?” But when did I say you are forever a spammer? And is taking precaution an immoral thing Scott? When I identify your behavior as trolling, by “trolling” I do not mean I am name calling you as a short little creature! It is an internet lingo, an internet terminology of a certain behavior. I suggest you look online what that term mean, I trust you are capable in researching, since you have some great internet resources online. And when I say that, I am not saying you are an idiot, but affirming that you are competent. You also say that I have detrimental behavior! Please re-read my comments and your comments again Scott. So I implore you Scott, please stop these allegations you slander me with things that are baseless nor is it wholesome. And in my honest estimation, your whole comment does seem like a morbid fascination with controversies. Think about it: you are trying to prove you are right and that I was not justified in doing something on my own blog, and end up saying all kinds of thing about me in the end. You say you are greatful that the links were posted here but your action seem to speak otherwise.
If you charge my behavior with all these charge, what then are we to make of your behavior? Jesus taught us to judge ourselves first, and remove our own log in our eye! Have you notice who it was that have taken cheap shot against someone’s religious conviction? Do you remember your comment about calvinists? “You answered my question. A bit rudely I think, but I have learned to expect nothing less from my younger Calvinist friends, so no offense taken.” Why this comment about expecting a subset of calvinists to be rude? Those aren’t even the issues. And since when did anyone here have taken a cheap shot against the Orthodox conviction like you have done? This blog was gracious to even link to a Greek orthodox thinker! You said that my comment was rude, but “no offense taken” by you, then you proceeded in the latter part of the commenting to vent how you were offended. Obviously, you did take it offense, but why did you lie? Lying is wrong. Please be more frank in the beginning next time, these fruitless comments you produced could have been spared ahead of time, and steps toward reconciliation be progressively pursued. For someone who have the audacity to say I have to “man up” to my apology even though I apologized, I wish Scott could have “man up” to how he took offense in the beginning, as this seems to be the hurt that drives you right now.
I say all this above, not to wrestle you to cry uncle to me. Something to think about, with the larger perspective that all this began with the removal of unwanted links on someone else’s blog. Is this a battle for you to win? I think by winning, no one really wins, and it feels very immature what is going on.
Concerning the link spamming, retelling the story of how you did it gets old, nor is it a justification for spamming. Saying that the link benefited you, doesn’t show you were not spamming, since it is possible those who promote unsolicited links online can believe their links are helpful. Nor saying the link to the website is a huge website with lots of viewers now qualify it as not spamming (I’m sure some of the spammer’s site are visited more regularly than even that orthodox podcast). Nor does spamming require one to have a bad intent or that the website is “harmful”! Nor does pleading one’s innocence of promoting an unsolicited link makes the spamming no longer spamming!
I prefer that you live up to your words earlier, that your comments will end. I hope this is something you think about quietly, with no need of arguing back and forth. Show this younger calvinist the behavior of an elder wiser man.
Cheers, Scott!
I’ve started the course at bibletraining.com
Thinking about picking up Wayne Grudem’s book.
I’m glad you agree. So i guess that means you think it is good reasoning? From that verse specifically. Can it logically be argued for something else.
P: We have become partakers of Christ
H: Hold fast the beginning of our assurance until the end
If H, then P; H, therefore P:
If we hold fast the beginning of our assurance until the end, we have become partakers of Christ
We held fast the beginning of our assurance until the end
—————————————————————————-
Therefore, we have become partakers of Christ
By comparing verses that state a Christian will persevere until the end with verses that show that a person who isn’t saved will not persevere (1 John 2:19), it ought to be logically clear. However, sin impedes our ability to think rationally so we ought not to be surprised nor prideful if they reject the rational.
Jim,
Some new additions to my video series on Van Til are now online.
You can see them at either my YouTube site:
http://www.youtube.com/neoconvert
Or you can see them at the blog.
http://www.thebrothertheophilus.wordpress.com
-tbth
Thanks Theophilius,
Hoping to eventually link it one of these days
wow i was just looking for a screensaver on google in the images portion that had something with being unashamed of the gospel of Christ and you alls picture came up in your dress blues. I am about to goto Parris Island and have been in my word constantly and been seeking God for counsel on this decision and many others. its cool to see some young Marines going all out for the Lord. Thanks for encouragement. what is this website about anyways
Jonathan,
When do you depart for boot camp and what will your MOS be brother?
This website is mainly to defend the faith (apologetics) and seek to see Christians grow in deeper theology!
Awful. Typical religious junk. You do not represent god. I hate people like you.
Your hatred proves the Bible to be true.
Would you consider reviewing this new Christian book on your blog?
TITLE: Learn to Study the Bible
AUTHOR: Andy Deane
ISBN: 978-1-60791-576-8
Book Summary: Pastor Andy Deane’s new book teaches you forty different step-by-step Bible study methods to help you discover, apply and enjoy God’s Word. Each practical method has a handwritten example to demonstrate it and make it easy for you to follow the steps. Learn how to study the Bible with so much variety that you’ll never get into the rut that routine brings ever again. Learn to Study the Bible has more Bible study methods than any other book out there!
I can mail you a copy if you would like to review it.
Should I email you direct brother?
SLIMJIM,
My blog has moved and has a new address:
http://doctor.claudemariottini.com/
Please, upgrade your blogroll.
Claude Mariottini
Be careful, some hyperpreterists (see definition: http://thekingdomcome.com/glossary/term/8) have latched on to your website. Typically they will come to a site like this and act like they just want to ask a few questions and then launch into their agenda.
Whose the hyperpreterists commenting here?
??
Hello,
I was wondering if you accept guest post for your blog. If you do, I would like to submit a few. I’m a recent college graduate, with an English major, looking to build out my portfolio. I can write on a wide variety of topics and am sure you would be happy with the quality. Please email me back if you are interested. Thank you for your time.
- Kathleen Hubert
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002374243662
Live televised Debate : Has the Church replaced Israel
Place : Revelation TV London UK in front of a studio audience
Date : November 9th 2011
Time : 9 pm to 10:30 pm UK time { please adjust for local time } broadcast live via SKY TV in Europe and live streaming worldwide at this link : http://www.revelationtv.com/watch_now
Participants : Calvin L Smith & Stephen Sizer
Defending the position that the nation of Israel as it exists since 1948 still has a place in end time Biblical prophecy will be Calvin Smith principal of Kings Evangelical Divinity School
Opposing this and giving a different Biblical view on Israel and the Church will be Stephen Sizer who is vicar of Christ Church Virginia Water Surrey UK and founding member of the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism .
E mails and text comments / questions will be intermittently read out during the programme .
Note : Viewers in USA with a ROKU BOX can now watch Revelation TV and so view the debate through this medium .
Revelation TV is the most popular UK Christian television station http://www.revelationtv.com
Dr Calvin L. Smith
Dr Calvin L Smith is principal of Kings Evangelical Divinity School , editor of the evangelical review of society and politics , author of numerous books including The Jews modern Israel and the new supercessionism . He lectures in theology and hermeneutics . He is an academic researcher conference and Church speaker .
Stephen Sizer
Stephen Sizer is senior pastor of Christ Church , the community church of Virginia
Water in Surrey UK . He is a founding member of (ISCZ) Institute for the study of
Christian Zionism . He is a member of the advisory council of evangelicals for
middle east understanding . He co authored the jerusalem decleration on Christian
Zionism signed by the heads of Churches in Jerusalem . He has an extensive
international ministry teaching regularly in Churches , seminaries and universities in
the USA , Africa , Europe and the Middle East .
I liked reading your bios and what you guys are doing in and for the Kingdom of God for His Glory.
God bless you all.
Thank you brother. I’ve enjoyed your comments and insights on the comment box over at Triablogue and elsewhere. God bless!
Just wanted to let you guys know I stopped by to check out your site after SLIMJIM stumbled on my little piece of the bolgosphere. Looks like you have a couple of vets here and I think that’s great! I did my ‘tour’ of nearly 3o years in the Spec Ops community. I’m now following your site. Lots of great resources, many of which I am already familiar. Keep the faith!
Wow, you were with the Spec Ops community? Thank you for your service…
Thank you for your service Born4Battle.
Great information