Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Benny Hinn And Rod Parsley - Slain In The Spirit

To listen to this sermon, please click the blue speaker.


"To be sure, fundamentalists within our three traditions are unlikely to join us in this, for it is the way of fundamentalists to follow the path of contentious orthodoxism, as if the mercy of God in Christ automatically rests on the persons who are notionally correct and is just as automatically withheld from those who fall short of notional correctness on any point of substance. But this concept of, in effect, justification, not by works but by words -- words, that is, of notional soundness and precision -- is near to being a cultic heresy in its own right and need not detain us further, however much we may regret the fact that some in all our traditions are bogged down in it."
James I. Packer (p. 174 of Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue, edited by James S. Cutsinger, printed by InterVarsity Press, 1997)

"Hitherto, isolationism everywhere in everything has been the preferred policy of both Catholics and evangelicals, and a good deal of duplication and rivalry, fed by mutual suspicion and inflammatory talk, has resulted. ... So I ought to have anticipated that some Protestants would say bleak, skewed, fearful, and fear-driven things about this document -- for instance, that it betrays the Reformation; that it barters the gospel for a social agenda ... Why, then, should any Protestant, such as myself, want to maximize mission activity in partnership with Roman Catholics? Traditionally, Protestants and Catholics have kept their distance, treating each other as inferiors; each community has seen the other as out to deny precious elements in its own faith and practice, and so has given the other a wide berth. There are sound reasons why this historic stance should be adjusted. First: Do we recognize that good evangelical Protestants and good Roman Catholics -- good, I mean, in terms of their own church's stated ideal of spiritual life -- are Christians together? We ought to recognize this, for it is true. I am a Protestant who thanks God for the wisdom, backbone, maturity of mind and conscience, and above all, love for my Lord Jesus Christ that I often see among Catholics ... Though Protestant and Catholic church systems stand opposed, and bad -- that is, unconverted -- Catholics and Protestants are problems on both sides of the Reformation divide, good Protestants and Catholics are, and know themselves to be, united in the one body of Christ, joint-heirs not only with him but with each other. ... Such a coalition [to combat 'disintegrative theology'] already exists among evangelicals, sustained by parachurch organizations, seminaries, media, mission programs and agencies, and literature of various kinds. It would be stronger in its stand for truth if it were in closer step with the parallel Catholic coalition that has recently begun to grow. ... their domestic differences about salvation and the church should not hinder them from joint action in seeking to re-Christianize the North American milieu. ... Propagating the basic faith, then, remains the crucial task, and it is natural to think it will best be done as a combined operation. ... Billy Graham's cooperative evangelism, in which all the churches in an area, of whatever stripe, are invited to share, is well established on today's Christian scene. And so are charismatic get-togethers, some of them one-off, some of them regular, and some of them huge, where the distinction between Protestant and Catholic vanishes in a Christ-centered unity of experience. ... What brings salvation, after all, is not any theory about faith in Christ, justification, and the church, but faith itself in Christ himself. ... What is ruled out is associating salvation or spiritual health with churchly identity, as if a Roman Catholic cannot be saved without becoming a Protestant or vice versa, and on this basis putting people under pressure to change churches."

J.I. Packer's article in Christianity Today (12/12/94) entitled "Why I Signed It," an explanation of why he signed the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" document


"Irresistible grace" on the unwilling is a violation of free
choice. For God is love, and true love is persuasive but never coercive.
There can be no shotgun weddings in heaven. God is not a cosmic B.F.
Skinner who behaviorally modifies men against their will. C. S. Lewis
has two of the finest passages in print against the idea of
'irresistible force' used on unwilling believers. In Screwtape Letters
Lewis concludes that 'the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two
weapons which the very nature of God's scheme forbids Him to use.
Merely to override a human will...would be for Him useless. He cannot
ravish, He can only woo."..

(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 35)

On Page 36 of his blasphemous and heretical book - "chosen but free" Geisler uses the writings of another heretic - C.S Lewis to try and strengthn his heretical view of arminian theology.

But if God is all-loving, then how can He love only some so as to
give them and only them the desire to be saved? If He really loves all
men, then why does He not give to all men the desire to be saved? It
only follows then that, in the final analysis, the reason why some go to
hell is that God does not love them and give them the desire
to be saved...Suppose a farmer discovers tree boys drowning in his pond
where he had placed signs clearly forbidding swimming....Suppose by some
inexplicable whim he should declare: 'Even though the boys are
drowning as a consequence of their own disobedience, nonetheless, out of
the goodness of my heart I will save one of them and let the other two
drown. In such a case we would surely consider his love to be partial
and imperfect....
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 36)

"although prompted-not coerced-by grace, the act of faith is an act
of the believer, not a gift from God only to the elect."
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 59)

"There is strong evidence to show that 'foreknow' does not mean
'choose' or 'elect' in the Bible. Many verses use the same root word for
knowledge of persons where there is no personal
relationship...Furthermore, even if one could demonstrate that sometimes
'foreknowledge' means to 'forechoose' (Romans 11:2), this does not
demonstrate the extreme Calvinist's view of unconditional election. For
the question still remains as to whether God ordained an act of free
choice as a means of receiving his unconditional grace...

(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 69)

"His death on the Cross made salvation POSSIBLE for
all men but not ACTUAL--it is not actual until they receive it by
(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 80)

it is not only the elect that were ungodly and enemies of God,but
also the non-elect. Therefore, Christ must have died for the non-elect
as well as for the elect. Otherwise, He would not have died for all the

(Norman Geisler - Chosen But Free - Page 196)