Archive for the ‘Religious Pluralism’ category

Are All Religions Equally Right? Tim Keller Answers

March 12, 2011

Recently, Tim Keller spoke at The Veritas Forum at UC Berkeley and addressed the question of Christianity and other religions.  Check out this short video where he answers whether all religions are equally right.

J.D. Greear on 20/20 Collegiate Conference

February 6, 2010

Greear is preaching from Acts 4 on the significance of Jesus being the only way to heaven.  There are six cultural assumptions on why this belief is so controversial to most Americans.

1.  Our culture believes that claiming there is only one way to God is archaic.

Christianity was born into a world where saying He was the only way was every bit as politically incorrect, if not more so, than it is today.

2.  Claiming that there is one way to God is arrogant.

Peter’s attitude in verse 20: “we can’t help but speak what we have seen or heard.”  It is not arrogance but believing that Jesus is who He said He is.


“O god of our many understandings . . .”

January 19, 2009

Below is the invocation of the openly gay Episcopalian bishop, Gene Robinson, who addresses his prayer to the “god of our many understandings.”  Here is religious pluralism attempting to address a god who is not self-defined, but defined by ourselves–the ultimate reversal of making god into our image and addressing him to do what we find best.  Perhaps it would be more intellectually honest to pray to ourselves, since we are doing the creating here.

Notice that, in the four minute prayer, nothing is said of the nature of this god, and nothing is asked in reference of him doing what only a god could do.  The prayer is fundamentally ethical, not theological. It reflects not a desire to know the one true God and conform our lives to His will, but a prayer for God to understand us and conform his will to our ways. The requests for deliverance is not against sin, Satan, and self but rather social evils.  While it may be true that billions exist with less than a dollar a day, every human exists without forgiveness of sin apart from the person and work of Jesus Christ.  But that’s not the point. Mr. Robinson is “horrified” by the Christian prayers of the past and seeks to buck the trend by advocating “religious tolerance” for everyone who has a god of their own understanding.  Having said that, anyone who prays to a God who has defined Himself, who is eternally self-existent, eternal, and self-sufficient, well, that will not be tolerated.  Your prayers should be renounced and your God must not be addressed.  We don’t need to know and understand the God who has spoken and whose words shape reality; we need to self-actualize and shape our own realities with greater moral fortitude and faith in the supposed inherent goodness of man.  We are all victims, and so is the god of our many understandings.

In any case, here is the prayer, and here is the wake up call for all of us who call upon the Lord, maker of heaven and earth whose name is Jesus and whose glory He will not give to another.

“Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

– The Apostle Paul

HT :: CTLiveBlog

Papers and Projects

September 16, 2007

Things are really starting to pile up this semester in school.  Attempting to finish strong, I am taking five classes this semester which also includes four papers.  As you can expect, blog frequency will likely taper of a little, although I do plan on sharing some of my research and everyday thoughts.  Right now, I am averaging 12-15 posts a week, which will decrease to around 7-10 posts a week.  Blue Collar Theology, book previews, and the other staple posts such as quick hits and potw, should remain consistent.

I thought I share some of the papers and projects I am working on, given that I will be posting excerpts and aspects of my research.  Here are my four papers:


1.  Church Planting Case Study – This is a paper dedicated to my research and analysis of a recent church plant.  Because I have not received confirmation from the church which I will be studying, I will not comment further. (Intro to Church Planting)

2.  Edwards v. Finney on Revival – This is a thesis-driven paper where I will argue that both Edwards means and ends of revival are true to the nature of God and salvation and biblically faithful.  As you might expect, this is a somewhat polemical paper.  In addition to their understanding of revival, I hope to examine in particular detail how each counsel sinners and follow-up on new converts.  (Intro to Church History II)

3. Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Night Visions – Some of you might recall that I taught through some of Zechariah 1-8 earlier this past summer.  It was a really enjoyable study, and I am hoping to build on that by writing an exegetical paper focusing on a redemptive/historical framework and hermeneutical horizons of these eight visions which carry several biblical themes.  (Biblical Hermeneutics)

4. The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Unevangelized –  This will by far be the paper I devote most of my attention to this semester (see projects for reason why).  This is a position paper where I will be examining Clark Pinnock’s pneumatological inclusivism (Arminian/Open Theist), Terrance Tiessen’s accessibilism (Calvinist), and Amos Yong’s pneumatological theology of religion (Pentecostal/Charismatic).  I will offer my critiques of each position and present the exclusivist/particularist case for the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation.  Issues involved include are Trinitarian (especially economic/immanent Trinity, filioque, perichoresis, and Spirit-Anointed Christology [kenosis]), soteriological (covenant, atonement, revelation, regeneration, grace, and calling), interreligious (cosmic spirit, imago dei, universal presence/salvation, church/kingdom identity, and missio dei), and biblical (theological method, Spirit in OT/NT, continuity/discontinuity, and already/not yet).  Obviously, I will not be able to cover these issues in a short position paper, which leads me to my projects. (Systematic Theology III)


1. Systematic Analysis of Inclusivism – During the course of my time at seminary, I have been researching the issues which I believe are “first-order” or greatest threats to orthodoxy and/or the gospel.  This has lead me to take up the issues of pluralism, universalism, and inclusivism.  I have written several papers on inclusivism, focusing on revelation, saving faith, theological method, and now Holy Spirit.  My goal is to write a paper on every major area of systematic theology (e.g. theology proper, revelation, saalvation, eschatology, et al) on inclusivism and compile them into a book-length project.  This project is rather long-term, but I believe the time and work invested is certainly warranted.  I hope to have it completed in 2-3 years.

2. The Forgotten Henry – I already gave you the heads up on this project, so I will not say much here.  I am really looking forward to tackling this study in the next 1-2 years as I have already completed 75% of the research, bibliography, and organized an outline of the project.

3. 2008 Band of Bloggers – Some of you may remember that I organized a fellowship called “Band of Bloggers” in 2006 which was in conjunction with the first Together for the Gospel conference.  This is the first time I have publicly mentioned next year’s fellowship.  I and a small team of others have been planning for about six weeks and are really excited about it.  Last time I had only three weeks to put it together, so it is nice having eight months instead!  Stay tuned for more info on this project.

4. Miscellaneous (Smaller Projects) – Some other projects I am working on is posting my other drafts on “Dortian Calvinism” in response to Dr. James Leo Garrett’s articles in The Alabama Baptist.  I have a total of 12 in the series.  Another project is a study of the various church planting models (Acts 29, Sovereign Grace, NAMB, etc.) and developing a church planting strategy.  Lastly, I am hoping to juxtapose and examine the latest statements/confessions focused on the gospel, viz. The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration (1999), Together for the Gospel Statement (2006), and the Gospel Coalition Confession (2007).

Any of these particularly interest you?  Discuss on the blog?

What Would Jesus Say . . .

August 15, 2007

Over the course of this summer, various speakers at Southern Gables Church addressed the question, “What Would Jesus Say?” I haven’t listened to all the audio yet, but I thought it would be profitable to make these MP3’s more accessible to you. Perhaps you might want to add them to your iTunes library.

What Would Jesus Say to an Addict/Alcoholic? by Jerry Nelson

What Would Jesus Say to a Woman Having an Abortion? by Ed Manring

What Would Jesus Say to a Muslim? by Keith Swartkey

What Would Jesus Say to a Mormon? by Craig Blomberg

What Would Jesus Say to a Hedonist? by Craig Blomberg

What Would Jesus Say to a Relativist? by Douglas Groothuis

What Would Jesus Say to a New Ager? by Douglas Groothuis

Grieving, Comforting, Believing as Christians

April 17, 2007

As I write this, I am watching the convocation ceremony at Virginia Tech where everyone is saying the Lord’s Prayer, having followed an instrumental playing of “Amazing Grace.”  Having listened to this prayer being prayed by everyone in attendance (who apparently have memorized it) along with a moving and solemn rendition of “Amazing Grace,” one might think that the ceremony commemorating the lives of those lost yesterday was distinctively Christian.  However, while I was praying and grieving, I began thinking about what I was watching.  You see, just before this was a series of speakers from various religious backgrounds.  First was President Bush speaking on behalf of the United States of America, who was followed by a Muslim cleric, a Buddhist leader, and a Catholic priest.  Each appealed to the sources of authority–the Muslim to the Koran, the Buddhist to the Dali Lama, the Catholic priest to the Bible. 

The picture that was painted was that “Amazing Grace” was a fitting conclusion to all these speeches, that the Lord’s Prayer was the culmination of the expressed concerns and thoughts.  It is as though each religion doesn’t have anything distinctively different to offer than the other, that those grieving during this time can find as much hope from transcendental meditation as reading the Bible as clinging to the words of the Koran.  Yet behind each of these religions lies a worldview–a worldview that stands with deep and essential truth claims in contrast and contradiction to that of Christianity.  These worldviews, here presented as congruent and analogous to one another, present very different ways of understanding life and death, sin and evil, God and man. 

As a Christian with a biblically informed worldview, how then, do you help those who grieve in times like this?  What comfort can you provide that is any different than any other religion or those who have no religion at all?  Is there any real difference to believing as a Christian in moments of pain and grief, or should we conclude that indeed “Amazing Grace” is a consummate expression of all religions? 

Let me know what you think.  As I think about the nature of such evil and sorrow, with so many questions with so few answers, we must be able to think, grieve, comfort, hope, love, and believe that in a way that is distinctively Christian. 

What About Other Religions?

January 16, 2007

Edit: I have provided my thoughts below. 

That was one of the questions on the front page of Just Stop and Think.  I came across this while researching all the responses to the 15-minute video and gospel presentation of Francis Chan (no, I will not be responding to that; I think the discussion has exhausted itself).

Regarding the question, “Why Christianity? What About Other World Religions?” here is the answer provided:

In all major religions, the followers strive to rid themselves of sin through various practices. They may pray in a prescribed way, do various good works, perform rituals, deny themselves legitimate pleasures, follow dietary restrictions, even lie on beds of nails, etc.

The uniqueness of Jesus is shown in His statement, “The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins.” No other religious leader has ever made this claim. Jesus Christ alone can wash away every sin anyone has ever committed, because of what He did on the cross. By paying the penalty for our sin, He can release us from the torture of guilt. We cannot do anything in the way of religious works to wash away our sins. Forgiveness is a free gift of God through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:8, 9).

At the conclusion to their answer, they provide a link to CARM for more information.  Hoping to find a little more commentary, here was what they had to say:

If all religions are different paths to the same place, then why do the paths contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself? Let’s review the teachings of just three religions:  Buddhism is pantheistic and says there is no personal God and everyone can reach Godlikeness on his own. Islam says that Jesus was just a prophet, and not the only way to God. Christianity says that there is a personal God, and that the only way to Him is through Jesus (John 14:6). If these three religions are, as you say, different paths to the same place, then why do they contradict each other? Does truth contradict itself?

What do you think about this answer?  Let me request your response in one or two ways:

1.  Do you like their answer?  Why or why not?

2.  If you had one or two paragraphs to answer this question, how would you respond?

So here it what I am thinking. 


Inclusivism: The Answer to the Emerging Question?

January 11, 2007

On his blog Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight recently provided a four-part summary review of Terrance Tiessen’s recent book, Who Can Be Saved: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and the World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004).  McKnight, very sympathetic to the emerging church movement, introduces the series with this paragraph:

“The generation that grew up with Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street, was also thoroughly indoctrinated in public education and through the media to think all religions are the same. Tolerance, the deistic doctrine of our day, is not only a strategy for getting along but also a moral commitment. The implication for the emerging generation is enormous: it means that evangelism and evaluation of those from other faiths are strained if not impossible. Hence, what I think is the emerging question of our day.” 

Tiessen, a frequent visitor of Jesus Creed, has provided additional commentary in the meta of the posts that are worth checking out.  Here are the posts as they currently stand (I am not sure if the series is completed.  I assume that it is.):

The Emerging Question Series by Scot McKnight:

So as we see the merging of inclusivism and the ECM, do you believe inclusivism is the answer to “the emerging question?”  Do you think this paradigm provides an adequate Christian theology of religions?  Does the promise for a viable Christian witness and message in the growing plurality of religions reside in the accesibilism of Tiessen or the modal inclusivism of Pinnock or Sanders?

What are your thoughts?

A side note: Jim Hamilton recently reviewed Tiessen’s book on his blog.  You can read it here.   

Ajith Fernando on Disciplined Contextualization

January 9, 2007

In his book The Christian’s Attitude Toward World Religions, Ajith Fernando addresses some pitfalls Christians have erred in contextualization and provides four examples that can occur while approaching other religions. These pitfalls occur when:

  1. Trying to accommodate themselves to their audience, they downplayed some of the ‘offensive’ features of Christianity.
  2. They accepted some features of non-Christian religions that were incompatible with Christianity. They set out to contextualize the gospel, but ended up diluting it. They became syncretists, something that happens often today, too.
  3. Others begin to study non-Christian religions without understanding the supremacy of Christ. During their studies they come to appreciate the good points in these religions so much that, after prolonged interaction with them, they come to feel that the non-Christian religions are on a par with Christianity. They end up surrendering the uniqueness of Christ.
  4. Still others, who have not fully appreciated the supremacy of Christ, become timid in their witness. They try to be faithful to the revealed Word of God, but they are hesitant to proclaim Christ as the only way to salvation. They may perhaps agree that the way of Christ is the best way. But they don’t have the confidence to boldly call non-Christians to make the costly step of forsaking their faiths in order to follow Christ.


Book Alert: Only One Way?

December 14, 2006

One of the programming changes at P&P is to mention some new book releases that I think are important reads. Unfortunately, many bookstores don’t agree with me, and more than likely you will not find these on the front shelves either. Therefore, I want to put them on the front shelf of my blog so to speak and encourage you to consider them as future reads.

Title: Only One Way?: Reaffirming the Exclusive Truth Claims of Christianity
Editor: Richard D. Phillips
Contributing Authors: David F. Wells, D. A. Carson, Peter Jones, Philip Graham Ryken, J. Ligon Duncan
Publisher: Crossway
Publishing Date: February 12, 2007
Pages: 144
Format: Trade Paperback
ISBN: 1-58134-8010
Retail Price: $12.99

From Crossway:

Centuries ago Christ made a claim that disconcerts as many today as it did then—he is the way of salvation. Ironically, he spoke these words to comfort his disciples on the night of his arrest. Richard Phillips is just one of six highly respected authors seeking to reaffirm these comforting words and other exclusive claims of Christianity for today’s reader.Each chapter proclaims, defends, and explains the Christian truths that are most directly challenged by postmodern relativism. Our God is the God; Jesus is not merely a savior, but the only Savior; and the truth revealed in the Bible is divine truth. As readers grasp these essential ideas and their implications they will be able to witness powerfully by articulating these claims with clarity, conviction, and love.

This is but one of two really anticipated books coming out in 2007 dealing with religious pluralism (the other by InterVarsity). Crossway has assembled some top-notch evangelical scholars, and I look forward to reading and reviewing this book upon release. Excerpts and front matter should be available by Crossway in PDF sometime in the future. I have read from Carson (here), Wells (here), and Ryken (here) on the subject matter and look forward to this offering. This is yet one more reason why I believe Crossway is one of the best publishing houses around.

To purchase @ Crossway, go here.
To purchase @ Amazon, go here.

Roman Catholic Inclusivism Presented by Father Michael Manning

December 13, 2006

Side Note 1: As you already know, Christmas shopping is full force, which means Christmas shipping is also kicking in stride. Working at the UPS hub, therefore, means double shifting (10 hours a day) every day this week and very little down time. That said, I am not sure how regular my posting will be.

Side Note 2: As you can see, the theme for P&P lately has been inclusivism, given that I have spent considerable time thinking through and responding to these issues. In this video clip, you hear a classic response from a Roman Catholic theologian (Father Michael Manning) on Larry King. This is typical Vatican II doctrine regarding Christ and other religions. Many theologians consider Vatican II to be a “watershed moment” regarding Christianity and other religions, and Clark Pinnock as well as other evangelical inclusivists look admirably to Vatican II as a forerunner or precursor to what they are hoping to accomplish in evangelical circles. What Father Manning is saying is not far off from from some evangelicals today (however, I would argue that the title “evangelical inclusivists” is highly suspect and somewhat contradictory).

Side Note 3: My next post will deal with a sermon Nelson Price preached at FBC Woodstock a couple of weeks ago dealing with the fate of the unevangelized. He comes up with the concept of “god-consciousness” which I would like to discuss. So if you are interested in listening to it ahead of time, go here and view/listen for yourself. I would be interested in your thoughts on his presentation.

Piper on “What Happens to Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?”

December 12, 2006

On August 18, 2006, Desiring God Radio and John Piper addressed the topic, “What Happens to Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?
As the website states,

The issue of what happens to those who have never heard about Jesus Christ is a question many people ask. As R.C. Sproul has noted, sometimes the question is phrased this way: “What happens to the innocent person in the middle of Africa who has never heard about Jesus Christ?” Fortunately, as Sproul points out, the innocent person has nothing to fear. The problem is that there are no innocent people–anywhere.

To listen to the short audio commentary of Dr. Piper, click here.

Note: Though many if not most all of you agree with Dr. Piper, there are those in the “wider hope” camp who argue for post-mortem encounter, eschatological evangelization, anonymous Christians, pre-messianic believers, and holy pagans–all “saved” outside of the knowledge of Christ, outside the Church, and apart from gospel mission. Therefore, it is incredibly important to have the biblical account presented as Dr. Piper has. Let us, as he concluded, labor to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to every tongue, every tribe, and every people, for His fame and the glory of His name!

Being Saved: Dr. Mohler vs. Rabbi Kushner and Father Byron

December 11, 2006

Here is inclusivism in living color. And this is also why I attend Southern Seminary. Thank God for men like Dr. Mohler and the faithful, clear, and unapologetic presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ascol Questions Riding the Camel

November 22, 2006

Tom Ascol has written a very important article in which he calls into question The Camel Method, a way of presenting the gospel through a high form of contextualization in which believers use the Qu’ran as a starting point for sharing the gospel. This is much I would like to say about this, but I am currently strapped with two papers and pressing deadlines. However, I would like to provide you a quote I just came across while doing some research on evangelical inclusivism. Clark Pinnock, a chief proponent of evangelical inclusivism wrote in his book, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, the following quote (emphasis mine):

“When Jews or Muslims, for example, praise God as the Creator of the world, it is obvious that they are referring to the same Being. There are not two almighty creators of heaven and earth, but only one. We may assume that they are intending to worship the one Creator God that we also serve” (96-97).

This should not alarm many of you who are aware of the attempts to say that the god of Muhammed is the Father of Jesus. If you are interested in the gospel mission of Christ in a Muslim context, let me encourage you to read up on this issue concerning the Camel Method, for what is at stake in such practices is not only fidelity to the gospel message and mission but also to the identity and exclusivity of our Savior Jesus Christ.

For a link to Muslim contextualization approaches, go here.
If you would like to download the Camel Method tract, you can find it here.
The Camel Training Manual can also be found here.

Tony Evans on “Transdispensationalism”

November 15, 2006

In his book, Totally Saved, Tony Evans attempts to answer the question, “What about those who have never heard?” in the appendix section. Evans argues for an explanation which he calls “transdispensationalism” (rivaled only by transubstantianism in a contest for most theological syllables). What I did not know was that the appendix in which this material is found was NOT printed in the future paperback edition. Jim Sutherland, who recognized this problem, wrote the following:

Not knowing if this appendix omission was due to criticism of Moody Press for printing the appendix, or due to a change in Dr. Evans’ position, I tried for over 4 months to determine from Dr. Evans if he still would continue to teach and promulgate this particular doctrine. I could get no reply, so must assume that he may continue to teach and promote “transdispensationalism.” What was said of learned Greek father Origin could be said of Dr. Evans, that in his pastoral concern he has turned a hope into a doctrine.

So what exactly is transdispensationalism? It is a whacky word for a whacky idea. But instead of attempting to sum up what Evans argues, I am reproducing the section of the appendix where Evans himself explains the idea (bold faced mine):

Now there’s a third way God can deal in grace with those who can’t believe because they have never heard the gospel. He can apply another dispensation and its criteria to them. A dispensation is simply an economy or an administration of God, a way in which He deals with people based on the information he has given them.

For instance, people in the Old Testament were saved without hearing the name of Jesus, because Jesus hadn’t come to earth yet. But they were saved because they believed in the revelation of God.

The Bible says Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous, or saved, for believing in God’s promise of a son and a seed (Genesis 15:6). This was long before the Mosaic sacrificial system was ever begun.

Abraham believed without hearing about Jesus, but I am not saying that people can be saved apart from Jesus. Never. Nobody can get saved without Jesus, because He is the Savior of all men, as we read in 1 Timothy 4:10. Everybody is saved through Christ, even those who lived before Jesus came, because in the mind and heart of God, Jesus was already sacrificed to pay for sin before the world was ever created (see Revelation 13:8). So a person can be saved without knowing Jesus’ name, but not without Jesus’ provision for sin.

In the case of a person who never hears the gospel and never knows the name of Jesus, but who responds to the light he has, God treats that person like an Old Testament saint, if you will. That is, if the person trusts in what God has revealed, God deals with that person based on the knowledge he has, not the information he never received. I call this transdispensationalism.

By this I mean if a person is sincerely seeking God and desiring to know Him, and is responding to the truth he knows, if there is no missionary or direct manifestation of God, then God judges that person based on his faith in the light he has received. And as in the case of Abraham, God will retroactively count this person as righteous by applying the death of Christ from the dispensation of grace.

John MacArthur, in a question and answer session was asked about his reference to the idea of transdispensationalism in a message to which he replied:

“Obviously, there is no biblical defense for that, and none is attempted in the book—none. There isn’t even a verse to defend that. Furthermore, living up to natural human light, apart from the revelation of the true and living God, wouldn’t save anybody in any dispensation. But, it is a very—it is a very strange thing and, to this degree, to the degree that He gives salvation to those who have never heard the gospel, it’s a departure from what we believe the scripture teaches. . . . There was a radio interview that followed that book that’s available. You can get the transcript of that radio interview, in which the host was interviewing Tony Evans and said to him, “You’re saying, if a Hindu looks up and says, ‘I know you’re up there somewhere. I don’t know who you are, but I’d really like to know you,’ God will count that as sufficient as salvation?” And the answer to that was “Yes.”

Evans recognized a future objection: “Tony, if you say people can be saved by general revelation, why preach the gospel? Why bother sending missionaries around the world and translating the Bible?” Evans gives two (really bad) answers to this objection:

1. Because Christ has commanded us to go and tell the whole world the good news of His salvation.

2. Because the process I just described for those who haven’t heard of Christ is far from automatic. Whatever we may try to deduce from Scripture about those who have never heard about Christ, we know without a doubt that those who hear and believe the gospel will be saved. (emphasis mine)

One answer to this question is “because I said so,” and the other is “well, it might not actually work.” After having read this piece one will easily see that there is no substantive biblical warrant for such a position. However, as I have come to find out, this is an argument being many by several inclusivists. In a follow-up post, I will provide quotes as well as the line of argument for what Millard Erickson called “chronologically displaced persons” (which is the same thing as Evans’ transdispensationalism).

To read some rebuttals to Evans’ transdispensationalism, check out:

Jim Sutherland. “Can Faith in Christ Be Attributed?: ‘Transdispensationalization’ and Dr. Tony Evans”

J.B. Hixson. “A Response to Dr. Tony Evans’ Teaching Regarding the Eternal Salvation of Those Who Can’t Believe.”