FOR THE MASTER

<p>Anti-Calvinists typically argue that &#8220;in him&#8221; in Ephesians 1:4 means that election is conditionally based on foreseen faith in Christ. This is what the poster in the image below was asserting. However, this is not the Calvinism killer that some would want to believe. Quite the contrary. The &#8220;in him&#8221; in no way invalidates the [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There are roughly 3,036 textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Gospels:Matthew: 656Mark: 597Luke: 791John: 1022 70-80% of these differences are due to the presence or absence of the movable nu. The movable nu is a grammatical feature in Greek where the letter ν is added to the end of certain words (e.g., verbs [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In this fourth part of my “What is Calvinism” series, I want to address the doctrine of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. Some of you have asked why I didn’t begin with Total Depravity and then work my way through the TULIP acrostic. The short answer is, because I wanted to. I’m on only kidding. [&hellip;]</p>

<p>A KJVO pastor emailed me and asked me the following: Is Matthew 5:18 in the ESV true? &#8216;…not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law…&#8217; &#8211; I ask this because it&#8217;s my understanding that punctuation (dots) where not around at the time of this statement. (Be consitent bro with your ideal about [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Penal Substitutionary Atonement Defended As a Key to Understanding Calvinism and Limited Atonement &#8211; What is Calvinism Series In this third video in my series on Calvinism, I will discuss and defend the death of Christ as a penal substitutionary atonement. The premise is simple. The death of Christ is an atonement. The death of [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I had the opportunity to teach debate to an ethics class made up of seniors at a local Christian school today. As part of the class, Nathan Burris and I had a condensed (50-minutes) moderated debate on “The sons of God in Genesis are angelic beings”. Nathan took the affirmative and I argued the negative. [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Today I want to cover the importance of understanding different atonement theories and especially Penal Substitutionary Atonement as a prerequisite for comprehending the Calvinist&#8217;s understanding of Limited Atonement. In the last video in my Calvinism series, I said that most of the disagreement towards the Limited Atonement doctrine of Calvinism is rooted in differing views [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There are two issues that really seem to boil the blood of some believers today. They are both the proverbial third-rails of theological discussions. One is King James Version Onlyism. I am certainly no stranger to that debate. The other one has to be Calvinism. While I abandoned King James Onlyism relatively recently in my [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Thank you for your question. I am happy to address it. First, let’s look at the passages you asked about. Luke 12:47-48 (LSB) says, 47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many beatings,48 but the one who did not [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In this video, Nathan and I take a look at the Fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 and choose individuals in scripture that best represent each attribute. Let us know in the comments if you like this discussion. If you wish, click the link below and let us know who you would have chosen [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In my last video, I began by saying that hyper dispensationalism is a false teaching that simply will not die. For a group who focuses heavily on 2 Timothy 2:15 and rightly dividing the word of truth, they just cannot do it. Rather, they have botched the text in such a way so as to [&hellip;]</p>

<p>This is a false teaching that simply will not die. This seems, by and large, to be a product of Dispensationalism. Now, this is absolutely not the teaching of all Dispensationalists and I wish to be very clear in stating that those who hold to the idea that Jesus preached a different gospel than Paul, [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I am sincerely asking for Independent Fundamentalist Baptist King James Onlyists to join me and help me address some severe false doctrines that are rampant among IFB KJVO. CONTACT INFORMATION:DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/give or https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburrisWEBSITE: https://jonathanburris.comPODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theoveropinionatedpastorFACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/dr.jonathan.burrisTWITTER: https://twitter.com/thepastorb

<p>Those that follow my channel know that I didn’t put out a video last week. Nathan told me several times over the last week, but I held back on purpose. I wanted plenty of time to pray about this one before I put it out. I’m glad I did. While I was praying about this [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I made a statement on X about the antisemitic remarks made by Joel Webbon of @RightResponseMinistries and Andrew Isker (@contramundumpodcast‬), his guest, on a multi-part series they are doing. I plainly stated that these videos were antisemetic. Someone responded and asked me to name one example of antisemitism in the video. I would like to [&hellip;]</p>

<p>As we continue discussing the many reasons why the crusades should not be glorified, I want to talk about the infighting, deceptions, plans within plans, and the real goals of the leaders of the First Crusade. If you think you knew a lot about the crusades, wait until the end of this video. CONTACT INFORMATION:DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/give or https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburrisWEBSITE: https://jonathanburris.comPODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh

<p>In the first two videos, we set the stage for the First Crusade. We discussed the false premises and exaggerations that it was predicated upon in the first video and we looked at the ulterior motives of both Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and Pope Urban II. In this video, we are going to begin exploring [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Donatists are only mentioned four times in Carroll’s “Trail of Blood” and never with any specificity. Donatists do play a significant role in Carroll’s trail because they bridge the gap between the early Montanists and the Paulicians. To have nothing detailed said about them in his book is striking given that the Donatists span from [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In the first video, I addressed Pope Urban II’s stated reasons for calling for the First Crusade and then demonstrated that many of his reasons were either false, greatly exaggerated, or simply actions of the Mad Caliph who had been dead for 74 years. After addressing those falsities, it still left us with the question, [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There have been some heated conversations about how some in the Reformed Christian community have glorified the crusades and are advocating for modern crusades against what they believe are muslim invaders of Europe and to some extent, the United States. This is an extension of the Christian Nationalism debate and is driven by a number [&hellip;]</p>