Here are some reasons:
Trinitarian Christology is opposed to the Bible and logic
Christ's Baptism is NOT Imputed to the Believer
Refutation of Michel Flournoy's ignorant claims about baptism; provides an exegesis of Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:19-21; Eph 2:8-10; and Rom 6:1-5.
Answers many of the common proof-texts (e.g., 1 Cor 1:17) abused by most Protestants to support their view that water baptism does not affect salvation. The reality is that water baptism is the instrumental means of initial justification and remits one’s past and then-present sins—a discussion of Rom 6:1-4 and other passages proving baptismal regeneration are also discussed herein. Cf. these articles on Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:21; John 3:1-7 and this post on Eph 2:8-9 showing that Paul taught baptimsal regeneration in this often-abused passage by Protestants.
Christ's Baptism is NOT Imputed to the Believer
Refutation of Michel Flournoy's ignorant claims about baptism; provides an exegesis of Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:19-21; Eph 2:8-10; and Rom 6:1-5.
Answers many of the common proof-texts (e.g., 1 Cor 1:17) abused by most Protestants to support their view that water baptism does not affect salvation. The reality is that water baptism is the instrumental means of initial justification and remits one’s past and then-present sins—a discussion of Rom 6:1-4 and other passages proving baptismal regeneration are also discussed herein. Cf. these articles on Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:21; John 3:1-7 and this post on Eph 2:8-9 showing that Paul taught baptimsal regeneration in this often-abused passage by Protestants.
The historical Protestant view of the atonement is anti-biblical and refuted in Hebrews, an epistle often seen as its “stronghold.”
Here, the material doctrine of the Reformation is, exegetically, shown to be anti-biblical. Also deals with texts such as John 19:30 not addressed in the previous article about the nature of Christ’s atonement.
Shows that David, according to Paul in Rom 4:5-8, was justified on more than one occasion, showing that a true believer can lose their justification. See also these posts on Heb 6:4-9 and 10:26-29.
Dave Bartosiewicz vs. Transformative Justification and Refutation of Dave Bartosiewicz on justification and the atonement being forensic
Shows that the Reformed doctrine of forensic justification to be opposed to sound exegesis.
Final part in a series (one can access the other parts on this page). Shows that the Reformed understanding of the verb λογιζομαι to be incorrect and such does not allow for their understanding of the nature of righteousness in justification. Cf. Does Genesis 15:6 prove Reformed Soteriology?
The formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura, has no meaningful biblical and historical basis in the Bible and early Christianity (also available in print and kindle format)
The LDS view about the Bible, not the Evangelical Protestant, is the most logical and biblical perspective.
Protestants have to settle on a fallible list of infallible books.
Shows that the common biblical texts abused by Protestants to refute the Latter-day Saint belief in modern-day prophets to be based on eisegesis, and that the belief in modern-day prophets is consistent with sound exegesis of key biblical passages. A related article would be Joseph Smith Worship? Refuting criticisms of the role and status of the prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint theology which addresses the issue of “worship” and anthropology (theology of the nature of man) and deification, and how the LDS views are more biblical than the Evangelical perspective
