“BOASTFUL BEACH” – CAN HUMAN FREE WILL BE PRESENT IN BIBLICAL SALVATION? – Kerrigan Skelly

BoastfulBeach

One objection Calvinists often pose to non-Calvinists regarding salvation is the involvement of free will in sinners being converted/made right with God. Calvinists would have you believe that the free will of man has absolutely nothing to do with salvation and that if it did, that the man would automatically be prideful or that salvation would automatically be “works salvation,” instead of “salvation by grace.”

In meditating upon this through the years, I have come up with a parable/analogy to show how silly these objections are.  Man choosing to be saved does not mean that he is being prideful, nor does it mean that his salvation is now a “works salvation.”  In my opinion, these silly objections simply consist in Calvinists engaging in the redefining of Biblical words.  They define the terms in light of their theological system, instead of allowing the true definitions of Biblical words to define their theological system.

BOASTFUL BEACH PARABLE/ANALOGY

Two men were at Boastful Beach one day.  They loved the beach, because it fulfilled the “lust of their eyes” as they looked at all the bikini clad women.  They were enjoying their day basking in the heat of the sun and getting a tan in order to fuel their own “pride of life.”  They both knew that in order to get a “hot girl,” they had to have a tan.  One of them began to get a little too warm, so he decided to take a swim in the Sea of Sin.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Martin Luther Quotes – Great Theologian and Hero of the Faith or Wicked Man and Jew Hater?

MartinLuther-HatedJews

Many Christians and most Protestants look up to Martin Luther as a “great theologian,” a “great reformer,” and a “hero of the faith” whose writings should be read and quoted.  Yet, is he really someone who should be looked up to in such a way?  Not according to what I have studied.

Sure, Luther did some good things and had some good things to say.  I don’t deny that.  Yet, Benny Hinn and the Pope might have good things to say at times as well.  Should I then respect them in the same way that many respect Martin Luther?  I don’t think so.

Do the good things he said and did automatically do away with the bad?  Do we just sweep all of the bad under the rug and consider him some kind of “great Saint,” in spite of all the bad?  Well, I’ll let you decide for yourself.

Maybe you’ve never read the below quotes or are ignorant of the bad things he said. Below is a collection of quotes that I have compiled from Luther’s writings. The quotes comes from his books, letters and sermons.  You tell me if he should be looked up to in such a way.

Personally, I can’t in good conscience, look up to such a person.  Those of you who are reading this who aren’t Calvinists, you really need to reconsider looking up to such a man.  I expect this from Calvinists, because it is consistent with their theology, but not from you!  Please reconsider promoting such a man or recommending people to read his writings!

 

Continue reading

9 Reasons Why Revelation 3:10 Does NOT Support the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory

Revelation3_10

Many Christians believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory, when it comes to Eschatology, their beliefs about the end times.  One Scripture that is consistently used to support this view is Revelation 3:10.  I have been teaching through Revelation for a little while now and I don’t believe that Revelation 3:10 supports the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory, at all.  Here are 9 reason why I believe this (point #8 may be the most important point):

1) This verse is wrote specifically and directly to the Church at Philadelphia, not the Church as a whole.

It would only apply conditionally to the Church as a whole, not directly, unconditionally or universally.  The Pre-Trib Rapture people don’t apply the rest of what is written to this Church universally, unconditionally or directly, so why this portion?

 

2) There is no mention of the Church of the end times in this passage, just the Church at Philadelphia.

People who want to apply this verse directly to the “end times” Church can’t give a reason why.  The reason definitely isn’t found in the passage itself.  This is an inconsistency in hermeneutics.

 

3) There is also no mention of “Church ages” in these passages about the seven Churches, let alone about the Church of Philadelphia being representative of the Church right before the rapture.

There is absolutely no reason in the Scriptures to make the different letters to the Churches in Revelation 2-3 into “Church ages”…unless of course you START with Dispensationalism or the Pre-Trib Rapture theory and try to force it upon the Scriptures.  This is called eisegesis.  To properly interpret the Scriptures, we must perform exegesis.  We must find out what the text ACTUALLY says, not try to make it say something that we already believe before we come to the text.

Continue reading

Conditional Security Proven From The Bible! Part 1 – Assurance of Salvation by Kerrigan Skelly

LoseSalvation1

Below is a new video, where I teach on the Biblical Doctrine of Conditional Security.  This is actually the fourth teaching of five, on this topic.  The previous three were devoted to properly interpreting the “proof texts” that people use to “prove” Unconditional Eternal Security, also known as Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS) or Perseverance of the Saints (POTS).

The doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security is possibly one of the greatest heresies in all of the history of mankind.  It started in the Garden of Eden, when Satan said, “You will not surely die.”  It continues to this day and I consider it to be a doctrine of demons, per 1 Timothy 4:1-2.  It gives people false security and false assurance.

If you want true security, here it is:

Continue reading

Calvinism, Free Will & God’s Expectations | Kerrigan Skelly

vineyard

Isaiah 5:1-4 (NKJV) says, “Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill.  He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine.  He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes.  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?  Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?”

Calvinism teaches that God predestines/ordains/decrees/causes all things that come to pass (whether sin or righteousness) and that God did this in eternity past.  If this is true, then no one and nothing has “free will”, by any definition of that word.  And no, I don’t need to add the term “libertarian” before “free will” to explain what I mean by “free will”.  In fact, I refuse to.  To do so, would be to give in to the Calvinist’s redefining of the term “free will”.  I won’t put up with the linguistic revision of Calvinism.  In fact, I have a series of videos that seeks to expose this facet of Calvinism, that is called, “Calvinist CONFUSION“.

The above passage simply can’t fit into a system that says that God has caused all things to happen, in eternity past.  Passages like the one above, won’t fit with Calvinism, no matter how much you twist it.  How could the “god” of Calvinism possibly have “expectations” that are contrary to what He ordained to happen, in eternity past?  How could the “god” of Calvinism possibly be “disappointed”, when things don’t go differently than he decreed them to be?  If the “god” of Calvinism predestined the house of Israel to be like this, how could he be upset with them and punish them for such actions (read on to Isaiah 5:5-6)?

Continue reading