Former Catholics for Christ Conference: Session #6: Question & Answer Panel

Posted on by Tom

Today, we continue with our video series from the recent Former Catholics for Christ Conference, which was held at the Southern View Chapel in Springfield, Illinois this past May 17-19.

Below is the video of the sixth presentation of the conference, which was a…

Question & Answer Panel
Panelists: Cecil Andrews; Mike Gendron; Rob Zins; Tim Kauffman
Presented: Saturday PM, May 18th, 2019

This is an excellent Q&A session featuring the four conference presenters. The microphone shared by Zins and Kauffman is not operational so you’ll have to turn up your volume when those brothers speak. One qualification: In the course of the Q&A, Rob Zins makes a few critical remarks in which he mentions Steve Lawson in connection with the “Lordship Salvation” controversy. I respect Zins quite a bit, but I don’t believe he’s presenting the views of Lawson with complete accuracy on this issue. Steve Lawson DOES NOT teach that works are a part of salvation, but teaches, as does God’s Word, that a person who has genuinely accepted Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone will bear fruit.

23 thoughts on “Former Catholics for Christ Conference: Session #6: Question & Answer Panel”

      5. I am suspicious of Piper’s future justification; but I don’t think its the same thing as Lordship salvation with Lawson and MacArthur. I also heard them mention Doug Wilson’s theology, Federal Vision and New Perspective of Paul. I don’t think they were trying to lump as the same but I certainly don’t think MacArthur and Lawson is the same with those other junk (I’m talking about NPP, FV, Wilson’s theology, etc).

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Thanks, I agree with all of your above points. Piper’s future/secondary justification reminds me a lot of Chris Castaldo’s book that I reviewed in which he was attempting to find a “middle ground” between Catholicism’s and Bible Christianity’s irreconcilable views on justification using the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli and John Henry Newman.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. I’ve never heard of MacArthur nor Lawson talk about a second justification. I think both those men are pretty historic and classical Protestant in their view of justification.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I know we’ve discussed the “Lordship salvation” controversy previously. There are some people, and I’ve encountered a few here at WordPress, who react strongly to JMac as if he is attempting to add works to justification by faith alone. It’s a misunderstanding/overreaction on their part.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I’m a little slow on the blog today by the way, had a late night counseling case; been rather crazy this week for me with some issues I’m ministering to while trying to lead VBS prep

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s