The Calvinist Hall of Idolatry - Answering Tommy McMurtry Part 1

Answering yet again an attack on the Reformed faith - this time from New IFB Pastor Tommy McMurtry of Liberty Baptist Church, Rock Falls, IL. McMurtry asserts that the quoting of men of the past, and using their commentaries by Calvinists is the equivalent of worshiping man. First of a three part series, we answer his assertions and conclusion segment by segment.

[JustaSlaveofChrist]

I just finished watching all three of your response videos, and I have to say, great job! Clearly, Tommy McMurtry has built up a straw man caricature of Calvinism, and then proceeds to attack it. It is painfully obvious that he has not taken even the briefest amount of time to read up on Calvinism, not even attempted to learn what Calvinists actually believe, and hasn't even bothered to learn the history of Calvinism. In his railings against Calvinism he mentions the same three "Calvinists, " namely Calvin, Spurgeon, and Luther. I suppose you could call John Calvin a Calvinist since he no doubt believed what he taught, and certainly Charles Spurgeon was a Calvinist. But, in what universe could Martin Luther -- who started the Reformation when Calvin was only 9 years old, ever be considered a Calvinist? He never even mentions Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza; nor John Knox, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, nor any of the dozens of well known "Calvinists" throughout history since Calvin. His ignorance of Calvinism and Reformed theology could not be more pronounced. When it comes to this issue, Tommy McMurtry is his own worst enemy. He is self-refuting.

[innerfire]

I'm trying to remember the last time I've heard any Refomed pastor quote any one during a sermon. It's not common at all.

I know I said something like this on every video, but these NIFB pastors are ridiculous. Ranting about Calvinist is not a sermon in any way, shape, or form.

[ioncewasblind]

Mcmurtry's "living" commentary "Steven Anderson" changed many of his beliefs regarding pretrib, zionism, repentance of sin and most recently the trinity etc etc etc. He didn't get this new doctrine from reading his bible pre-Anderson.

[Kman.]

Now dat rite dare be sum sound, level heded imformashions Bro Jeff!

[Welcome_To_Life]

Have you debated Leighton Flowers on this topic yet?

[catdvds]

The Average NIFB members have very little knowledge of the men who translated the 1611 KJV .

[MrSamadolfo]

😃 09:40 "It's a Brand New Interpretation, I got it out of my 1611"
Goes to show you that Rome was rite all along, Bible Alone is obviously not enough 😊

"All of these commentarys, none of them agree with what your saying?"
Exactly! its a big red flag Son 😊

Yes, in the calvinist video documentary, holmberg quotes RC Sproul saying the samething about bible interpretation, its a simple question of mathematics and statistics, the IFB Interpretation of bible verses is in the minority, Which is kinda ironic because IFB understands mathematics and statistics to help explain
how the english bible lineage came together to create King James Onlyism.
Using the Textus Receptus which is the majority readings when you compile all the old transscripts together which I think is fine and cool and makes sense.

So its kinda weird how they are inconsistent with their statistics.
Also they are inconsistent with European Medieval Church History,
they only champion the guys involved with bible history but not bible theology its very strange indeed.
They have these weird blinders on, they only want to recognize some of church history when its convenient.

12:30 "150 years old"
👍 Exactly! there you go! You forgot to plugin "The Geneva Notes"
Sure, 150 years old I would go with:
Calvinism + KJVonlyism + Strongs Concordance + Preterism + Historicism + Amillenialism + FE Geocentrism = JUST KEEP IT OLD SCHOOL 😎

Download them today:
The Geneva Study Notes (its a bible commentary)
Mathew Henry Commentary
Poole Commentary
Gill Commentary
PLEASE NOTE: if your interpretation contradicts these commentarys you are in error!
.