Paul Martin

You raise some good points concerning a perhaps too casual use of the term “unconditional.” Typically a term like this is well-defined initially within a specific context, but then is repeated without the same attention to detail.

Only the elect can be saved; and, no one who is elect ever reaches death not having responded to God’s gift of salvation.

It is quite amazing how often the term “legalism” comes up when there is a serious discussion about obedience or its result, holiness. 

My husband and I have been studying Samuel and have the following question re: 1 Samuel 28:11-20 We’ve been taught that there are no such thing as ghosts and wandering spirits and that absent from the body means present with the Lord. Why then was this not true with Samuel? This seems to go against that principle.

I think what Randy is addressing in the article is the inevitable outcome of a philosophy taken to its logical conclusions. 

The only obedience that is necessary for salvation is yielding to the requirements of the gospel (John 3:16, Acts 16:30,31). 

 There is no more support for reincarnation here than if Yogi Berra were to say “He’s Babe Ruth” on seeing yet another home run from St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire.

The issue seems to be what Muslims believe about Jesus Christ. My question would be: "What does your sister-in-law not believe about Jesus that keeps her from becoming a Christian?