I have more or less finished with the Neo-Amyraldian issue, and I think the case has been proven that the 'common grace' and 'well-meant offer' position is in error biblically and logically and not substantiated historically.
In the past few days, there seems to be recurrance on the entire issue of the Charismata (the gifts of the Spirit) over at Isaiah's (Sicarii's) blog. Previously last year also, I was tangled with a large case of misunderstanding with a friend of my friend Hanmin at his blog, also on the same subject. So it seems that I would need to talk about this subject, which is definitely something very controversial, and have vey visible impact causing division between traditional non-charismatic and charismatic churches and denominations, sometimes with a lot of acrimony too.
I will of necessity approach this issue cautiously. My forte is with regards to Soteriology and the Gospel, and for that I have read, researched and thought through much. That is why I did not hesitate much tackling the issues of 'common grace' and the 'well-mean offer', because although they ARE complicated, deep and technical issues, they are still soteriological and Gospel issues in the end. This issue however is something else altogether. I have been reading and looking through various articles and books on the topic for years, and the most notable being MacArthur's Charismatic Chaos for the Absolute Cessationist side.
Anyway, as I would be discussing when we start, I have experience being a fomer charismatic myself for a couple of years (though I was not given the gift of tongues though I craved for it). And after all these years of occasional reading here and there, I know for sure one thing which I will use against the Charismatic polemicists: The entire issue of Cessationism/ Continualism is NOT so clear-cut as many charismatics think it is. Those who think so show they know next to nothing about the issues involved in the topic, and most probably they misrepresent the opposing position. It is NOT so simple as just saying that healing is mentioned in the Bible so healing is normative for today, which is a logical fallacy anyway. Along those lines, I would say that whoever attacks any one side of being heretical just on this one point of whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit operates the same now as it was then, is totally off the mark, and should be branded a schismatic as he/she rightfully is, especially those extreme Charismatics (like Sidharth) who treat the denial of the continued operation of the sign-gifts as blasphemy against the Spirit, and bear false witness against people like Pastor John MacArthur.
Anyway, this would be the next series to come, though the posts would proabably not be as frequent due to the subject requiring more study and thought.