Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch tell orphan children to go screw themselves -by IAN MILLHISER

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------
With an inflammatory title like this, the article had better explain to us how exactly three Supreme court justices used terminology in their decision that would indicate that children are being left without hope of being adopted.

In actual fact, the author is lying. No such thing was said, and as you read you will discover that the story, though couched in vague misleading language, is quite different.
-----------------

Three members of the Supreme Court announced on Thursday that they would literally ("Literally," as in it is the direct result of these justices' decree that orphans are relegated to be without families. We will learn that this isn't actually the case.)

force orphan children to live in a group home or similar setting, rather than allow those children to be placed in foster care with a same-sex couple. (Let's run the actual numbers. Approximately 19% of same sex couples have adopted a child or have a step child, which is 3811 children. For opposite sex couples, the number is 1,143,721 children. So that means 0.33% of the children adopted are to same sex couples.

Remember, the claim is that these children, if denied a same sex adoption, would be relegated to not have a family. As shown by the numbers, however, same sex adoptions are statistically insignificant. The author's claim is simply hyperbole.)

Trichotomists, Charismatics, and 1 Corinthians 14 - by Daniel M. Brown

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Another installment in our quest for the biblical case for cessationism. Unfortunately, a large part of the author's presentation is about contemporary charismatics, while he barely touches on the biblical case.

In fact, the author entirely avoids quoting a complete Scripture verse, managing only an isolated phrase or two.

------------------

1 Corinthians 14 is one of the most popular chapters in the Bible for Charismatics. (And probably one of the most avoided by cessationists...)

Practically every Charismatic author that writes anything on the gifts of the Holy Spirit will refer to this chapter. (It's a mystery why the author would be surprised at this, since Paul discusses tongues and prophecy extensively here.)

Ironically, 1 Corinthians 14 is one of the strongest rebuttals against the modern Charismatic teaching on tongues, (We are not interested in the modern teachings on tongues. We want the biblical case.

We will soon discover the author will never tell us what is the proper interpretation of the chapter.)

but Charismatics are completely oblivious to this fact because they read the chapter with a trichotomous mindset. (That is, the failing of charismatics is that they view the human person as spirit, soul and body. This is an odd approach to the debate, since it really doesn't come to bear on the author's case at all.)

In a nutshell, this argument against Charismatic tongues goes as follows (He clearly doesn't understand charismatics, so his false premise leads to a false conclusion.):

1. No Charismatic claims to understand the tongues-language that he speaks. (False. Interpretation of one's own utterance is very common.)
2. 1 Corinthians 14 plainly teaches that the Biblical tongues-speaker understood the words uttered from his own lips. (The author never demonstrates this false assertion.)
3. Therefore, the modern Charismatic phenomenon of tongues has nothing to do with Biblical tongues. (Thus a non sequitur. And ironically, we will never discover the author's idea of biblical tongues.)

When a Charismatic reads 1 Cor 14:14, “my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful,” he reads this to mean that his spirit utters words which is own mind does not understand. Based on a trichotomy or tri-partite view of man, he claims that his spirit speaks a heavenly language that bypasses the mental understanding of his soul. However, a careful study of the scriptures concerning spirit and soul reveals that the Bible does not teach such a concept. (The author morphs to an irrelevant tangent. We have no need to discuss the divisions of soul, mind, body, spirit, or whatever. We can just view the Scripture for what it is.

Further, it isn't necessary to presume from the author's dichotomous perspective that the mind must be informed. By that we mean that even if the soul and spirit are one in the same, it still can be unfruitful as Paul says.

"Unfruitful" (ἄκαρπος) is defined as unfruitful, barren, profitless, while "mind" is νοῦς, the mind, the reason, the reasoning faculty, intellect. So if we don't allow the author to parse Paul's plain statement, we simply discover that praying in tongues does not edify the mind. 

And let's not ignore what Paul writes in the prior verse. 1Co. 14:13-14: 

For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Paul thus states that an uninterpreted tongue can be, but not always is, interpreted by the utterer. Uninterpreted tongues yields the result of the utterer's mind not being edified by the tongue.

In addition, 1Co. 14:2 says this:

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

No-one understands. Including the speaker. Unless it's interpreted.

But beyond that, if we just take the Scripture for what it says, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful, why would Paul say that one thing happens but another thing does not if the two are the same thing?)

Does God Speak in Unidentified Promptings? by Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

We should note that we are not terribly interested in defending Chuck Swindoll. We shall, however, examine Ms. Prata's assertions.

------------------
This post first appeared on The End Time in September 2016

A quick lesson on discerning a meme. I saw this on Facebook. Here is a lesson on how to parse the silly sayings we see on social media. Let's take it apart phrase by phrase and really think about what it is trying to communicate.

“Unidentified promptings” contradicts his word on the face of it, because He always identified Himself as the One speaking. (Is this actually true? Ac. 9:7: 

The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

They heard a sound, but Jesus did not identify Himself to them. And what about Samuel? God did not identify himself the times He awoke him. Finally Eli had to tell Samuel Who was talking to him. 1Sa. 3:18: 

So Samuel told him everything, hiding nothing from him. Then Eli said, “He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes.” 

The cessation of tongues and prophecy - by Greg Loren Durand

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Although this repeats a lot of the fallacious arguments of other cessationists, it does contain some novel information.

But we are forced to note that so much of what the author has to say here is superficial, inadequately documented, and suffers logically and exegetically. Frankly, it's embarrassing.)
--------------------

It is the historic position of the Reformed faith that tongues and prophecy had a very specific role to play in the early days of the Christian Church. Not only were they clearly sign gifts which were given to validate the message of the Apostles, but, in the case of tongues, they served as a warning to the unbelieving Jews that the destruction of the nation of Israel was imminent. In Isaiah 28:11-12 we read:

“For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, to whom He said, ‘This is the rest with which you may cause the weary to rest,’ and, ‘This is the refreshing’; Yet they would not hear.”

(We deal extensively with this verse here.)

The above words were spoken by the prophet to the people of Judah as a declaration that they were about to be judged by God for their rebellion by an Assyrian invasion. The presence of “unknown tongues” was also mentioned by Moses in his prophecy of the ultimate destruction of national Israel found in Deuteronomy 28:49:

“The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand.”

(So far, true. But the author does not acknowledge a third purpose - edification. 1Co. 14:4:

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.) 

The entire New Testament deals with the scene just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the termination of the Jewish economy in A.D. 70. God began His warnings to the rebellious nation of Israel through John the Baptist, who was sent to declare that the Kingdom was at hand. Following the death of John, Jesus picked up this same theme and began to warn Jerusalem of impending destruction should the people not repent of their rebellion. Of course, the Jewish leaders sealed the nation’s doom when they rejected and crucified their Messiah. It was not until Israel had thus transgressed against her God that the gift of tongues was introduced among the Apostles and their associates on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2); they were then used to call them to repentance. In this sense, they were, as Paul wrote, “for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers” (I Corinthians 14:22a); they served as an indictment against Israel and a public declaration that her “house [was] left... desolate”(Matthew 23:38), and that the Kingdom of Heaven was about to be taken from the Jews and given to another people — the Gentiles (Matthew 8:10-12, 21:33-45).

Having established the purpose of biblical tongues, (Albeit quite imperfectly. I suspect the author is attempting to use omission to establish a case foreign to the testimony of Scripture.

Having devoted a mere 3 paragraphs to tongues, the author moves on.)

let us now determine the purpose of prophecy in the early Christian Church. According to Paul, “[P]rophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe” (I Corinthians 14:22b). Since the New Testament canon was still in the process of being written, via the epistles of Paul, Peter, and the other Apostles, prophecy served the purpose of edifying and strengthening the infant Church (Scripture reference?)

to endure the persecution that God’s enemies were bringing against her, and to offer hope that God’s enemies were soon to be destroyed (Revelation 2:8-11). However, with the close of the canon, this purpose was fulfilled, and prophecy ceased. In Jude 3, we read:

“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

This verse is very important in dealing with the finality of revelation and prophecy, (Well, no. It does not speak to either revelation or prophecy, it speaks to "the faith.")

for in it Jude clearly anticipated the closing of the New Testament canon of Scripture. (Waaait. Jude was at that writing a letter. It would turn out to be Scripture. It wasn't Scripture yet. And there will be other writers of what will also be Scripture. Scripture had not been completely delivered at the time of this writing. But "the faith" had been.

In actual fact, Jude is not anticipating the close of the canon at all, for he could not. He's making a statement that the entirety of gospel message had been established.)

If Trump deports Muslim refugees, me and my family will leave the U.S. too. - FB conversation

The voice of the people August 13 at 8:30 AM · 

Comments

Frank  You know how I know this is fake Klaas? Michele Obama would use the proper grammar.

Connie  Hit the road

Frank  Nobody seems to want to know facts anymore. Darn

Me If you want people to know the facts, supply a link.

Frank  Rich, I'm not the one who posted the ridiculous meme. I can't post a link to something that was never said. Why aren't you asking Klaas to post the link that shows a video of her saying this--if she did say it, it would be easy to find (not to mention it would have been a front page story across the globe)

Me  Sir, what Klaas did or didn't do is his own failing. It does not justify yours.

Forcing your beliefs is wrong - FB Conversation

A FB friend shared this post: 

Daneen: Hatefulness usually is seen in actions and words and affiliations.... tolerance is good but stupid tolerance got us where we are today.

Julie: That's why many of us that identify with Christian values are ATTACKED daily. You can't honor only Islam and forget the Jews...Or Christianity..Or Forrest worshippers....People CHOOSE their belief, it's called free will and if they want to follow Radical Islam or Jim Jones, and WE say anything, somehow WE'RE considered evil. That's why people stood up and were persecuted for knowing and recognizing evil. It's coming.

What does the pastor do? - by Clint Humfrey

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

I'm not entirely sure the author knows the difference between a pastor and an elder.
-----------------

How does the pastor spend his time? (This is a different question from the one asked in the title. I wonder which one he will answer.)

That is a question that sometimes arises from some who are critical and most who are just curious.

Medieval monks would spend their time at appointed hours praying, singing and chanting at their home, while transcribing texts in the intervening hours. (??? What do monks have to do with pastors?)

At the Reformation, so little of the previous centuries work had been dedicated to preaching, that the Reformers stood out for their emphasis on the pulpit. (The preaching of the Word is important, but again, what does this have to do with answering one of the two questions?)

The consistory of Geneva (I have never heard of this before. Apparently it was some sort of mild form of the inquisition, exacting discipline on sinners in the church.)

spent a great deal of time reviewing pastoral care issues, thinking through them biblically and apply counsel to people and situations. Sometimes the counsel and care (A somewhat innocuous description, it seems. This council was a corrective board that had a view towards clamping down on sin via confrontation.)

was disregarded and some Genevans preferred to be disciplined out of the church, than to be discipled in the church. All of this took organization and care. But the primary driver of the ministry was the Word work. Calvin’s preaching through the bible provided the basis for doctrine in the church in Geneva, and the surrounding village churches that worked together with Calvin’s, seeking counsel from Calvin’s elders, even making requests for pulpit supply. (The author's little historical aside has us puzzled. What does all of this have to do with pastors?)

Some things have changed, but others have stayed the same.

Word Work & Prayer Work

Today the work of the Word and Prayer (cf. Acts 6:4) are the two greatest tasks which the pastor must undertake. (Let's quote the Scripture. Ac. 6:1-4: 

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

We first note that the apostles had a problem with their management. They were doing work that should have been delegated to others. So they put others in charge of ministering to the widows.

Second, it was the apostles, not pastors, who desired to dedicate themselves to prayer and the Word.

Third, this is not how churches are structured today. We don't have twelve apostles presiding over a church.

The author has taken over the work of the apostles and made it in to pastoral work.)

Journalists aren’t the enemy; we are you - Chronicle editorial

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------
This reads like satire. The clueless Chronicle jumps on the "noble media" bandwagon, clearly unaware of its own irony. The turns and twists of illogic in this editorial is why according to Gallup the public trust of the media has fallen to 32%:

--------------

The Holy Spirit’s Ministry - Sinclair Ferguson

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------

This is a particularly disappointing presentation. The author did absolutely no work to establish his thesis.
-----------------

The Reformers placed tremendous stress on the gifts of the Spirit to the whole body of Christ. John Calvin himself has rightly been described as “the theologian of the Holy Spirit” (B.B. Warfield). Yet Reformed Christians always have been given a “bad press” for their views on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Our conviction is that God purposefully gave some gifts (specifically the ability to work miracles, the gift of revelatory prophecy, and speaking in tongues) only for a limited period. We have solid biblical reasons (Emphasis added.) for believing this:

• A temporary manifestation of these gifts is characteristic of God’s pattern of working. Contrary to popular opinion, such gifts as these were given spasmodically in biblical history. Their occurrence is generally contained within a handful of time periods lasting around a generation each. (This is not a biblical argument.)

• The function of these gifts, namely to convey and to confirm revelation (now ceased until Christ’s return), is underlined in the New Testament itself (Acts 2:22, 14:3; cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). (Let's quote the provided Scriptures, since the author seems reluctant to do so. 

Ac. 2:22: Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Ac. 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

2Co. 12:12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.

He. 2:3-4 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Let's recall the author's statement: "The function of these gifts, namely to convey and to confirm revelation (now ceased until Christ’s return), is underlined in the New Testament itself..." Oh really? The first three, Ac. 2:22, ac. 14:3, and 2Co. 12:12, do not speak to the gifts at all. 

He. 2:3-4 actually argues against the author's premise. Notice that signs, wonders, and various miracles are grouped together, and gifts of the Holy Spirit are mentioned apart. This is interesting in that it implies that the distinction is intentional. The word distributed  [μερισμός,] is defined (a) a distributing, a distribution, (b) a parting, dividing, severance, separation. The gifts of the Holy Spirit spread wide, not only throughout the first century church, but through the ages as well.

Further, signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will do not attest to the apostles [who aren't mentioned], they operate to testify to this salvation.

Lastly, there is no indication of cessation in any of the cited Scriptures.)

• The history of the New Testament suggests that by the close of the apostolic age the role of these gifts was being superseded by the completion of the New Testament. (No Scripture references supplied.) Thus, there is no reference to their presence—or, more significantly, their future regulation—in the Pastoral Letters. (Argument from silence.)

Scandinavia, Socialism, and the Welfare State - by Bill Muehlenberg

Found here. A very interesting article.

------------------------

There is plenty of fuzzy thinking about what is variously called Scandinavian socialism, the Nordic model, democratic socialism, and so on. And now that most leftists have finally realised that their socialist utopia – Venezuela – is actually just another socialist hellhole, they are pointing to Scandinavia as their preferred model.

Whether Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, these dreamers think that socialism is still the way to go, and if we look hard enough we just might find a successful model of it somewhere.

So they point to the Nordic nations as if that will make their case. Not so. Indeed, hot on the heels of my article yesterday on the socialist basket case in South America, I had one guy send in a comment telling me Scandinavia is socialist, and Marxism and Christianity were basically one and the same. Good grief.

This guy appears to be as clueless when it comes to basic economics and political economy as he is about basic biblical teachings. But these trendy lefty Social Justice Warriors tend to be like that. They are usually as uninformed as they are emotive. Facts and data mean little or nothing, while emotions and virtue signalling mean everything.

Reaching those still trapped in charismatic chaos - By Robin Arnaud

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The disdain oozes from the author's every sentence. But more troubling is the fact the author cannot produce a single Scripture quote other than a tiny snippet. Nor does the author document or quote anyone from the Charismatic movement.

So we are left with nothing to consider other than the author's accusations and bare assertions.

----------------

Decades ago when bible-based churches and denominations first examined and weighed the teachings and impact of the Charismatic movement, (Note the false dichotomy between "bible-based" churches and the "charismatic movement.")

they largely deemed it to be a benign and relatively harmless popular movement toward informal liturgy and enthusiasm, with a few peculiar practices such as speaking in tongues tied on. It has only rarely been examined by church courts (What is a "church court?")

in all the years since, but in the intervening years the Charismatic movement has morphed into a shrouded form of renegade gnosticism (Gnosticism: 

These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the divine spark within the human body. This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:

• All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
• There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
• One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
• Gnosticism does not deal with "sin", only ignorance.
• To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge.

We are familiar with charismatic teachings, and defend many of them in this blog. Nothing in the above list aligns with the charismatic teaching we know.)

Mythbuster: "Slain in the Spirit" - by Costi W. Hinn

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------------

The author is a nephew of Benny Hinn, which gives him gravitas among the cessationist crowd. However, I suspect his turn against Benny Hinn is less to do with the biblical teachings and more to do with the jadedness one can experience when associated with someone like Benny Hinn.

I don't know much about the author or Benny Hinn. And I have no dog in the fight regarding being slain in the spirit. What we will deal with is the author's presentation below. 
---------------------

If you think God is speaking directly today, here is what that means… By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

Logic-challenged Elizabeth Prata takes a stab at explaining why God is silent. In these two articles, she will not quote a single Scripture. Not one.
---------------------

A follow-up to this essay is here, One more thought on direct revelation (Included below.)

Women have for at least two generations now, grown up in the faith with famous or celebrity women Bible teachers claiming to have had personal revelations and interactions with Jesus. They say “God told me” or “God laid it on my heart to tell you” or “I want to share some of the messages I have received” or “I heard Him specifically say…” Their persistent claims of direct revelation outside of the Bible has normalized it when it was never even normal in Bible times! Worse, it has accomplished two things:

• de facto declared the insufficiency of the Bible
• made a generation of women illiterate, because why do the hard work of studying the Bible when it can just plop down from the sky? (Two astonishing claims. Let's see if she can actually back them up.)

God is not speaking today to people outside of His word. (A third claim. Will she also document this?)

Whenever I or any of my friends say this, we receive tremendous push back. We are charged with proving it. We are told we’re wrong/bad/ignorant of scripture or history. Or, demands are made for scriptures that say so. But when provided, those very scriptures are dismissed. (That is, Ms. Prata expect people to shut up and accept her take on these unmentioned Scriptures as if she has the last word on their meaning.)

We are given the excuse that we must not “put God in a box” because, after all, He has the ability to do anything He wants, including speak to us in any way or at any time He wants.

It’s true that in the past He spoke in many different ways. He spoke directly to man (Adam, Noah, Moses et al), through rituals, ceremonies, from the sky, from the mountain, a donkey, angels, prophets, and a burning bush.

I want to come at this from a different tack today. I was listening to Steven J. Lawson preach Hebrews 1:1-4. This is the classic text that declares that God has ceased speaking because, though He spoke in many ways in prior ages, He has spoken finally in this age, through His Son. (This is another astonishing claim. How can God be speaking through His Son but His Son is not speaking? Let's quote the passage. He. 1:1-3: 

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Jesus is speaking all time, holding the universe together by the power of His voice. But we are expected to believe that this somehow means He is silent? The book of Hebrews was written in about A.D. 65, when the Bible didn't yet exist. Would the readers of Hebrews conclude this?)

Worse, as we read further in Hebrews, we come to this passage: He. 2:3-4: 

...how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

In A.D. 65, the Hebrews were right in the thick of the manifestations of the Spirit. It is preposterous to conclude that these things would be understood by those readers as referring to the cessation of the supernatural!)

The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 4, signs and miracles)

Part one here. Part two here. Part three here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must

• be biblically based
• not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
• not appeal to silence
• not appeal to events or practices of history

We shall summarily reject any such arguments, since they are irrelevant to the biblical case. In fact, the biblical case we long for is alarmingly sparse.

We shall note any part of the author's presentation that violates these criteria by highlighting them in red.
----------------