"GOD TOLD ME": ABOUT THOSE WHISPERS TO THE HEART... By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

It mystifies us how someone can hold a doctrinal position without quoting a single Scripture. She references several, but not one of them establish or even suggest that God does not speak today. 

Pitiful.
--------------------

*This essay first appeared in July 2018 on The End Time. I have edited it and updated it. Enjoy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is a women to do when it seems like everyone is hearing directly from God...and you're not? It seems like so many women say they hear audible voices, still small voices, whispers in the heart, voices from the sky...

For example, Joanna Gaines of the popular HGTV television show Fixer Upper said she heard God's voice clearly. Jennie Allen who founded If:Gathering, said a voice from the sky directly told her to start that organization.

Bill Hybels wrote an entire book teaching how to hear a whisper from God. He wrote:

"On day three of my writing, the Holy Spirit impressed the following message on me: "'...I am going to release you from the responsibility of leading this youth group so you can start a church...' (Ok, so apparently none of these people heard from God. The author now has the burden to biblically demonstrate her assertion.)

Since this essay was originally written, we can add Franccis (sic) Chan to the long list of teachers in Christendom who claim to hear directly from God. Chan said that his "theology left some room for hearing directly from God," and it seems that God entered that room and now regularly speaks to Chan. He uses charismatic language to describe personal revelations from God. "On the plane here, it was revealed to me..." He said the Lord began instructing him to give away specific amounts of money, $50,000, $1M and so on. (Hmm. It can't be God, because God would never tell someone to give away money. Only satan would do that, right?)

7 Signs That You’re a Cage-Stage Calvinist - by Jeff Medders

Found here.
---------------------

This is another article on the so called "discernment ministries," We call them Doctrinal Police. The Doctrinal Police take the noble task of defending the truth of the Scriptures to the nth degree, mocking and impugning those with whom they disagree.

It is heartening to me that there are more and more in the reformed church who are aghast at the techniques and methods of these discernment ministries.
------------------

What Is a Reformed Fundamentalist? - by Paul Carter

Found here. This is so important.

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

In a recent interview discussing his landmark article and subsequent book “Young Restless And Reformed” Collin Hanson was asked about the challenges being faced by groups like T4G and TGC. He replied that one of the greatest threats presently was being posed by “reformed fundamentalists” operating from inside the boundaries of the movement.

That caught my attention.

What is a reformed fundamentalist?

As I continued to listen to him and to others discussing the same phenomenon, slowly but surely a fairly detailed picture began to emerge. A reformed fundamentalist is first and foremost:

Someone who is willing to fight, condemn and divide over secondary issues

I recently met a young pastor in South Africa who was intrigued to find out that I did some writing for TGC Canada. His first question to me was: “What is up with all the hubbub about social justice? The conversation seems to have taken a turn towards the nasty.”

Indeed.

As I listen to people talk and write and Tweet it does seem that the conversation has somehow lost all sense of perspective and propriety. The difference between the two positions appears to be infinitesimal, so why all the heat and vitriol?

Enough.

Certainly there are outer boundaries across which we cannot pass and certainly there are positions that if held, place a person outside the camp, but far too often we sever fellowship with people who are following Jesus simply because they are not following us.

Jesus addressed this issue in the Scriptures. The disciples came to him saying:

“Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:38–40 ESV)

The disciples of Jesus are not allowed to be more discriminating than their Master.

The End of Discernment? - by Wyatt Graham

Found here.

It is heartening to see that more and more reformed Christians are starting to understand that certain"discernment" purveyors are doing damage.  A very good article.

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

Discernment bloggers have contributed to the end of discernment because they have damaged the reputation of the idea itself. In today’s climate, we almost cannot engage in true discernment without being associated with cynical and pugnacious modes of argument.

And this problem is tragic because discerning truth from fiction, right from wrong, lies at the centre of Christian ethics (Phil 1:10). And biblical discernment means knowing “what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God” (Rom 12:2). Granted, we need to know what falsehood is if we are to discern truth. But our focus zeroes in on what is good.

Yet so much online writing today celebrates so-called discernment bloggers whose purpose seems to be spotting the fault in others. They experience schadenfreude at the fall of others (1 Cor 13:6). And worse, much of this writing appears under the guise of Christianity.

Francis Chan Can Fix This - by Clint Archer

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

I share the dismay of my trench-buddy, Jordan Standridge, about Francis Chan’s new bedfellows, which include Benny Hinn, Todd White, and others in the lunatic fringe of the charismatic plutocracy. These are the ones even open-but-cautious continuationists agree make up the bathwater that needs to be thrown out.

But I’m not quite ready to “farewell” him.

He’s no Rob Bell. (Just compare Chan’s Erasing Hell to Bell’s Love Wins.) And I know that’s not what Jordan meant.

Chan isn’t disappointing us by what he’s teaching on prosperity, but by the dissonance between what he teaches and what he endorses. (Let's see if the author establishes that Chan is endorsing errant doctrine.)

He hasn’t taught heresy himself; he’s just stamped his approval on someone else’s. (The author repeats his assertion. But has Chan spoke approvingly of errant doctrine?)

That can make him look complicit in their nefarious shenanigans. (Weasel word. "Can" is an inference, which allows for the possibility that Chan is not complicit.)

But he can still fix this. (Having failed to document his accusation, the author proceeds to prescribe a solution.)

This isn’t just indictment by association. Merely sharing a platform isn’t the issue in this case. (Actually, others have indeed asserted that Chan's mere presence is a problem.)

Chan publicly declared Todd White to be “a bold man of God” (minute 2:50-3:05) and used his ministry as an example of a “wave of God” as opposed to a “wave of man.” (Is it possible for Todd White to be a bold man of God while simultaneously having flawed doctrine? We think yes. IS the assertion that White is a bold man of God endorsing all his teachings? We think no.)

The veer of Chan’s trajectory has been concerning for a while (increasing mysticism, emotionalism, shock-value antics), (Charges stated but left undocumented.)

A Bold New Idea to Boost Wages - by Robert Reich

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

So Dr. Reich has a bold new idea. Unfortunately, it is neither bold nor new.
----------------

The challenges are well known: Working Americans are struggling to keep up with the increasing cost of living. Unemployment is low, but wages of most Americans have remained flat. More than three-quarters of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck. Most can’t afford a $500 emergency. (So after 80 years of leftist prescriptions, the average worker is still struggling? I wonder if Dr. Reich can accurately diagnose the problem?)

There’s a simple and bold solution that would cost about as much as the Trump tax cut. (We can be certain that it will cost much more.)

But instead of helping corporations and the rich, it would help millions of working and middle-class Americans by putting money directly in their pockets. (Tax cuts put the worker's own money back in his pocket. Dr. Reich wants to put other peoples' money in his pocket.)

Two Delusions That Can Threaten Any Church - by Timothy Paul Jones

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

While we understand the important points raised by the author, nearly all the problems he describes are as a result of the unbiblical pastor-leader model found in most churches. However, there is nothing in the Bible about the pastor being the head of the local church. 

If churches stopped putting pastors in charge and embraced the elder-led church training up the people to maturity of faith, with the people then embracing their gifts and carrying out the work of the Gospel, most of these problems would disappear.

In addition, the author tries to describe two delusions, that the people are the property of the leader, and, the leader is the property of the people. But read closely as he describes the second problem. What he describes there is exactly the same as problem one. Serving the church as a leader to the nth degree is the same thing as thinking the church belongs to the pastor.
---------------------

A brief, 90-year history of Republicans calling Democrats ‘socialists’ This isn't a new phenomenon. by IAN MILLHISER

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

I'm actually a little surprised that the author bristles at the socialist label. Democrats are more amenable to the label than they've ever been, and in fact have openly socialist advocates in their midst. See DNC chair Tom Perez.

I don't have much to say about this article, since the author never actually denies the Democrats are socialistic. The farthest he goes is to label the charge a "smear." A smear isn't necessarily false. It can in fact be true, where a smear-er uses the truth to attack or diminish his target. 

Thus by using carefully-chosen words, the author gets to express his outrage without actually ever establishing the smear is false. And by using the textbook definition of socialism ("public ownership of the entire productive sector."), he gets to dismiss all the evidence he chronicles.

In fact, the incremental movement from a constitutional republic (which the author summarily dismisses as "a narrow interpretation of the Constitution") to more and more government control is well documented. Government ownership of "the entire productive sector" is not required for features of socialism to manifest.

This bending of definitions and other manipulations of word meanings is classic agitprop. We are not surprised the author would use these tactics and others, as socialists have been doing for decades.
------------------

Why Not All at Once? - BY NICK BATZIG

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------

Reformed folks spend a lot of time organizing and systematizing God. They seem to have a pressing need to Explain It All, essentially reducing God to a formula.

This is a product of the western mind, devoted to binary equations and linear logical thought. Why God should conform to this is a mystery. Nevertheless, reformists love to hash out the details and examine the minutiae to the point that the trees are more important than the forest.

This results in a mind-boggling system of irrelevant and unproductive study that really bears no spiritual fruit. and in fact doesn't matter. 

As you read the following, consider whether any of this is relevant to living a holy, fruitful life. Consider if it comes to bear in any way upon the need for salvation. Consider how it would affect the work of the Kingdom. We think you'll discover that it is entirely irrelevant.
--------------

Christ, by his perfect life, atoning death and resurrection from the dead, secures the believers calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification. Older Protestant theologians frequently referred to the order of the application of the benefits of redemption (i.e. the ordo salutis)--as set out in Romans 8:29-30-- as "the golden chain." (As is typical for these Sola Scriptura folks, they are reluctant to actually quote Scripture: 

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Though it has been a matter of no small debate in recent decades, it is right for us to say that all the saving benefits of what Christ has accomplished for us by his death and resurrection become ours "distinctly, inseparably and simultaneously" when we are united to Jesus by faith. (We wonder what the author would say about being co-heirs with Christ and having our inheritance sealed by the Holy Spirit. Would some or all of those spiritual benefits be ours now as opposed to later?)

Nevertheless, there is still a logical order by which the benefits of redemption are applied to believers.

There are some benefits that precede others in the order of the application of the redemption accomplished by Christ. For instance, Reformed theologians have commonly insisted that regeneration precedes faith and faith precedes justification, adoption and sanctification. An unregenerate man or woman cannot and therefore will not believe in Christ. John Murray explained the rationale for insisting on a priority of calling to faith and of faith to justification, when he wrote,

"God justifies the ungodly who believe in Jesus, in a word, believers. And that is simply to say that faith is presupposed in justification, is the precondition of justification, not because we are justified on the ground of faith or for the reason that we are justified because of faith but only for the reason that faith is God's appointed instrument through which he dispenses this grace...Calling is prior to justification. And faith is connected with calling. It does not constitute calling. But it is the inevitable response of our heart and mind and will to the divine call. In this matter call and response coincide. For that reason we should expect that since calling is prior to justification so is faith. This inference is confirmed by the express statement that we are justified by faith."1

As hotly debated as the ordo salutis has been over the past several decades in American Reformed Churches, we are still left with other important questions about the ordo salutis. (So they're important questions? The author presumes this but never demonstrates it.)

While God confers all the benefits of Christ's redeeming work on us "distinctly, inseparably and simultaneously" the moment we are united to him by faith, they do not all come to us in the full experiential measure of those blessings. For instance, our sanctification is, in this life, an ongoing and progressive work of God; (Is it only God that sanctifies us? For example,

1Th. 4:3-5 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no-one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.

He. 12:14 Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no-one will see the Lord. 

2Pe. 1:5-7 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

2Pe. 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

whereas, our justification is a once-for-all, declarative act of God. So, why doesn't God sanctify His people fully and immediately at the moment when he regenerates them or when he fully and immediately justifies them at the beginning of their Christian experience? Why doesn't God simply redeem and take an individual straight to glory upon his or her conversion? These are important questions to which we may supply important answers. (Again the author suggests they're important questions. And again the author presumes this but never demonstrates it.)

In his Reformed Dogmatics, Geerhardus Vos offered two profound answers to the question about why God does not confer the full realization of the benefits of redemption in our experience immediately upon our regeneration. First, he wrote,

"It would be possible for God to take hold of and relocate each one of the elect into the heaven of glory at a single point in time. He has His good reasons that He did not do this. There are a multiplicity of relationships and conditions to which all the operations of grace have a certain connection. If the change came about all at once, then not a single one of these would enter into the consciousness of the believer, but everything would be thrown together in a chaotic revolution. None of the acts or steps would throw light on the others; the base could not be distinguished from the top or the top from the base. The fullness of God's works of grace and the rich variety of His acts of salvation would not be prized and appreciated."2

In short, if God were to carry His people to glory immediately after redeeming them, the various benefits of redemption would be indistinguishable to us. (Unsupported assertion.)

We would not be able to appreciate our justification (i.e. the legal standing that Christ has merited for us by his perfect life and atoning death) from our sanctification (i.e. the transformation of the Spirit of Christ in the hearts of his people). (Why is our appreciation important?)

We would not be able to see the contours of God's grace in adoption from his gracious work of justification. The application of the benefits of redemption in time allow us to appreciate more of the fullness of what Christ has accomplished for us by his life, death and resurrection. Second, Vos explained that God chiefly applies the work of redemption slowly and progressively for His own glory rather than for the subjective desire of the creature for immediate satisfaction and blessedness. He explained,

"The opposite of all this is true. There is order and regularity in the application of salvation as well as in every other area of creation. The acts and operations each have their own fixed place, from which they cannot be uprooted. They are connected to each other from what follows and from what precedes; they have their basis and their result. Consequently, the Scripture gives us an ordered sequence (e.g., Rom 8:28-30). At the same time, this order shows us that even in what is most subjective the purpose of God may not be limited to the satisfaction of the creature's longing for blessedness. If this were so, then the order that is slow and in many respects tests the patience of the children of God would be lost. But here, too, God works first of all to glorify Himself according to the principles of an eternal order and an immanent propriety."3

As we come to understand more of God's divine wisdom behind the progressive nature of our sanctification and of the foregoing of the full application of the benefits of redemption until the consummation, we grow in our love for and dependance (sic) in the God who has redeemed us by His grace. And, we cry out, "Finish, then,

Thy new creation;
Pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see Thy great salvation
Perfectly restored in Thee;
Changed from glory into glory,
Till in Heav'n we take our place,
Till we cast our crowns before Thee,
Lost in wonder, love, and praise.

1. John Murray Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955) pp. 168-170

2. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere et al., vol. 4 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012-2016), 1-2.

3. Ibid.

Was Jesus a Socialist? - FB conversation

Posted by a FB friend:

Rosanne: we are living in an Oligarchy in the U.S., It's a proven fact. That's the REAL immorality in this country.

And btw Jesus was a "socialist."

This post is actually referring to FDR's Democratic Socialism. An era that brought us Social Security. Or LBJ's Democratic Socialism, an era that brought us Medicaid. Infrastructure,that's socialism, as is the military, police, and public schools.

Would you like me to continue?

Me: Jesus was not a socialist.

Intersectionality quiz

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

This supposedly tells me how oppressive I am. It also tells me that there is little I can do to improve myself unless I agree with them, and even then I'm still an oppressor. 

In fact, the things I've been born with, like my skin color and my sex, makes me an oppressor. Just by existing. 

A high score doesn't immunize me either. In other words, I can be the perfect leftist all of my life, and one little slip from the orthodoxy dooms me to a life of ostracization, marginalization, doxxing, and exclusion.

That is, I get the treatment that I supposedly perpetrate on others. And this from the Tolerant Ones.
------------------