Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------
Our verbally incontinent Reverend has returned. 1232 words later (not including the Scripture reference and the Valloton quotes), we have nothing to show for our reading. There isn't a single scriptural principle contained here. Not one.
It continually amazes us that Rev. Wade labels his screeds "devotionals." We challenge the reader to treat this article as a "devotional" and then consider how you were edified and your faith increased.
---------------
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Monday, June 29, 2020
#676 Shall We Resurrect the Conspiracy Theory? [The Resurrection] - By Dr. William Lane Craig
Found here. A thorough answer to a question that's been asked and answered many times throughout history.
---------------
Dear Dr Craig,
I am a huge admirer of your work, and I have been for quite a few years. I will always be very grateful to you for all that you do.
For about ten years or so, I was convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that his resurrection wasn't faked. I viewed his resurrection as irrefutable evidence that God does indeed exist in reality, because only God could possibly arrange a resurrection from the dead. I recently purchased and read Professor John Lennox’s book, “Gunning for God,” and I enjoyed it very much. Something extraordinary happened while I was reading the section on Jesus’ resurrection: He was discussing the theory that the disciples may have taken the body from the tomb. Formerly, I had agreed with you that that theory was pretty unlikely, because the disciples were later tortured and crucified, and I thought that it would be very unlikely for disciples who knew that the resurrection was a lie to defend that lie, up to the point of torture and crucifixion. It always seemed to me that, if it were a lie, then they would have admitted to it being a lie, in order to avoid torture and death through crucifixion.
However, in that section of Professor Lennox’s book, he pointed out the fact that grave-robbing was a capital offense in Jerusalem at that time — something that I had not known until I read it in his book. Finding that out was a total game-changer for me, regarding the issue of Jesus’ resurrection. Now, it seemed to me, it was quite possible that the disciples had removed the body from the tomb, and that they had made up the resurrection as a means to cover their crime of grave-robbing. Now, it seemed to me, the motivation to defend a resurrection lie was very strong — from their perspective, it seemed to me that they may have thought that defending that lie could prevent them from being crucified (for the crime of grave-robbing), whereas previously, I had only thought that defending that lie could have caused them to be crucified. The knowledge that grave-robbing was a capital offense in that time and place has taken away my main reason for believing the resurrection testimonies of the disciples! Avoiding crucifixion would be a very strong motive for telling a lie — even one that they knew to be a lie. In fact, it now seems very likely, to me, that the disciples could have taken the body from the tomb, and then made up the idea that Jesus had resurrected, in order to cover their crime, and thereby avoid crucifixion. If it was a lie, then it could have started with very strong motivations, as a means for frightened men to avoid a horrible, torturous death; and then, the lie could have spread for any number of reasons: People who were friends with the disciples could have repeated the same lie in order to help prevent their friends’ crucifixion, for example. Once the rumor got around a bit, then, the desire to feel like part of the special group who had supposedly seen the resurrected Jesus could have been a further motivation for others to join in the lie.
My question is this: Don’t you think that the fact that grave-robbing was a capital offense -- and that if the Roman authorities had found out that they had robbed the grave, that they would be crucified -- constitutes ample motivation for the disciples to make up a lie that Jesus had resurrected from the dead (if they had actually robbed the grave, that is)? This hypothetical turn of events seems to me much more likely to have occurred than an actual resurrection, and I’m wondering how you can reconcile all of this with the fact that grave-robbing was a capital offense. Please forgive my ignorance, and please forgive any offensiveness on my part in this regard; I do not mean to be offensive, but rather, I would really like to understand your perspective on all of this, and if there’s something that I have missed, I would very much like to find out how it is that the resurrection is a real historical event that can be rationally defended after all, as I formerly accepted it. Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Purusha
***
DR. CRAIG’S RESPONSE
---------------
Dear Dr Craig,
I am a huge admirer of your work, and I have been for quite a few years. I will always be very grateful to you for all that you do.
For about ten years or so, I was convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, and that his resurrection wasn't faked. I viewed his resurrection as irrefutable evidence that God does indeed exist in reality, because only God could possibly arrange a resurrection from the dead. I recently purchased and read Professor John Lennox’s book, “Gunning for God,” and I enjoyed it very much. Something extraordinary happened while I was reading the section on Jesus’ resurrection: He was discussing the theory that the disciples may have taken the body from the tomb. Formerly, I had agreed with you that that theory was pretty unlikely, because the disciples were later tortured and crucified, and I thought that it would be very unlikely for disciples who knew that the resurrection was a lie to defend that lie, up to the point of torture and crucifixion. It always seemed to me that, if it were a lie, then they would have admitted to it being a lie, in order to avoid torture and death through crucifixion.
However, in that section of Professor Lennox’s book, he pointed out the fact that grave-robbing was a capital offense in Jerusalem at that time — something that I had not known until I read it in his book. Finding that out was a total game-changer for me, regarding the issue of Jesus’ resurrection. Now, it seemed to me, it was quite possible that the disciples had removed the body from the tomb, and that they had made up the resurrection as a means to cover their crime of grave-robbing. Now, it seemed to me, the motivation to defend a resurrection lie was very strong — from their perspective, it seemed to me that they may have thought that defending that lie could prevent them from being crucified (for the crime of grave-robbing), whereas previously, I had only thought that defending that lie could have caused them to be crucified. The knowledge that grave-robbing was a capital offense in that time and place has taken away my main reason for believing the resurrection testimonies of the disciples! Avoiding crucifixion would be a very strong motive for telling a lie — even one that they knew to be a lie. In fact, it now seems very likely, to me, that the disciples could have taken the body from the tomb, and then made up the idea that Jesus had resurrected, in order to cover their crime, and thereby avoid crucifixion. If it was a lie, then it could have started with very strong motivations, as a means for frightened men to avoid a horrible, torturous death; and then, the lie could have spread for any number of reasons: People who were friends with the disciples could have repeated the same lie in order to help prevent their friends’ crucifixion, for example. Once the rumor got around a bit, then, the desire to feel like part of the special group who had supposedly seen the resurrected Jesus could have been a further motivation for others to join in the lie.
My question is this: Don’t you think that the fact that grave-robbing was a capital offense -- and that if the Roman authorities had found out that they had robbed the grave, that they would be crucified -- constitutes ample motivation for the disciples to make up a lie that Jesus had resurrected from the dead (if they had actually robbed the grave, that is)? This hypothetical turn of events seems to me much more likely to have occurred than an actual resurrection, and I’m wondering how you can reconcile all of this with the fact that grave-robbing was a capital offense. Please forgive my ignorance, and please forgive any offensiveness on my part in this regard; I do not mean to be offensive, but rather, I would really like to understand your perspective on all of this, and if there’s something that I have missed, I would very much like to find out how it is that the resurrection is a real historical event that can be rationally defended after all, as I formerly accepted it. Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Purusha
***
DR. CRAIG’S RESPONSE
Friday, June 26, 2020
Is Sunday church for the saved or for the lost?
Introduction
In the process of engaging our Doctrinal Rethink series, we have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western, contemporary church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern.
Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched? How did we arrive at our doctrines?
In the process of engaging our Doctrinal Rethink series, we have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western, contemporary church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern.
Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched? How did we arrive at our doctrines?
Frustrations Of A Christian Female Blogger (Probably Not The Frustrations You’d Expect) - by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------
The author pushes her misunderstanding of doctrine to the point of ridiculousness.
--------------------------
Normally, professing Christian women chafe at the idea of limiting their teaching ministry to other women and small children. (This is normal among "professing Christian women?")
They follow the world in insisting that we have a contribution to make to the whole church, and that our female perspective must be heard. As they see it, the Word of God cannot be fully represented without the female voice.
Huh?
Where does Scripture ever say such a bizarre thing? If the Word of God is breathed out by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), why would a female perspective be necessary? (We don't know what a "female perspective" would be, but we would want to know what basis there is to silence a female speaking the truth of God. The author herself has written extensively, with the desire to target women exclusively. Why does she write her blog? Why doesn't she simply refer her readers to male teachers? What specific role does she think she is fulfilling that men aren't doing?)
-------------------
The author pushes her misunderstanding of doctrine to the point of ridiculousness.
--------------------------
Normally, professing Christian women chafe at the idea of limiting their teaching ministry to other women and small children. (This is normal among "professing Christian women?")
They follow the world in insisting that we have a contribution to make to the whole church, and that our female perspective must be heard. As they see it, the Word of God cannot be fully represented without the female voice.
Huh?
Where does Scripture ever say such a bizarre thing? If the Word of God is breathed out by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), why would a female perspective be necessary? (We don't know what a "female perspective" would be, but we would want to know what basis there is to silence a female speaking the truth of God. The author herself has written extensively, with the desire to target women exclusively. Why does she write her blog? Why doesn't she simply refer her readers to male teachers? What specific role does she think she is fulfilling that men aren't doing?)
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Why Pastors Should Consider Naming Heretics From the Pulpit - By ROB NELSEN
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------
We have become convinced that the the idea of criticizing false teachers as practiced by "discernment ministries" is not found in the Bible.
Every example of naming and disciplining false teachers in the NT is in the local congregation. That is, those who cause division, who are immoral, or who teach false doctrines in the midst of the church are subject to scrutiny, correction, and/or avoidance.
This does not mean we cannot critique the teachings of those outside our church. We do this often here in this blog. It simply means that because those who would exercise discipline are not actually gathered with those people they criticize. Therefore, they cannot engage biblical practices (like Matthew 18 or Galatians 6:1, for example). Church discipline can only be expressed in the local body.
It is up to the church where the false teacher is located, or denomination of which his church is a part, to engage the process of correction. It is not the job of someone not in that denomination or congregation.
---------------
-----------------
We have become convinced that the the idea of criticizing false teachers as practiced by "discernment ministries" is not found in the Bible.
Every example of naming and disciplining false teachers in the NT is in the local congregation. That is, those who cause division, who are immoral, or who teach false doctrines in the midst of the church are subject to scrutiny, correction, and/or avoidance.
This does not mean we cannot critique the teachings of those outside our church. We do this often here in this blog. It simply means that because those who would exercise discipline are not actually gathered with those people they criticize. Therefore, they cannot engage biblical practices (like Matthew 18 or Galatians 6:1, for example). Church discipline can only be expressed in the local body.
It is up to the church where the false teacher is located, or denomination of which his church is a part, to engage the process of correction. It is not the job of someone not in that denomination or congregation.
---------------
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Are you Passionate about the Passion Translation? p.1 - Let us reason ministries
Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------
We are not here to defend the Passion Translation. In fact, we do not even own a copy. We are here to examine the author's presentation.
And that presentation is incoherent and largely undocumented. He rambles and wanders off, so much so that we have reduced the article down to a few excerpts.
---------------------
---------------------
We are not here to defend the Passion Translation. In fact, we do not even own a copy. We are here to examine the author's presentation.
And that presentation is incoherent and largely undocumented. He rambles and wanders off, so much so that we have reduced the article down to a few excerpts.
---------------------
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
You're not wonderful - By Elizabeth Prata
Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------
The author appears confused. She simultaneously refutes then agrees with her premise.
She has no idea what the Scriptures say. She manages to quote a couple, but sadly it seems like she never has read them.
This presentation saddens us.
-----------------
--------------------
The author appears confused. She simultaneously refutes then agrees with her premise.
She has no idea what the Scriptures say. She manages to quote a couple, but sadly it seems like she never has read them.
This presentation saddens us.
-----------------
Friday, June 12, 2020
Did only men write the Bible?
Today's Doctrinal Rethink examines the prevalent idea that only men wrote the Bible. This assertion is typically used to bolster the idea that women in the Bible are essentially add-ins, they are not part of the formation of the faith, they are not to be leaders, and/or they are not part of God's plan for church operation.
We have previously examined the idea of women in church leadership here and here.
The Issue
Here's a representative expression of the issue:
Third, we don't know who actually wrote down the words of Bible. The person who put pen to paper may have simply been a scribe, or may indeed have been the Holy Spirit-inspired person named in the title. We know Paul did not autograph at least some of his epistles. It is generally recognized that he dictated many of his letters via amanuenses. He writes:
We have previously examined the idea of women in church leadership here and here.
The Issue
Here's a representative expression of the issue:
Of 27 books of the New Testament, called “the words of Christ” in Hebrews 1:1, exactly zero were written by women. This means Jesus chose no women to recall his words or deliver them via Scripture.
As we consider this we first should note that no title of any book in the Bible identifies a woman as the author. But these titles, like the chapter and verse division, are not part of the original text, they were added later and should not be regarded as inspired.
Second, the inspired author is sometimes a matter of speculation (Ruth, Esther, and Hebrews for example).
Third, we don't know who actually wrote down the words of Bible. The person who put pen to paper may have simply been a scribe, or may indeed have been the Holy Spirit-inspired person named in the title. We know Paul did not autograph at least some of his epistles. It is generally recognized that he dictated many of his letters via amanuenses. He writes:
Ga. 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!This clearly implies that he wanted to emphasize his point by writing these words himself.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
'Systemic racism' doesn't mean 'lots of racists in the system.' - Sparkling Wine Socialist
Found on Facebook. This is a whopper, and will take a bit of effort to unpack it.
"Btw 'systemic racism' doesn't mean 'lots of racists in the system.' It means that even if there were *zero* 'racists' present, the system would still disproportionately harm people of certain races. It's baffling that lots of educated folks don't understand the his concept."
***
A system is an organized structure that expresses a human desire for order. That expression can be legitimate, moral, and useful, or it can be oppressive and destructive.
A system is a purposeful structure, constructed and maintained by its organizers. Structures cannot continue to exist apart from intentional maintenance.
A system is not a sentient entity, so it cannot be racist. Systemic racism is not possible without racists. A system will not continue to exist without systemizers. Thus it is impossible for a system to persist without those who would feed it.
Therefore, a system cannot inflict harm without those humans who would use it or allow it to inflict harm.
So the author is wrong. The fact that he condescendingly asserts that educated people don't understand this does not make his assertions self-evident.
***
"Btw 'systemic racism' doesn't mean 'lots of racists in the system.' It means that even if there were *zero* 'racists' present, the system would still disproportionately harm people of certain races. It's baffling that lots of educated folks don't understand the his concept."
***
A system is an organized structure that expresses a human desire for order. That expression can be legitimate, moral, and useful, or it can be oppressive and destructive.
A system is a purposeful structure, constructed and maintained by its organizers. Structures cannot continue to exist apart from intentional maintenance.
A system is not a sentient entity, so it cannot be racist. Systemic racism is not possible without racists. A system will not continue to exist without systemizers. Thus it is impossible for a system to persist without those who would feed it.
Therefore, a system cannot inflict harm without those humans who would use it or allow it to inflict harm.
So the author is wrong. The fact that he condescendingly asserts that educated people don't understand this does not make his assertions self-evident.
***
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Keys To Discernment - by Debbielynn
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------
On the whole the author has a good take on things. We appreciate her recognition of the broader context of discernment, an understanding that is too often lacking in the ranks of the Doctrinal Police.
However, we have a couple of quibbles, which we will note below.
----------------
Many Christians desire to have discernment, which is good. Many, however, maintain a narrow understanding of Biblical discernment, limiting its scope to simply calling out false teachers and/or identifying erroneous practices within the Church.
Biblical discernment most assuredly includes those activities, and we must never ignore the importance of exposing deception (Romans 16:17, Ephesians 5:11). (Let's quote the verses:
The second verse is similar. Paul wants the Ephesian church to stay away from evil things.
Why are we making this distinction? Because the author will go on to mention Beth Moore and Joel Osteen. Since she is not a part of their ministries, she cannot keep away from someone who is already not associated with.
Paul's context is the local church. This means the author should keep away from people in her church who are placing obstacles in her way and are engaging in fruitless deeds of darkness.)
-------------------
On the whole the author has a good take on things. We appreciate her recognition of the broader context of discernment, an understanding that is too often lacking in the ranks of the Doctrinal Police.
However, we have a couple of quibbles, which we will note below.
----------------
Many Christians desire to have discernment, which is good. Many, however, maintain a narrow understanding of Biblical discernment, limiting its scope to simply calling out false teachers and/or identifying erroneous practices within the Church.
Biblical discernment most assuredly includes those activities, and we must never ignore the importance of exposing deception (Romans 16:17, Ephesians 5:11). (Let's quote the verses:
Ro. 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
Ep. 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.The first verse is not about discernment per se. Here Paul counsels the Roman church to stay away from people who are divisive and teach things that don't agree with what they were taught.
The second verse is similar. Paul wants the Ephesian church to stay away from evil things.
Why are we making this distinction? Because the author will go on to mention Beth Moore and Joel Osteen. Since she is not a part of their ministries, she cannot keep away from someone who is already not associated with.
Paul's context is the local church. This means the author should keep away from people in her church who are placing obstacles in her way and are engaging in fruitless deeds of darkness.)
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Jeremiah Johnson & the NAR Have a Demonically Uttered Prophetic Word - By Rev. Anthony Wade
Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------
Our verbally incontinent Rev. Wade has returned to do what he always does: Spew out half-formed thoughts, undocumented assertions, and engage in the character assassination of those with whom he disagrees.
We do not intend to defend Jeremiah Johnson, our purpose is to explain Rev. Wade's rhetorical failures.
-----------------------
------------------------
Our verbally incontinent Rev. Wade has returned to do what he always does: Spew out half-formed thoughts, undocumented assertions, and engage in the character assassination of those with whom he disagrees.
We do not intend to defend Jeremiah Johnson, our purpose is to explain Rev. Wade's rhetorical failures.
-----------------------
Monday, June 8, 2020
The new age and Christianity - FB conversation
Kevin: have you read anything from richard rohr?
Me: Not that I know of.
Kevin: can you do this test for me? https://www.truity.com/test/enneagram-personality-test
Me: Naw, I don't think so.
Kevin: ok
Me: The more I read the more I am turned off by it. "George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, who brought the Enneagram to Europe in the 1920s, claimed it originated about 2500 years ago in a Babylonian wisdom school. He taught that each person is born with a 'planetary body type' with certain physical and psychological traits. He believed that a person’s physical and psychological characteristics are related to a dominant endocrine gland and to planetary influences on that gland. This implicates the Enneagram with Babylonian astrology, since those characteristics would be signified by a point on the Enneagram."
Me: Not that I know of.
Kevin: can you do this test for me? https://www.truity.com/test/enneagram-personality-test
Me: Naw, I don't think so.
Kevin: ok
Me: The more I read the more I am turned off by it. "George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, who brought the Enneagram to Europe in the 1920s, claimed it originated about 2500 years ago in a Babylonian wisdom school. He taught that each person is born with a 'planetary body type' with certain physical and psychological traits. He believed that a person’s physical and psychological characteristics are related to a dominant endocrine gland and to planetary influences on that gland. This implicates the Enneagram with Babylonian astrology, since those characteristics would be signified by a point on the Enneagram."
Friday, June 5, 2020
6 Pre-Tribulational Arguments Refuted - by No pretrib
Found here.
In light of our diminishing certainty about pre-trib dispensationalism, we find this to be an interesting article. We don't necessarily agree, we simply present it as an alternative view.
----------------------
I have heard a few somewhat reasonable and concise arguments in favor of a pre-tribulation rapture position. One of those was written by Dr Tony Garland. Dr Garland has a distinguished theological education and I’m sure that in many other areas we would agree. He did what I think was a very good job at laying out the primary points in favor of a pre-tribulation rapture, so I decided to use his article as a springboard to refute the pre-tribulational position. I strongly recommend reading his article for reference. Dr Garland begins by answering an anonymous question,
I have heard a few somewhat reasonable and concise arguments in favor of a pre-tribulation rapture position. One of those was written by Dr Tony Garland. Dr Garland has a distinguished theological education and I’m sure that in many other areas we would agree. He did what I think was a very good job at laying out the primary points in favor of a pre-tribulation rapture, so I decided to use his article as a springboard to refute the pre-tribulational position. I strongly recommend reading his article for reference. Dr Garland begins by answering an anonymous question,
“Is there someplace on your site where you’ve laid out your perception of the end times, including who is involved (the Church, the Jews, etc.) in each piece? And/or biblical support for a pre-tribulation rapture? I have been attempting to study the end times, as I’ve always been taught that there is a pre-tribulation rapture, but I’ve never been taught WHY I should believe that is so. My studies, so far, have not turned up any compelling reasons for believing this particular eschatological view, and have turned up some things which would seem to oppose such a view. However, I do not wish to automatically discard this view; I just can’t find anyone who is teaching it with solid scriptural backing! If you are able to provide me with the scriptural basis for this view, it would be a great help.”This is an excellent question. Before I came to embrace a pre-millennial post-tribulational view, I was taught like the person asking this question that pre-tribulationism is simply true and that it was obviously so. But over time and after considerable study, I too found it difficult to find pre-tribulationism in scripture, and to the contrary found numerous passages that seemed to refute the idea. Dr Garland goes on to state that many Christians are raised in pre-tribulational Churches but lack the proper teaching and Biblical foundation to form their views from, and are subsequently drawn away from it. I would submit that is the lack of Biblical support for pre-tribulationism that causes most people raised in pretrib Churches to eventually reject the idea, and rightly so.
In his article, Dr. Garland lays out his case for the pretrib rapture by making six points:
Thursday, June 4, 2020
Why Damaging Property Isn’t The Same As “Violence” - Nathan J. Robinson
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------
Before we consider the author's presentation we should provide the dictionary definition of violence:
the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy...Summary: Violence is hurting people and breaking stuff. Now we are prepared for the author's leftist misdirection as he attempts to re-define a commonly understood word.
We also shall note the irony of the author as he was previously critiqued on this blog, where he advocated for animals and humans to be regarded as equally pointless. If they are equally pointless, how is it possible that violence against people is egregious, but violence against property is not?
Ultimately, the author never gets around to answer the question posed in the title.
Ultimately, the author never gets around to answer the question posed in the title.
----------------
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
NAR Dominionism -- Seven Mountains Covered in Whitewash - by Rev. Anthony Wade
Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------
It has been a while since we have commented on Rev. Wade's interminable prose. Lately, he has been mostly occupied with criticizing churches for resisting government edicts impacting their peaceable Sunday assembly. We have decided not to comment on them, since they have been political screeds with little or no reference to biblical principles.
Come to think of it, most of Rev. Wade's presentations are absent biblical principles. This long, pedantic article is no exception. Typically he gives himself biblical cover by quoting a Scripture at the beginning, then wanders off into irrelevancies and a plethora of undocumented assertions as he engages his personal grudge against the "NAR."
Today's post is no exception.
-------------------
---------------
It has been a while since we have commented on Rev. Wade's interminable prose. Lately, he has been mostly occupied with criticizing churches for resisting government edicts impacting their peaceable Sunday assembly. We have decided not to comment on them, since they have been political screeds with little or no reference to biblical principles.
Come to think of it, most of Rev. Wade's presentations are absent biblical principles. This long, pedantic article is no exception. Typically he gives himself biblical cover by quoting a Scripture at the beginning, then wanders off into irrelevancies and a plethora of undocumented assertions as he engages his personal grudge against the "NAR."
Today's post is no exception.
-------------------
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
Have Pentecostals Outgrown Their Name? - by DANIEL SILLIMAN
Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------
We find this discussion interesting in that there are always those who are looking for ways to label people. Too often those labels are used dismissively. It's easier to brand someone as a part of "***" so as to categorize them, either "us" or "them." "Them" are heretics and kooks, "us" are the ones with the correct doctrine. "Them" aren't saved and are false teachers, while "us" are the defenders of the faith, the ones who hold to the truth.
This desire to label results in awkward terminology like what manifests in this article. "Pentecostal" gives way to "Spirit-filled," charismatic," "renewalist," "Spirit-empowered," "New Apostolic Reformation," and "Word of Faith." Or one the author doesn't mention, "continuationist."
The discussion is also interesting in that it focuses on the "supernatural practices" side. There is no attempt to parse terminology for the "non-supernatural" churches, yet their practices and doctrines are probably just as varied.
We personally don't know anyone who is concerned about properly labeling what theological camp others are in. Generally, we believe anyone who has repented and has believed Jesus is Lord and received new life in Christ is in "our" camp. Or more precisely, are in God's camp. Beyond that, we don't feel burdened to be Doctrinal Police.
We personally don't know anyone who is concerned about properly labeling what theological camp others are in. Generally, we believe anyone who has repented and has believed Jesus is Lord and received new life in Christ is in "our" camp. Or more precisely, are in God's camp. Beyond that, we don't feel burdened to be Doctrinal Police.
Except of course when they start labeling. We then undertake to examine what they write and evaluate it according to Scripture. If their presentation is thoughtful and biblically-based, we will consider its validity and respond in kind. If it is disrespectful, we will also note that.
So what are we to make of these various groups of Christians? They are not a single denomination, despite the desire of some to pigeonhole them. There are some overlapping doctrines, but there are a lot of differences. Should we look for a new name to call them?
We would suggest that there is really no reason to separate out a category of Christians simply because they believe in the supernatural activities of God in the Church. We believe it could be a convenient excuse to engage in a form of bigotry. Too many Christians are focused on shades of doctrine to the exclusion of loving one's brother in Christ.
-------------
So what are we to make of these various groups of Christians? They are not a single denomination, despite the desire of some to pigeonhole them. There are some overlapping doctrines, but there are a lot of differences. Should we look for a new name to call them?
We would suggest that there is really no reason to separate out a category of Christians simply because they believe in the supernatural activities of God in the Church. We believe it could be a convenient excuse to engage in a form of bigotry. Too many Christians are focused on shades of doctrine to the exclusion of loving one's brother in Christ.
-------------
Monday, June 1, 2020
Dying to Work - By Robert Reich
Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------
Never trust a Leftist when statistics are the topic.
--------------
Never trust a Leftist when statistics are the topic.
We are going to excerpt only one of many false assertions from Dr. Reich's missive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)