Proof of Salvation - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff makes anther appearance in our blog. As usual, he's self assured to the point of arrogance. And as usual he doesn't write about the topic stated in the title. 

Most of his article is spent justifying his "discernment" methods. Like many other "discernment" ministers, Mr. Ratliff thinks "discernment"  is self justifying. He cannot conceive of a scenario where his "discernment" activity might be divisive or unloving.

‐-------‐‐‐---------

1 Εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις σπλάγχνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί, 2 πληρώσατέ μου τὴν χαρὰν ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, σύμψυχοι, τὸ ἓν φρονοῦντες, 3 μηδὲν κατʼ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν ἀλλὰ τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν, 4 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ [καὶ] τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι.  Philippians 2:1-4 (NA28) (Mr. Ratliff habitually includes the Greek to no one's profit. We think it's pretentious.)

1 Therefore, since there is encouragement in Christ, consolation of love, fellowship of the Spirit, affection, and compassions, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, the same love, as ones joined in soul and of one mind. 3 Doing nothing according to selfish ambition or vain glory, but with of mind regarding one another as more important than yourselves, 4 not merely looking out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2:1-4 translated from the NA28 Greek text to English)

Christian unity is a much-abused topic at this time. Some insist, such as T.D. Jakes, that all who claim to be Christian, regardless of their “doctrinal views” should be unified because this is God’s will. (Did Jakes really say this? Is Mr. Ratliff accurately relating his position to us? Mr. Ratliff supplies no link.

By the way, Mr. Ratliff will never tell us what Christian unity actually is.)

We can offer plenty of passages from the inspired Word of God that disproves both his claim of universal unity being God’s will and the fact that just because someone claims to be Christian they really are. (Two claims assigned to Jakes. Is this really what he believes, or is Mr. Ratliff ratcheting up the rhetoric against Jakes? Again, we cannot verify Mr. Ratliff's claims.

So, Mr. Ratliff can cite "plenty of passages." Excellent. How about one or two? That would be helpful.)

The Postmodern mindset is irrational as we have seen in that it has no issue with holding various “truths” as being true even if when, in reality, that is impossible because to the rational person, those truths are absolute and cannot be true and something else be true that conflicts with it. (Subject change. Previously Mr. Ratliff was discussing beliefs contrary to the truth, but now he's talking about the ability to hold conflicting truths simultaneously.

And neither thing is about the topice promised in the title.)

For instance, Christian Orthodoxy has as one of its base doctrines that God is One, but is also the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is the Holy Trinity. T.D. Jakes, a Modalist, rejects this. (Jakes is no longer a modalist. In fact, that's old news.)

He says that God manifests himself as one of these three as he pleases, but only one at a time. T.D. Jakes’ god is not God. (Jake's opinion of God is not Mr. Ratliff's opinion of God, obviously. Jakes describes God imperfectly, but so does Mr. Ratliff. God is still God, no matter how imperfectly He is described.

A different God? We don't think so.)

Is the fact that we disagree with T.D. Jakes being disagreeable and divisive? (Possibly.)

No, we are being discerning and refusing to allow heresy to be included as proper doctrine of the Church. (Category Mistake. Mr. Ratliff could be 100% right and still be "disagreeable and devisive.")

What about when we rebuke those believers who want to fellowship with T.D. Jakes and include him in a discussion about the doctrine of The Trinity? Is that being disagreeable and divisive? (Possibly.)

No, it is the same thing. (And it is still a Category Mistake. Mr. Ratliff could be 100% right and still be "disagreeable and devisive.")

We are simply exercising our God-given discernment and are both rebuking those trying to do this while warning the Church about it. (Are there various ways to pursue discernment, with some of them being disagreeable and others loving? Or does Mr. Ratliff think that being discerning is self- evidently good no matter his methods or how his heart is?)

Some insist that these sorts of “rebukes” should be done privately, never publicly. While I agree that it is always better to follow the Biblical model of Christian discipline found in Matthew 18:15-20, (This passage is not about "Christian discipline," it is about restoring personal relationships.)

that is talking about a sinning brother or sister within a local church. This issue with T.D. Jakes is very public already and who is it that has authority over James MacDonald, the one doing all this? (??? Who is James MacDonald, and what is "all this" that he is doing? Mr. Ratliff just pulls him out of right field with no explanation.)

Therefore, we warn the body of Christ and rebuke James MacDonald and, unfortunately, as he stiffens his neck and refuses to listen, it just escalates. (What is it that escalates? Is Mr. Ratliff escalating something, like his rebukes, perhaps? Indeed, why would Mr. Ratliff escalate anything: 

Tit. 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

We see no opportunity or warrant for escalation in such a scenario.)

If anyone has in his or her perception that what I just described is something enjoyable or pleasant or something I just cannot wait to jump on and do, then you have not been paying attention. I do not like this sort of thing at all. (Then why do it? Is there some biblical mandate to correct a false teacher who lives across the country? As mentioned by Mr. Ratliff, correction is "about a sinning brother or sister within a local church." All warnings about divisive people and false teachers are regarding the local church. He has no business correcting anyone outside his church.

Now, it might be a different thing to analyze someone's teaching to ascertain its truth. We are doing that very thing right here. In this blog we frequently examine the statements of various teachers and polemicists to determine the merit of their teaching. 

We sometimes have to dig deeply, and we try to be thorough and fair. We rarely send a rebuke to a teacher. Our authority certainly does not include rebuking another man's servant [Rom. 14:4].)  

Yet, there is so much madness in the visible church right now that I often wonder if I will ever be able to get back to just teaching from God’s Word for the discipleship of God’s people. (Why would you not? No one asked you be the doctrinal police. You'd be better off to do something else, and so would everyone else.)

The reason I brought this up was to show you that exercise of true discernment is not divisiveness regardless of that very charge by those who like to throw around the label “hater” against those who obey God by revealing the truth about their ministries to the Body of Christ. (Mr. Ratliff restates his premise.)

In fact, those who are being divisive are the very ones who are corrupting the truth through their false teachings, leading people astray and by not leading people to become God-focused in their life and worship rather than self-focused. Yes, that is truly divisive and their exposure by those being obedient to God is both painful and necessary. (This apparently justifies any and all behaviors, in the name of "discernment."

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims, like Mr. Ratliff, that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining, like Mr. Ratliff, about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person, like Mr. Ratliff, who believes that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers towards false teachers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia) as follows:

hideously ugly

post-menopausal woman 

bizarre wardrobe choices

a penchant for cackling

no personal charisma

a face that scares children

a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard

pugnacious

unladylike

uglier on the inside than she is on the outside

the personality of a Roomba 

 the personal charisma of fetid corpse

unpleasant and evil woman

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• T.D. Jakes himself has drawn some pretty egregious attacks: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men... he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• The same "discernment minister" also says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

Now perhaps Mr. Ratliff doesn't do these sorts of things. But these examples suffice to demonstrate that discernment can indeed be devisive.)

There are others who are divisive of whom we are warned in God’s Word.

8 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες θεῷ· ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. 9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔρεις καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο· εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι. 10 αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, 11 εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος. Titus 3:8-11 (NA28) (More unenlightening and pretentious Greek quotes.)

8 Trustworthy is the Word and concerning these things, I counsel you to strongly affirm them, that the ones having believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are good and profitable to men. 9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. 10 Avoid a divisive man after warning him once then twice, 11 knowing that such a man has been perverted and is sinful being self-condemned. (Titus 2:8-11 Translated from the NA28 Greek text to English)

The word “divisive” in v10 translates αἱρετικὸν the Accusative, Singular of αἱρετικός ‘aihretikos’, “one who creates or fosters factions.” This is where we get the English word “heretic.” Now, this is not talking about a person who is standing firm against heresy, but one who is trying to subvert the truth with false doctrine. What do these people do? They pick fights. They try to create controversies, quarrels, and fights. They do not have truth on their side so they use the tactics of the world, philosophies of men, and, of course, out right ad hominem attacks. I know all about this having been the target more times than I care to recount. (Be careful, Mr. Ratliff. You're in danger of falling into this very trap. Plus wrapping yourself in righteousness is not becoming.)

They use Straw Man argumentation, which is fallacious and a huge time waster. What are we to do? We rebuke them then we rebuke them again. (Again we ask, why? Just move on, sir. Find something else to do with your time.)

If they persist then we do whatever it takes to remove all possible access they may have to us and to those we care for. Why is this necessary? In v11 we are told that the person, man or woman, has been perverted and is sinful. In Greek this literally says, “knowing that has been perverted such a man and sins, being self condemned.” The word αὐτοκατάκριτος refers to one who is condemned by one’s own sentence meaning: passing sentence upon oneself. This is done either as a voluntarily cutting off of oneself from the church by an open revolt, or as rendering oneself incapable of the privileges and blessings that belong to the church by renouncing one’s faith. The result becomes judging or declaring oneself unworthy of the blessings tendered by the church.

Real Christians prove their salvation by not being like that. (Hmm. With but a single paragraph remaining Mr. Ratliff finally gets to his topic. Finally. But he will not discuss how to prove one is saved. Odd, indeed.)

Instead their lives are examples of fulfilling Philippians 2:1-2, which I placed at the top of this post while resisting those who conform to Titus 3:10-11. Now, those in NAR, postmodernism, seeker-sensitive, WoF, et cetera stuff that is going on all around us point their fingers at those of us with discernment and say we are the ones in Titus 3:10-11, while that is not the case at all as we saw above. (Discernment ministers do not like to be discerned...)

Those who pervert God’s Truth with lies and false doctrine are the ones being divisive and God has given discernment to those willing to stand up and tell the truth to the those who will listen. In doing this, we are not being divisive, but obedient in rebuking the αἱρετικός by contrasting what they are doing and saying with God’s Truth. Let us do so always ready to give an account of the hope that is within us with the Grace and demeanor of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!