How America Punishes People for Being Poor - by Rebecca Vallas

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------

This post first appeared at TalkPoverty.org.

Before we even get started, we need to discuss the headline. America does NOT punish people for anything, let alone for being poor. This is absurd on its face, as if America is an entity with a singular consciousnesses, setting out to purposely trip up poor people. Instead, America is a country, with no emotions, thoughts, or sentience. It is a geographic region organized by political and cultural features. It does not think, feel, hate, or smile.

In fact, America is a unique political experiment in self-governance, created on the principles of liberty and self-determination in the context of Christian morality. If ever there was a place where people of every status and walk of life could work hard and make something of themselves, America is it. 

It is totally offensive for the author to assert that America punishes the poor.

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

This past weekend, I was part of a panel discussion on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry with New York Times reporter Michael Corkery, whose reporting on the rise in subprime auto loans is as horrifying as it is important.

In what seems a reprisal of the predatory practices that led up to the subprime mortgage crisis, low-income individuals are being sold auto loans at twice the actual value of the car, with interest rates as high as 29 percent. They can end up with monthly payments of $500 — more than most of the borrowers spend on food in a month, and certainly more than most can realistically afford. Many dealers appear in essence to be setting up low-income borrowers to fail. (We have never understood this assertion that banks want people to fail. Why? What possible good is it for the bank to not collect peoples' installments and thus ending up repossessing the car? The bank loses money!

Also, note how innocent, and apparently stupid, people are being taken advantage of by eeevil salespeople and banks. It's as if poor people are being rounded up door-to-door by dealerships and being forced to buy cars. 

Rather than people being responsible for their own choices, even their bad ones, in typical Leftist fashion someone else is always to blame. And because people need to be protected from themselves, in steps government to rescue them from their own consequences.) 

Critiquing a critique - Sandy Simpson on the song Hosanna, by Brooke Fraser

Critique found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

The above linked website on the whole does a good job of critiquing the doctrinal content of worship song. I've critiqued songs a couple of times myself. 

However, critiques should not be colored by doctrinal misunderstandings. I picked her (I'm assuming "Sandy" is a woman's name) critique of Hosanna because I like the song, both content and music, and because of the doctrinal issues that impair her critique. 

Ms. Simpson first quotes the lyrics, then provides her critique below:

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

I see the king of glory
Coming down the clouds with fire
The whole earth shakes, the whole earth shakes
I see his love and mercy
Washing over all our sin
The people sing, the people sing

Hosanna, hosanna
Hosanna in the highest

I see a generation
Rising up to take the place
With selfless faith, with selfless faith
I see a new revival
Staring as we pray and seek
We're on our knees, we're on our knees

Heal my heart and make it clean
Open up my eyes to the things unseen
Show me how to love like you have loved me
Break my heart for what is yours
Everything I am for your kingdom's cause
As I walk from earth into eternity

The Bible does not speak of an end times revival (with the exception of when the remnant of Israel finally acknowledges Jesus Christ as Messiah in the Tribulation) but rather a generation the has slipped into apostasy.    This is incorrect. The author mistakes the day of the Lord [an event], with some portion the Church age [a time period].

Part of the mistake comes from her not including the first two verses of the passage, which reads, "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come." [2 Thess. 2:1-2] Here we see that Paul is telling the church at Thessalonica that the Lord has not yet come to gather His people to Himself, and that day will not come until after certain events have transpired. Now we can understand the context for the rest of the passage, as quoted by the author: 

Appetites - Ann Barnhart - Concupiscible vs.Irascible

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-------------------------

2. Let’s talk about Concupiscible and Irascible Appetites, because understanding what they are and how they get perverted explains a lot.

The Concupiscible Appetite is what makes our souls long after things that are pleasant to the senses (like bacon) and avoid those things that are unpleasant to the senses (like Justin Bieber). So, we LOVE bacon, and when we achieve bacon we experience DELIGHT. When we do not achieve bacon, we experience DESIRE. Contrariwise, we HATE Justin Bieber*, and when being exposed to Justin Bieber is possible but not accomplished, we experience AVERSION, and when we actually do experience the evil of Bieber we feel sadness and sorrow. So that’s how the Concupiscible Appetites work.

(* We don’t actually HATE Justin Bieber, and in fact we must pray for that repellant little jerk-wit, because man, it’s not looking good for him if he wraps his Ferrari around a light pole this afternoon. But you have to admit, the Bacon-Bieber thing was a pretty awesome pedagogical device, huh?)

Now the Irascible Appetites. This is what makes our souls long after DIFFICULT goods – in other words, things that require us to overcome something unpleasant in order to achieve something virtuous or good. A very base example that springs to mind is the muscle soreness that goes along with all forms of exercise. Because we are rightly attracted to the idea of being physically sound and fit we exercise in spite of and push through the unpleasantness of the fatigue and soreness in order to achieve the good of physical fitness and strength. The highest example is carrying our crosses through life in this Vale of Tears in order to achieve the very attractive goal of heaven. If our goal is obtainable, then we have HOPE. If the difficult good is something unobtainable, then we experience despair. Contrariwise, when we encounter evils that are surmountable, even though they are repulsive we must have COURAGE to meet those evils and overcome them in order to achieve the good beyond, such as sacrificing material possessions, money or public esteem in order to do “the right thing” rather than capitulate to evil. Yes, the idea of losing all one’s worldly goods, or even one’s life, is certainly repulsive, but courage overcomes the repulsion. This is why Courage is the Fruit of the Third Sorrowful Mystery of the Rosary (the Crowning with Thorns). If the difficult evil is insurmountable, then we experience FEAR.

Pope Francis is a Modernist and a Materialist. He views the world and human beings as material, economic units. He does not have a proper balance between the Concupiscible and Irascible Appetites. He is focused almost entirely on the CONCUPISCIBLE appetites. This is why he talks almost exclusively about people in terms of their MATERIAL WEALTH. The Poor, The Poor, The Poor. Not the Poor IN SPIRIT, because that encompasses BOTH the concupiscible and irascible appetites. No, with him, being a Peronist-Fascist, which is a subset of Marxism, the world and human beings are framed completely by the concupiscible SENSE appetites. So, give “the poor” more free stuff. The biggest problems in the world today are “youth unemployment” and “the loneliness of old people” – NOT sin or the consequences of sin, namely the loss of heaven and eternal damnation to hell, which are supernatural realities.

What this skewed emphasis on the Concupiscible Appetites leads to, as we see with Francis, is Materialism, which then feeds selfishness, pride and the gaping maw of the ego. Me, me, me. I want to get to go up to Communion like everyone else, because I FEEL excluded. I refuse to believe that anything that makes a person “FEEL GOOD”, including adultery, contraception, fornication and sodomy, could possibly be a sin, because me, me, me, me. But enough about me. Let’s talk about ME. If I give you free stuff, or tell other people that they should give you free stuff, and if I tell you that your sins aren’t sins and OF COURSE you can come up and have Communion because that will make you FEEL good, and then you will like ME! Because who cares about virtue and carrying crosses. Blah, blah, blah. No one wants to hear about sin and judgment and hell and redemptive suffering and old-fashioned Catholic nonsense like that. The only way for man to achieve happiness and thus perfection, is through MATERIAL WEALTH.

This kowtowing to the Sense Appetites to the specific exclusion of the Virtuous Appetites generates the adoration of the teeming throngs (aka “economic units”) and thus feeds the pride and ego, which is the goal of the morally crippled man.

ONE WAY ---- JESUS BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Suspected source material found here.
---------------------------------------

(There is a ferocity to those who view their job as "defenders of the true doctrine." They are always vigilant, prowling around looking for the slightest deviation from the faith as they see it, then pouncing with full force upon the heretical.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of false teaching out there, and the forces of apostasy and compromise are clearly gathering against the Church. But our pure doctrine will not save us. Nor will these doctrinal policemen be necessarily commended by the Father. Ours is a life-giving faith, where by the power of the Holy Spirit we live lives of prayer, worship, and The Word.

In the below article we see that the author picks out some targets, and based on third-hand information issues condemnation against certain pastors. I doubt the author has actually done any substantial investigation himself. I doubt that he contacted the ministries in question for clarification. And I doubt that the author is interested in helping these pastors in any way. 

I need to note that I am not posting this to defend these men. But notice the theme adopted by the author, that these men are in error for not knowing the hearts and minds of men. 

Read on:
-------------------------------------------------------

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven, the only way to have sins forgiven, the only way to be reconciled to God. Why do so many so-called Christian preachers deny this as the truth?

T.D. Jakes

Question to T. D. Jakes: "Do you feel only Christians could hope to enter Heaven?"

Answer: "When it comes to Heaven, I try to leave that up to God. I certainly believe that Christianity is right, but when it comes to the final test--who goes and who doesn't go -- Jesus said, Other sheep have I who are not of this fold. Them also must I bring. I'll let Him identify who those sheep are and I stay out of the conversation.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him,"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Jesus says He is the only way to Heaven. Preacher Jakes say he has no idea if that is correct. (Pastor Jakes DID NOT say that. He made a very honest observation that it is God's job. Indeed, no one gets to decide who is Christian and who is not. We are not qualified! We might be very surprised at who we find in heaven. Mt. 7:21: “Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." 

And what are we to believe about Abraham? He was not a "Christian." but Paul tells us that same way that we enter heaven, "by faith," is what commended Abraham to God: "This is why 'it was credited to him as righteousness.' The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." Rom. 4:22-24 

It is clear that the nature and scope of salvation is not so cut-and-dried. Does one need to believe that Jesus died for our sins, and he is the only way to salvation? Yes. Does that mean that thinking you are Christian means you are saved? No. 

One last thing. Jakes said this in 2007. Is there any possibility that Jakes has said something since that might clarify this remark, or show he has evolved on the issue, or perhaps, has changed is viewpoint? Well, we will never know this if the issue is left to the author to discover.)

He cannot say for sure if Jesus is the only way to Heaven. How can a preacher of the gospel not know what Jesus said concerning who is going to Heaven?

Who are the other sheep? (John 10:1-16) The sheep Jesus was talking about were the Jews who were believing and confessing that He was the Son of God. The other sheep are all Gentiles who believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

The sheep of Jesus (Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.) The sheep of Jesus are all who accept Him as the Son of God, Lord and Savior. All converted Jews and Gentiles are the sheep of Jesus.

Joel Osteen

(I offer no defense of Osteen's squishy lack of certainty.) Larry King question: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

Joel Osteen: You know I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know...

Larry King: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong aren't they?

Joel Osteen: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know about their religions. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to a relationship with Jesus.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jesus said those who do not believe have already been judged. Joel Osteen says He doesn't know if non-believers will go to heaven or not. Joel says he does not know if they wrong in their unbelief.

Billy Graham

Robert Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Billy Graham: well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there's the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ...I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out people for His name. And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven."

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him"

The Apostle John said that the that wrath of God abides in those who do not believe in Jesus and who do not obey Him. Billy Graham disagrees. (That remains to be seen. Inelegantly expressed, perhaps, but it is clear that Graham believes that there are people who might not seem like Christians, yet they believe and are saved.) Who are you going to trust?

You will notice that preachers who deny that Jesus is the only way to heaven say. "I do not know if Jesus is the only way, but I think I know more of the truth than God."

John 8:24 'Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins;for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.''

Jesus said men will die in theirs if they do not confess Him. Some preachers say, I don't think so.

Mark 16:16 He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

A question remains, did those who proclaimed that Jesus is not the only way to heaven stop believing Jesus was the only way, first or did they declare that water baptism was not essential to be saved, first?

The gospel should be based on what the Bible teaches, what Jesus said, what the apostles taught. The gospel of what MEN think is no gospel at all!

My near death experience

Written  9/10/02

Having experienced a "near death" event a few weeks ago, I have learned a few things about myself and my faith. It really didn't hit me for some time that I had nearly died. I was in a very serious situation. Maybe it was the peace that surpasses understanding, or maybe I was not thinking too clearly as it was happening, but I just wasn't afraid.

I still don't know what caused my allergic reaction, but I do know that I was going downhill fast until my son prayed for me. I refuse to second guess myself as to what it was I ate or inhaled or what insect bit me. I have to remind myself to not live in fear.

Life is so fleeting, so temporary. It can be snatched away in a split second. However, I have come to realize that something cannot be taken from me if it doesn't belong to me. Scripture says that I died, and my life is now hidden in Christ. I should fix my heart and my mind on heavenly things. This is a reality check from God.

Paul taunts death in 1 Corinthians when he quotes the psalmist: "Death, where is your sting?" In other places he makes it clear that death is meaningless to him (To live is Christ, to die is gain). The grave has no power over God's children! I suspect that what motivates a lot of the self-improvement movement, with its diets, exercise programs, plastic surgeries, and obsession with self is the fear of death.

Therefore, we should not fear death, but beyond that, we should fully embrace life "in Christ." The life I live is really Christ living in me. As I pursue understanding of being "in Christ," or even, asking "in His name," I realize more and more that I need to obtain His heart and see through His eyes. 

Nothing changes dead flesh, but He transforms my spirit. That was the part of me that was dead but He made alive. Someday, this physical body will catch up to the spiritual reality, but for now I would rather nurture my spirit life.

The flesh is what I am commanded to put to death. Improving it is an impossibility. I am the same old guy if I lose 20 pounds or not. But Jesus transforms the real me into something that is pleasing to God. God accepts me into His family, and now I have abundant life, an inheritance, and a hope. 

So, now I have gained a fresh perspective. My life keeps getting better as I come into His presence and allow His glory and beauty to permeate me. I begin to stop the charade of the old man who is dead and start living the reality of Christ. The more I give up, the more I gain.

Here is a song I wrote the day after my "near death" experience:

1) HERE IN THE QUIET PLACE, AS I BEHOLD YOUR FACE;

MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

I FALL UPON MY KNEES, I WORSHIP YOU MY KING;

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

(CHORUS) GOD OF GLORY, AWESOME, HOLY; HIGH ABOVE ALL ELSE!

HOLY, HOLY, YOU ARE HOLY; THERE IS NONE LIKE YOU!

2) I OFFER YOU MY LIFE; AS A LIVING SACRIFICE

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

TAKE MY BODY, TAKE MY WILL, AND I WILL PRAISE YOU STILL;

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER WITH YOU.

(REPEAT CHORUS AND GO TO BRIDGE)

(BRIDGE) STANDING IN YOUR PRESENCE, BOWING AT YOUR FEET;

ALL I WANT IS MORE OF YOU!

LORD, I LONG TO SEE YOU, WANT TO KNOW YOU MORE;

THE SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY, "COME!"

3) I’M GOING TO RUN THE RACE, MOVING ON IN FAITH

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER.

YOU ARE FAITHFUL THROUGH THE YEARS, YOU WIPE AWAY MY TEARS;

AND MY LIFE KEEPS GETTING BETTER WITH YOU.

TONGUES AND SALVATION? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is unfortunate that we are forced to rebut this man again. He seems to mean well. As such, we have no intention of piling on a brother in Christ for his errant views, but when all the world can see your post, you better make sure that you aren't embarrassing yourself.
-------------------------------------------

There is a view that salvation has to be validated by the evidence of speaking in tongues. (We are not aware of a significant number of people who equate salvation with speaking in tongues. However, many charismatics do suggest that that baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues. We hold neither of these views. Our position is that salvation, the filling of the Holy Spirit, and any variety of gifts imparted, can and and do occur at separate times.) 

Top 10 Solutions to Cut Poverty and Grow the Middle Class - by Rebecca Vallas and Melissa Boteach

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------------

Here we have another economically clueless article purporting to solve poverty. Read on:
----------------------------------------

This post first appeared at TalkPoverty.

Last month, the US Census Bureau released its annual figures on income, poverty and health insurance. It revealed that four years into the economic recovery, economic insecurity remains widespread, and low — and middle — income workers have seen no significant wage growth over the past decade. (This is why I used the word "clueless." If we are really in a recovery, how is it that the poor and middle class haven't recovered? Definitionally, in order to have a recovery, people need to be recovering, don't they?)

With the poverty rate at an unacceptable 14.5 percent and economic inequality stuck at historically high levels, one might assume that chronic economic insecurity and an off-kilter economy are the “new normal” — that nothing can be done to fix it. (More evidence there is no recovery.)

But there is nothing “normal” or inevitable about more than 45 million Americans living in poverty. It is the direct result of policy choices. With different policy choices, we will see a more equitable economy — it’s as simple as that. (So here is the identified problem, wrong policy choices. In other words, improving the economy, and therefore, the plight of the poor, is centered on what policies government implements. Government action is the only consideration.)

Here are 10 steps Congress can take to cut poverty, boost economic security and expand the middle class. (Ok, so government action is required. You might asssume that these 10 government actions required will be new ideas, things that have not yet been tried. You would be wrong.)

1) Create jobs.

The best pathway out of poverty is a well-paying job. To get back to prerecession employment levels, we (The ubiquitous "we,: which is never "you and I." "We" is government.) 

must create 5.6 million new jobs. To kick-start job growth now, the federal government (See? "We" is government.) 

should invest (Which means, "spend taxpayer money on.") 

in our infrastructure by rebuilding our bridges, railways, roads, ports, schools and libraries, neighborhood parks and abandoned housing; expanding broadband; develop renewable energy sources; and make other commonsense investments that create jobs and boost our national economy. (This is exactly what the stimuli were supposed to fund, remember? Shovel-ready jobs? crumbling infrastructure? This recommendation is exactly what all those billions of dollars were spent on, and yet the number one recommendation is to simply do it again. Maybe this brand new approach will work this time, hmmm?) 

Has Your Bible Become A Quran? - by Fr. Stephen Freeman

Interesting and informative. Originally found here. 

The most notable thing I take issue with is the author's statement "submission is not a word that passes the lips of Christ," which suggests that we need only be concerned with what Jesus Himself said. There is no precedent for such an idea, however, for then we would be perfectly justified in ignoring Paul's epistles or anything else that did not record Jesus's words. That of course is unacceptable. 

I concede that the author is correct about us becoming united with Christ and becoming children of God, but he wrongly diminishes submission. Indeed, "Christianity is not submission," but submission is critical to Christianity. It's a theme that is found over and over.

Ep. 5:24 "Now as the church submits to Christ..." 

He. 5:7: "During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." 

He. 12:9: "Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" 

Ja. 4: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

Read on:
-----------------------------------------------

Those who engage in debates on a regular basis know that the argument itself can easily shape the points involved. This is another way of saying that some debates should be avoided entirely since merely getting involved in them can be the road to ruin. There are a number of Christian scholars (particularly among the Orthodox) who think that the classical debates between Christians and Muslims during the Middle Ages had just such disastrous results for Christian thinking.

Now when engaging in religious debates it is all too easy to agree to things that might make for later problems. It is possible, for example, to agree to a comparison of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and the Book of the Quran. After all, Muslims have a holy book – Christians have a holy book. Why should we not debate whose holy book is better?

It is even possible to agree with the Muslim contention that Christians (and Jews) are “People of the Book.” Of course Muslims meant that Christians and Jews were people of aninferior book, but were somehow better than pagans. Again, it is possible, nevertheless, to let the matter ride and agree that Christians are “People of the Book.”

And it is also possible to give wide latitude to the Muslim claim that the most essential matter with regard to God is “Islam,” that is “submission.” After all, if God is the Lord of all creation, then how is submitting to Him, recognizing and accepting that He is God, not the most important thing?

But each of these proposals had disastrous results in the history of Christianity and may very well be the source of a number of modern distortions within the Christian faith.

Thus, at the outset I will state:
The Bible is not the Christian Holy Book.
Christians (and Jews) are not People of the Book.
Submission to God is not a proper way to describe the Christian faith

INHERIT ORIGINAL SIN? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

(I covered the author's previous missive about this very same subject here. We are revisiting this because the author makes some new assertions worthy of examination.
---------------------------------

If the false doctrine of original sin is true how would Christian parents pass it on to their children? (I really don't think the author actually understands the doctrine of fallen creation, as I prefer to call it. As I noted before, all of creation was corrupted by the sin of Adam [Rom. 8:20-22], and Jesus' sacrifice reversed the curse of the law: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us..." Ga. 3:13

So his question becomes nonsensical, because everyone is born as a fallen man and is in need of redemption from the curse.) 


Ephesians 5:25-27...just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. (NKJV)

How would it be possible for the church to be holy without blemish and be able to pass the inherited guilt of Adam's sin to children of Christian parents? (Persisting in his nonsensical questioning, the author extends his scope to include the entire Body of Christ. Making the "problem" bigger doesn't change the answer.)

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said , "Behold The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (NKJV)

Does Jesus take away all sin except original sin? He did not die for original sin. Original sin inherited by men is not found in the Bible. (Going from nonsensical to the ridiculous, the author bifurcates sin into categories as if Christ died for one kind of sin but not another. However, there is no need to make these artificial distinctions. In Rom. 3:19-28, Paul gives us the nature of sin, the universality of sin, how we came to know that we are sinners, and the remedy for sin: 

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. 

"He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

What the author doesn't seem to understand is that sin is a condition, a state of being. It is not only what we do or think or believe. It is our nature as part of fallen creation.) 

Praying vs doing - FB Conversation

This prayer request was posted by a FB friend. Don't get me wrong, praying is a good thing, but please note that every comment is an agreement to pray with no one actually stepping up to help.

I am not wanting to toot my own horn here. But it's the way I think about things that causes me to respond with actual help. 

It seems to me that the world's thinking has infiltrated the church. We have acclimatized ourselves into thinking that it's other peoples' responsibility to help. Send them to Love, INC. Send them to government. Send them to a shelter or a charity. But under no circumstances get out your checkbook, or your hammer and saw.

You can put a stamp of spirituality on things by praying, and so relieved yourself of further responsibility. In reality we should pray, but we don't need to pray about stuff for which there is already an answer. "God, should I feed the hungry?" is a as nonsensical prayer as "God, should I commit adultery?" 

We need to remember that the hungry, the afflicted, the poor, and the orphan have a special place in God's heart. Mistreatment of the weak gets God's dander up. "

He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the 

children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." 

Ps. 72:4

So by all means, pray. But get off your butt and do something about it.

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

J.C.: Please pray I have three friends who need miracles. Their power is being shut off, Rent behind, Cars are breaking down and can't pay for repairs and their phones are going to be shut off.

M.M.: I know of some and feel so helpless because things are tight for us also.

J.C.: I know it's kinda crazy

J.F.: We know a God who give us miracles every day Amen! Prayers that way

L.F.: In jesus name we claim all miracles be supplied, for this family and many others around the valley too, amen

M.B.: Agreeing with you ladies for the many families struggling.

C.W.: J.C., you are such an awesome prayer warrior for others & yourself. Thank you for storming the gates of heaven & getting others to storm with you

Me: Have them contact me, I'll help them.

Me: Raised $200 so far. Anyone else want to chip in?

Corporation are not people - letter by Alanna K. Brown

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

What always strikes me about the Left when they talk about issues like economics is how incredibly colorblind they are. They are content to regurgitate talking points they read on Leftist websites, despite what must be a painful cognitive dissonance. Read on:

-------------------------------
What is so striking about our current political atmosphere is the utter denial by True Believers of the failure of the Voodoo economics of the Conservative Movement of the last 35 years. (Let's note for the record that Reagan left office 25 years ago, and we have had both Republicans and Democrats as president since then. "Voodoo economics," aka "trickledown," has not been in operation since then, if it ever really was. 

But more importantly, with the exception of 1995-1998 and 2001-2007, Democrats have been in control of Congress, and frequently with a Democrat president. It is Congress that has sole constitutional authority to appropriate and spend taxpayer dollars. So let's affix blame were it belongs. Leftist fiscal policies have continued unabated for decades, with only mild mitigation for brief periods. The big spenders, mostly Democrat, but with a number of complicit RINOs, have led this country to its financial devastation.)

Why History isn't Scientific (or, atheists are historically illiterate) - By Tim O'Neill

(This is a guest post I was invited to write for the atheist blog Deity Schmeity. Regular readers of Armarium Magnum or of my answers on Quora will recognise the general themes).


"History sucks."

In April last year Grundy, the usual writer of this blog, posted "History Isn't My Area", commenting on the release of Bart Ehrman's critique of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike the majority of actual historians, many prominent atheists find Jesus Mythicism convincing and many of them are unhappy with the generally sceptical and highly renowned Ehrman for criticising this idea. Grundy, for his part, stated frankly "I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed", though added "I tend to think he did". That said, he made it clear why the overwhelming consensus of historians and other relevant scholars that the Jesus Myth idea is junk was underwhelming for him:

"History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?"

Since history actually is my area, I responded by making some critical comments on this attitude and some points about how history , as an academic discipline, is studied. Grundy, unlike many so-called "rationalists" I've encountered over the years, was happy to listen, and he invited me to expand on my points in this guest post.


Atheists and Historical Illiteracy

I should begin, however, by pointing out that I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for my entire adult life, am a paid up member of several atheist and sceptical organisations and have a 21 year online record of posting to discussions as an unbeliever. I note this because I've found that when I begin to criticise my fellow atheists and their grasp of history or historiography, people tend to assume I must be some kind of theist apologist (which doesn't follow at all, but this happens all the time anyway).

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

This is hardly surprising, given that most people don't study history past high school. But it means their understanding of any given historical person, subject or event is (like that of most people), based on half-remembered school lessons, perhaps a TV documentary or two and popular culture: mainly novels and movies. Which is why most atheists (like most people) have a grasp of history which is, to be brutally frank, largely crap.

Worse, this also means that most atheists (again, like most people) have a grasp of how history is studied and the techniques of historical analysis and synthesis which is also stunted at high school level - i.e. virtually non-existent. With a few laudable exceptions, high school history teachers still tend to reduce history to facts and dates organised into themes or broad topics. How we can know what happened in the past, with what degree of certitude we can know it and the techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are rarely more than touched on at this level. This means that when the average atheist (yet again, like the average person generally) grasps that our knowledge of the past is not as cut and dried and clear as Mr Wilkins the history teacher gave us to understand, they tend to reject the whole thing as highly uncertain at best or subjective waffle at worst. Or, as Grundy put it, as "crap".

This rejection can be more pronounced in atheists, because many (not all) come to their atheism via a study of science. Science seems very certain compared to history. You can make hypotheses and test them in science. You can actually prove things. Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable. Compared to science, history can seem like so much hand-waving, where anyone can pretty much argue anything they like.


History and Science

In fact, history is very much a rigorous academic discipline, with its own rules and methodology much like the hard sciences. This does not mean it is a science. It is sometimes referred to as one, especially in Europe, but this is only in the broader sense of the word; as in "a systematic way of ordering and analysing knowledge". But before looking at how the historical method works, it might be useful to look at how sciences differ from it.

ARE MEN CREATED TOTALLY DEPRAVED? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

According to Calvinism all men are born guilty of the sin of Adam, and therefore are born totally depraved. (We note here the first assertion: Men are born depraved because of the sin of Adam. However, this assertion is different than his title question. there is a difference between being born and being created.)

Psalms 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. (NASB)

God did not create David totally depraved. God does not create people guilty of sin in the womb of their mother. (So, the first Scripture offered as proof that men are not born totally depraved does not speak of sin, it speaks of the wonder of creation. Interestingly, David himself was able to make that distinction: "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.” - Ps 51:5)

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB)

God's image is not that of a totally depraved person that is guilty of sin. God is still creating men today in His image. (OK, so the second Scripture offered tells us we have been made in the image of God. That is, we have a spiritual nature, created by God, which reflects His nature. But something happened after that, when corruption entered the world after Adam and Eve sinned. 

All of creation fell, not just man himself: "Ge. 3:17b: “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life." And Ro. 8:20-22: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

Even Paul recognized he was a slave to this fallen nature: 

Ro. 7:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what good, but I cannot carry it out."

It was Christ who redeemed us, not just by taking our sin, but also dealing with the curse of the law: 

Ga. 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" [Deut. 21:23] 

Jesus' death that reversed the curse, and His resurrection that gives us life in His presence: 

Re. 22:3: "No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him."

We see this over and over in Scripture, that death came through Adam, and life through Christ:

Ro. 7:5: "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,  the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death."

Ro. 8:3: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man..."

1 Co. 15:21-22: "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a ma n. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 

Ga. 5:24: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."

Col. 2:13-15: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

We therefore are commanded to take off the sinful nature and live in the new life we've been given:

Col. 3:9-10: "Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."

Ro. 8:13-14 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

How to fix Obamacare - The Economist

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

It is very nearly astonishing that the Left-leaning Economist would even admit there is anything wrong with the ACA. Generally speaking, the Left has steadfastly refused to even consider that their heroic legislation had even the slightest flaw, preferring instead to vilify detractors as being in favor of sick people.

So let's see if the Economist is able to accurately represent both the law and its flaws.
--------------------------------------

America’s health-care system remains dysfunctional, but it could be made better (The subtitle contains a subtle leftist meme, "America's health-care system," which suggests that it is an entity as opposed to an industry.)


It is now nearly a year since the roll-out of Obamacare. The launch was a shambles, and Obamacare is a totem for every American who hates big government. Republicans will deride it, yet again, in the mid-term elections. (The implication is that Republicans are out of bounds for being anti-ACA, and that they should shut up about it.)

Obamacare is indeed costly and overcomplicated. (And ineffective and ill-conceived and punitive and...) 

Yet it is not to blame for America’s health mess, (Let's see what the author says is to blame.)

and it could just contain the beginnings of a partial solution to it. But that will only happen if politicians treat health care like a patient: first, diagnose the disease, then examine whether Barack Obama’s treatment helped, and then ask what will make the patient better. (This is a job for politicians? Really? The same politicians who created the mess?)

A quick check-up

Begin with the disease. At the core of America’s problems with health care is a great delusion: it likes to think it has a vibrant private marketplace. (America thinks this? America is an entity with singular thoughts? In actual fact, very few, if any, think we have a "vibrant private marketplace." Almost everyone acknowledges that the healthcare system is broken. As we will see, the author likes to give unsupported assertions as if they were fact.) 

In fact the country has long had a subsidy-laden system that is the most expensive and complicated in the world, (This is what conservative have been complaining about for decades!) 

with much of the government cash going to the rich, (Unsupported assertion. Government healthcare cash went to the rich? What does this even mean?) 

millions of people left out and little individual responsibility. ( A free market, something we haven't had in decades, relies on individual responsibility. It is government intervention that has discouraged this and created our present problems. Healthcare has been heavily legislated and regulated, where government spent $.47 out of every healthcare dollar. Government forces insurance policy language and coverage, strictly limits choice, and dictates pricing and access. All of this is contrary to the free market.) 

America devotes 17% of GDP to health care, (Again note the implication that America is a singular entity, which "devotes" spending to this or that. The phrasing almost sounds like there's a deliberate allocation of America's collective money by some governing body.) 

compared with 9% in Britain, yet nearly 50m Americans were uninsured in 2012 and life expectancy is slightly below average for a rich country. And the taxpayer foots much of the bill: government health spending per head in 2012, before Obamacare’s main provisions took effect, was 50% higher than in Britain, which has a nationalised health system. Some spending, such as the huge Medicare programme for the elderly and Medicaid for the hard-up, is obvious. But much is opaque. (The author is swerving into the truth here. Much of the healthcare system operated totally outside the marketplace.)

Employer-sponsored coverage is tax exempt, costing the government at least $200 billion a year. (This is nonsense. Declining to tax something simply means those who were going to be taxed get to keep their money. This does not "cost" the government, as if government should tax something simply because it isn't. 

In addition, taxation does not happen in a vacuum. Taxes are an additional cost, which means money that could be spent elsewhere by those who actually possess it, gets turned over to the government instead. These economic effects filter all throughout the economy. And we know that taxation discourages the activity being taxed. That's the reason for tobacco taxes, isn't it? So if government taxed employer-provided health insurance benefits, fewer people would be insured, correct?)  

Democracy Alliance Political Action Network - A cadre of billionaires funding Democrats

Found here.

But the Koch brothers are the real problem...

SIGNS & MIRACLES? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Originally found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We need to give this guy some credit for his unabashed certainty about his positions. As you read his blog you will find an enthusiasm for his own perspective coupled with an implied "there is nothing more to say" underlying everything. 

We wish we could be so certain about our "perfect" doctrine. This is the intellectual legacy of the Greeks (1 Cor. 1:22), so much so that we are trapped by intellectualism and thus remain closed to the renewing of our minds.

Paul tells us in Ro. 11:33: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!" One thing that marks the beginning of our journey into the maturity in the faith begins when we finally admit we can't systematize God.  We can't figure Him out. He is so much more than we thought.

But all that is beside the point. Mr. Finnell is certain about a great many things, and being persuaded is not necessarily a bad thing. But God seems to delight in changing paradigms. Man thought one thing, God did another. Jesus said, "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." and completely overturned everything. He destroyed the Pharisees' intellectual systems, and provided a new paradigm, a Kingdom paradigm. 

An important part of the new paradigm is our need to walk according to the Spirit (Gal 5:25), to abandon the thinking of the world, to stop thinking like children (1 Cor 14:20). Which means that we must be open to God bringing revelation about the truth of Scripture. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand the Bible, and we certainly cannot know the truth if we cling to our ways of understanding. 

OK, enough of that. Let's get on to analyzing Mr. Finnell's myopic presentation:

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

Signs and miracles, are they present today? No, they are not! (An emphatic response. Will his presentation be as conclusive? We shall see.)

John 20:30-31 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The signs Jesus performed are written in Scripture. (This directly contradicts the quoted Scripture.)

We do not need new signs in order to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. (This is an unsupported assertion which is not addressed by the quoted Scripture. Further, Mr. Finnell's original question was, "...are signs and miracles present today," not, "do we need signs to believe..." Two separate topics for which answering the second does not illuminate the first.)

Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?

This was posted by a FB friend. I wanted to analyze it (or over-analyze it), because it has so many logical fallacies and Leftist tropes in it.

First, there's that ubiquitous use of the word "we," which is never you and me, it's always government. To be sure, it will require heavy-handed government intervention into the private sector, a fundamental rework of every facet of peoples' lives, and a substantial reduction in the standard of living of everyone, in order to achieve environmental nirvana. By "substantial," we mean grass huts and berries.

Second, it asks a false binary question: "Why do we have to choose between the environment and the economy?" The question actually is, how much pollution is acceptable as we live our lives? Because that's what we have to do, no matter how clean we try make things. Pollution will never be zero, so the real issue is how much is acceptable. Therefore, everyone is in favor of some pollution.

There is a growing clamor in the environmentalist movement to reduce fossil fuel usage to zero by 2050. In order to achieve this, oppressive measures will need to be undertaken, and those measures are not restricted to lifestyles.

Clearly the world's population in 2050, projected to be 9.6 billion, cannot exist without fossil fuels. A substantial reduction of the world's population must be achieved. Thus, many organizations are advocating universal birth control, but even that will not be enough.

At least there are some environmentalists who are being honest about their goals, a 90% reduction in humanity from present levels. Can you imagine, a population of 700 million? There are actually people out there who want to eliminate billions of people for the sake of the environment, and want to empower governments to achieve such a goal!

And yet, 700 million people still will pollute, so even for these extremists, some amount of pollution is still acceptable. Enter VHEMT, which is calling for our extinction. The only zero-pollution people in the debate, a perspective the even the most ardent environmentalist would recoil from, these are the true believers, willing to die for their god. At least they are all-in. You know, I think they should take the first step themselves to demonstrate their commitment to their ideals.

So the second question in the picture is, "Why not make the environment the economy?" In light of the above discussion, we can see this question is nonsensical. Setting aside the fact that "clean energy" is economically unfeasible, we can see from the above discussion that it isn't even the real solution environmentalists are seeking.

However, you can be sure that if the world's government totally bought in to the idea of windfarms and solar energy and then took over the entirety of the population's choices about how they will lead their lives, they would soon see they could not stop there. VHEMT's ideas might start looking good, and then who can stop them?

That is the problem with these government lovers, they invest totally in government's ability to do good, which eventually leads to the possibility of going the whole way. But you can be sure that someone will stop and say, "hey, why should we wipe out everybody? We are rich and we control everything. What a shame to waste all that wealth and have no one to enjoy it." Thus, utopia is achieved, and it only cost a few billion lives.

It is clear that the typical environmentalist has not thought through the ramifications of their ideology. I suspect many of them have good intentions, although there is no reason to dismiss the idea that the real agenda at work is the destruction of capitalism, ala Naomi Klein.

These people really don't like humans. They're anti-life. The love abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics, though they will never admit it. For many of them, the agenda is far reaching and fundamental. They don't like freedom, choice, prosperity, or happiness. Theirs is a utopian vision, where everyone but them is out.

Welcome to the new order, paradise on earth.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, hero - FB conversation

FB friend S.B. posted this:

Just a few seats left for tonight, a few more tomorrow

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Tickets - Cordiner Hall - Walla Walla, Wa - September 12th, 2014


A.V.: how are any tickets left???

S.B.: Yeah I don't understand either

Me: It may surprise you, but most people don't regard him as some sort of hero.

S.B.: A lot of folks do respect him a great deal Rich. He's been selling out larger venues in major cities with tickets going in excess of $200.

I sure can't draw crowds like that. Lol

K.J.: Anyone who can influence even one child to be interested in science and learning is a hero in my book.

D.C.: @Rich, Neil is not your hero. What he is an amazing critical thinker that can cut through the BS in pretty much anyone's flawed way of thinking. He is very good at taking what people incorrectly call Theories and turns them back into crackpot hypothesis that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What makes him a hero to many is that he has a talent many people wish they had. In that sense he is the same kind of a hero as "name your favorite sports player or political figure or religious personality".

Me: I did not say he was not my hero. There's no need to defend him since I did not criticize him. I simply pointed out that he's not everyone's hero. He can be yours, but I really don't care.

D.C.: @Rich, so you just went out of your way to point out the obvious? No one in the history of mankind is a hero to "most" people. If you really don't care, then why do you just post random pointless thoughts? (these points are rhetorical - no need to answer; you can just think about them before you post comments)

Me: I think I was clear that I don't care who YOU find to be a hero. More power to you. Nor do I really care what you consider pointless or obvious. But please feel free to police the thread for people who violate your sensibilities.

M.P.: @Rich I think what folks are reacting to is why you felt the need to mention his non-hero status to us all when nothing in the post or comments before your line claimed him to be such, to the world or an individual, yet you felt the need to "go there".

Me: Someone expressed astonishment that there were tickets left. I supplied a reason.

M.P.: No, you talked about hero status, not ticket status. People can like a show just because, not thinking they need to see a hero.

Me:  Feel free to parse and analyze my brief comment about a man who is regularly lionized. As Scott said, a lot of folks respect him a great deal, and he commands $200 ticket prices. But using the word "hero," well, that's just beyond the pale.

Today's lesson in Irony - Christian charity and welfare

Posted by FB friend R.E.:

Food for thought... excuse the Pun, I thought it was Punny!

C.C.: A little bias, There are legitimate need for food stamps as well as food banks. You should read up on Social Justice in a Christian context.

R.E.: But government programs are good if they aren't abused or they don't become dependent on them instead of use them while you are down on your luck. The old hand up instead of a hand out.

C.C.: True, There is some abuse, but Republicans seem to want to scrap the safety nets which is BS. They are despicable. Always wanting to balance their spending on the backs of the poor. A loaf of bread costs a rich man the same as a poor man. We always will have people who for whatever reason are unable to work. The solution is not to let them starve.

Me: Forcing some people to pay for others, no matter how needy, is abuse.

M.S.: Rich, would you not help out your neighbor if they were in need? Would you receive help from your neighbor if you were in need? We are all in this (life) together and everyone has the same basic needs, and for some, those needs are not being met. It is our duty as good human beings to assist those less fortunate.

Me: Agreed, M.S.. However, you have described something different. There is nothing compassionate about a government who by the use of force extracts money from some people and redistributes it to others. In fact, that is the opposite of compassion, because the government inserts itself into my compassion transaction, and chooses for me the time, place, and kind of exchange that will occur.

By way of illustration, if a person approaches you on the street and robs you, then gives the money to a poor person, is that compassionate? No, it's theft. If a group of people get together and vote to take money from you and then give it to the poor, is that compassion? No, that is also theft. A majority vote does not make theft moral or legitimate.

M.S.: Although I see your concern, most of the "1%" aren't spreading their wealth in compassionate ways or in sums that people are comfortable with. That is why there is a mandated "donation" in the form of tax. It's based under the assumption that people are greedy, and sadly, most people are.

Providence Is Remarkable - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long, meandering transcription (9361 words!), where the author attempts to make the case that cessationism does not lean towards deism. 

As is becoming increasingly apparent to us, cessationists content themselves with making unsupported assertions, and when they finally do quote a Scripture, they invariably try to make it say something it does not. Here  Mr. Johnson will quote Scripture to document ancillary claims, but none of them bolster any claim he makes the supposed difference between providence and the miraculous. Those claims are left undocumented.
--------------------------

One of the underlying presuppositions of the Charismatic world is that if God is not actively intervening in creation through miracles and signs and wonders and things like that, then you’ve got an absentee God. (Frankly, we've never heard this argument in charismatic circles. We suppose that if the author is citing it, it is his intent to suggest it is a widespread and common argument, so that he can set up a straw man to refute, and thus negate charismatics as a whole.

In addition, if the author is intent on explaining a Bible doctrine, the actions of other people are irrelevant to the biblical case.) 

If we don’t take the Charismatic position, they say, your God isn’t really there. (Who says this? We have never heard anyone say such a thing.)

Charismatics frequently (Frequently? How frequently? He does eventually cite some people who have perhaps done this, but the issue is not quite so cut-and-dried as he suggests.) 

lob this charge at non-Charismatics, that, you know, if you believe the miraculous Charismatic gifts have ceased, they say, then your view is a close cousin of deism, which is virtually a denial that God is present and at work in this world’s affairs. (Virtually? And how close is "close cousin?" 

Does the author intend to refute those who say that cessationism can be in some ways similar to deism, or does he instead intend to refute a supposed belief that cessationists are deists? There's a substantial difference.

Regardless, if author intends to refute either of these positions, We'll certainly examine his arguments, but his loose language and attempt to paint with a broad brush is not giving us confidence that he will make his case.

By the way, we googled the cessation-deism connection to see if we could find how widespread this line of thought is. We found precious little.)

If you doubt whether today’s Charismatics are truly speaking in tongues, and getting direct revelation from God, they (Each and every one... The reader will note the swerving back and forth between general and absolute terms.) 

will tell you that your skepticism is tantamount to materialistic rationalism. It’s essentially a form of rank unbelief. That’s because the only way (Absolutes.)

the typical Charismatic (Back to a generalization.) 

can envision God as active and personal is as if He is constantly (Back to absolutes.) 

displaying His presence in creation by miraculous means, you know, through constant, direct extra-biblical revelation or with supernatural signs and wonders in the heavens. And they think if He’s not doing that, then He’s not there. (Absolutes again. 

So really, do charismatics all think this? How does he know what people are thinking? Who has used language like what he has described, and why is it representative of what all charismatics say?)

That way of thinking comes dangerously close to the Gnostic notion that that’s how God is. (Now the author flings back a charge at charismatics, equally undocumented. It's almost like, "You calling me a deist? Well, you're a Gnostic. Take that!")

He stands outside His creation and therefore if He acts at all, it must be from outside the cosmos by overturning the natural order of things. And if you think I exaggerate, let me quote some fairly typical sources. (Ok, now we get some "typical sources." That is, prominent representatives of the charismatic line of thought, we should hope.

But more to the point, is Mr. Johnson going to actually explain providence?)

Here’s one from a blog post written by Dave Miller who is senior pastor of a Southern Baptist church in Sioux City, Iowa. (Who?) 

He actually edits fairly heavily blog (sic) known as SBC Voices, and he is a former cessationist and he wrote this article titled, “God told me that the Bible does not teach cessationism.” (How about a link, sir?)

I think he’s being…I think he’s trying to be humorous there, I don’t think he really means God sent him a private message on that. Maybe he does.

He cites some of the standard Charismatic arguments and then in a summary at the end of his article, he writes this, quote: (A quote is coming up from someone who is supposedly a representative opinion of the charismatic position. 

Thankfully, this documentation [albeit sparse] allows us to analyze the presentation to see if it jibes with Mr. Johnson's representation. Indeed, we will find that the author's claims about Miller are inaccurate and diversionary.)

“I think that some (First we notice, "some." Not all.) 

in the cessationist movement have adopted what I call biblical deism. (Miller has created a neologism, biblical deism, the concepts of which must be examined on their own merits. It is not enough to dismiss Miller as though he had asserted that deism and cessationism are synonymous. Miller quite clearly doesn't do this.) 

Deism believed in an impersonal God, one who created the world and then stood back and let it operate according to certain principles. Biblical deism creates a somewhat ("Somewhat." Not "exactly like.") 

impersonal God today. He does not walk with me and talk with me.”

And he sort of gratuitously tacks on a throwaway line in his closing paragraph saying that his criticism of cessationists was intended, these are his words, “was intended playfully, not in a belittling way.” But it’s clear that he’s seriously equating cessationism (Well, no. He's drawing comparisons. Unlike the author, who makes broad absolute statements about charismatics, Miller is looking at similarities.

These kinds of comparative analyses are certainly acceptable ways of drawing conclusions.) 

with the underlying principles of deism and we don’t really have a God, these are his words again, A God who is personal, who speaks and listens and enters in to relationship with us.