Three Reasons God is a Cessationist - by Jordan Standridge

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

As has become our custom, we shall examine these claims for cessationism. Our criteria for a successful defense of cessationism: 

1. Biblically-based
2. Does not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Does not appeal to silence
4. Does not appeal to events of history

Let's see how Mr. Standridge does.

Principles regarding worship songs

Principle 1: A worship song is an expression to God, and best addresses Him in the first person. Songs that address the people ("How great is our God, sing with me..."), while they might contain elements of worship, are generally not worship songs.

FB meme, Democracy vs. a Republic

A FB friend shared this, and a dishonest interlocutor chimed in.

On Emotionalism and the Gospel - by Joshua Jenkins

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

We think Mr. Jenkins regards emotional responses in church as a bad thing, but he doesn't explain why. He doesn't give parameters for what constitutes "excessive" emotionalism. He doesn't tell us how emotionalism can be differentiated from a real touch from God.

Although emotion is a natural physical expression, for most reformed/ conservative Christians it is a unholy. This is what the author's case is built upon, an assumption.

The author neither quotes nor references any Scripture at all. None. We wonder how a supposed Bible teacher manages to completely avoid the Bible.

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

Many Christians have likely experienced emotionalism - the moments at various worship services and events when excessive focus is placed on a person's emotions. (We wonder what he considers "excessive.")

Often, you will see it in places where “decisions” or “worship experiences” are elevated above proper worship of God or, quite frankly, above the gospel. ("Often." Will the author cite examples?)

In its ugliest forms, the leader attempts to manipulate the congregation’s emotions to meet whatever their end goal is. and emotional atmospheres are dubbed “a move of the Holy Spirit.” (Yet again the author offers a loose accusation. Will he back it up?)

Meta-bigotry - By Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.

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

Sophistry is the attempt to persuade someone of some proposition or policy by the use of fallacious arguments. What I have called meta-sophistry involves accusing others of fallacies or of sophistry in a manner that is itself fallacious or sophistical. The meta-sophist cynically deploys labels like “sophist” as a rhetorical device by which he might smear and discredit an opponent. Where the opponent’s arguments can easily be read in a way that involves no commission of fallacies, the meta-sophist will instead opt for a less charitable reading so as to facilitate the accusation that the opponent is a sophist. Because the meta-sophist poses precisely as a foe of sophistry and fallacious argument and as a friend of reason, his brand of sophistry is especially insidious. He is like the politician who makes the loud condemnation of sleazy politicians a useful cover for his own sleaziness. (As I have documented many times over the years – e.g.here, here, and here – “New Atheist” writers are paradigmatic meta-sophists.)

The Shack - heretical? FB Conversation

Facebook is a rich treasure trove of people who might be intelligent but are unable to think through things. Here a FB friend Karen posted how much she liked the Shack movie, and one of her friends posted a quote by the author William Paul Young as supposed proof that he is a heretic.

I should note that I am not making any claim about Mr. Young's theology apart from the supplied quote.

Science can be trusted, scientists cannot - FB conversation

A post by a FB friend.

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

shared Skepticus's video.

March 14 at 9:29pm ·

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

How the System Got Broken, and Why It Can’t Be Fixed - BY NEAL GABLER

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

The author is being astonishingly ironic here. The Left has always hated the Constitution, except when it can be made to serve their purposes. The Constitution is racist. Obama doesn't like it because it outlines "negative rights," and doesn't empower government with a list of must do's. The electoral college is bad. Free speech is bad. The Second Amendment is bad. Using the military is bad.

We are forced to conclude that there is not much of the Constitution that the Left likes. Yet here we have a leftist complaining about the Constitution they hate as being broken, and perpetrated by, you guessed it, the Republicans and Trump. Hmm.

And by the way, the Left wants it broken. If it's broken it can be blamed for society's ills. And if it can be blamed, it must be replaced by a better system, i.e., socialism...
-----------------------

The electoral failure of the Left

The Left still hasn't figured out what happened to them. They lost, and lost badly. Nationwide, more than 1000 offices shifted Republican since 2010.

First, they lost by being unable to articulate reasoned responses to criticism. Unable to formulate an argument, their first, and often only, technique is hysterical invective.

But name-calling, screaming, and protesting doesn't work anymore. There's only so many times people can be called racists or haters before they say, "Why should I care what you think?" People aren't withering away anymore when you call them vile names. They are tired of hiding from you hateful leftists, and are now proudly coming out as Americans.

Second, the Left lost lost because they were unable to explain how doing more of what they are doing will change the results of what they had already done. They're left defending the status quo, a nine decade legacy of failure, economic, moral, and political devastation, unequaled in world history.

They're doing their level-best to maintain the failed systems and programs of yesteryear, yet they call themselves progressives.

How to Fake an Islamophobia Crisis - by Daniel Greenfield

Found here. Great expose' of a fake civil rights group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

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

Look out! It’s another fake Islamophobia crisis.

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

Charitable nonprofits shouldn’t become political - By Mary Peterson

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

I write today as board chair for the Montana Nonprofit Association (MNA), a membership organization representing more than 600 nonprofits across Montana.

A threat to Montana’s charitable nonprofits recently emerged at the federal level. Legislation was introduced to politicize nonprofits through the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. For 60 years this amendment – put in place by Dwight Eisenhower - has successfully protected charitable nonprofits, religious congregations, and foundations from being hounded for political endorsements, financial contributions and more. (Notice the less-than-clever phraseology. The Johnson Amendment FORBIDS non-profits from engaging in certain kinds of speech. It PREVENTS non-profits from spending their money on certain things. It DICTATES the behavior of non-profits.

Most certainly, the Johnson Amendment does not protect non-profits from anything.)

The Trinity, heresies, and the use of language

After yesterday's Facebook conversation about TD Jakes and his supposed heresy, I got to thinking about the Trinity and what constitutes heresy.

Before I go further, I need to be clear: What is revealed to us about God, His nature, and His plan of salvation is plain and available to us in the Scriptures. There is no lack of clarity here.

It is one thing to assert that the use of certain words or the embrace of certain ideas about doctrines might be problematic. It is an entirely different thing to question the salvation status of a person who deviates ever so slightly from our doctrine. Since none of us has perfect doctrine, indeed, since perfect doctrine is not a requirement for salvation (if such a thing were possible), we should be slow to dismiss someone who has ideas different than our own.

My first thought is that over the years I have gotten more skeptical about "systematic theology." Not that I doubt its utility, but more like, it seems to me to be a futile exercise to attempt to reduce an infinite God down to a series of precepts and definitions.

We have a western cultural mindset, which is characteristically binary. That is, we tend to reduce ideas down to an either-or situation. A lot of hand wringing has resulted from this. For example, if God is love, how can he permit suffering is a binary statement that supposedly creates an conflict. If God knows everything, then how can we have free will is another. I'm sure you can think of many of these as well.

TD Jakes is not a Modalist - FB Conversation

Posted by a FB friend.

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

NOT a MAN of God or a man after Gods heart.

Link.

T.D. Jakes Comes Out for ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘LGBT Churches,’ Says Position is ‘Evolving’

Megachurch leader and author T.D. Jakes says that homosexuals should attend congregations that affirm their lifestyle and that politics do not need to reflect…

CHRISTIANNEWS.NET

Me: With all due respect, it's pretty clear he's telling gays to find a church that agrees with them as opposed to them trying to change a church to their viewpoint.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul C: True Rich, but isn't that a cop-out? He's just decided that the truth of the Word of God isn't worth sharing with the gay community so send them to an "affirming" congregation to continue to hear the lies that the lifestyle is OK.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Me: Where did he decide the word of God isn't worth sharing? I don't see any comment about that. He's making comments about gays in churches.

The Left, including gays, infiltrate institutions, move into leadership, and then start changing the institutions into their own liking. We've seen this time and again. So I whole heartedly agree with Jakes. If you're gay and you don't like Bible believing churches, move on.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul C: He's told the gay community that it's best to go find a church that teaches that homosexuality is acceptable. It's sad that he has chosen to send them away instead of taking on the loving task of sharing the truth with them instead of being worried they would "take over" his congregations theology (which is in jeopardy already). If he isn't capable of sharing the truth in love with them, then he believes the TOTAL word of God is not worth sharing.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Me: You created a Category Error. Sending gays on their way rather than letting them divide Bible-believing churches has nothing to do with the "acceptability" of sodomites.

And you don't know that he's not "capable" of sharing the truth. You are speculating about a great many things from a very simple statement.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Paul C: Rich, I'm not speculating on anything. He's abdicating his role as a pastor/preacher/teacher by sending the sinner away from the truth. Show me how he IS capable if you disagree. All evidence, from his own mouth, show's he's either incapable, or doesn't care enough about them to help them out of that darkness. He's taking the easy way out instead of sharing the hard teachings of the Bible. BTW, I go to a church where homosexuals are welcomed as long as they are there to learn about Jesus, the Gospel and what it says about the lifestyle. There is a Biblical standard in place if any of them decide to try to divide us.

It's become easy for the Church in America to close it's doors to anyone different (by suggesting they go somewhere "affirming", it's the same thing) OR the church turns to a wet noodle and accepts everyone regardless of their theology. I'm thinking if Jesus were the pastor of a church in America today he wouldn't be suggesting they go find an "affirming" congregation. Would he? Or would He love them enough to keep them right where they are, loving them, teaching them the truth and helping them make more Bible following disciples out of their other lied-to gay friends.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr · Edited

Me: He is not abdicating anything. Again, the issue is narrow, and you're taking it way beyond its scope, inferring all sorts of things. He is quite right to protect his church from wolves.
Like · Reply · 18 mins

Paul C: And I see you're inferring that he is trying to protect his church from wolves which is not what the article said.
Like · Reply · Just now

Me: A reasonable inference: "if you don’t like those convictions and values [and] you totally disagree with it, don’t try to change my house, move into your own..."

Paul C: Rich, he himself said his belief system on homosexuality, has evolved and is evolving. So I don't think he's considering them wolves anymore
Write a reply...

Paul H: Evolves just like God's word, 'cause it living and active and stuff! He can affirm gays all he wants; his is a "church" of modalist heresy.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Paul H: Point being, regardless, he is not a man of the God of the Bible.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

Me: Jakes is no longer a modalist.



T.D. Jakes Embraces Doctrine of the Trinity, Moves Away from…
CHRISTIANITYTODAY.COM|BY CHRISTIANITY TODAY
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · 2 hrs

Me: I suspect that this kind of "evolving" is good, no?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul H: He is not a trinitarian according to the article. Calling the persons of the trinity "manifestations" still falls under modalism. He has not "evolved" at all, according to this article.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Me: Um, the title of the article?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Paul H: I like to actually read articles people post as possible correctives to my thinking. He may have answered Driscoll's questions in a manner satisfactory to Driscoll, who obviously did not bother to have Jakes define his terms, but his affirmations are shallow...as I said, he refers to the persons as manifestations, which term in and of itself is fraught with orthodox error, and in Jakes context, a very specific one.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Me: I point out where he's no longer a modalist, and rather than accept you were wrong, you move on to the next thing.

Jakes is influential. His move toward orthodoxy is excellent news (from 5 years ago, by the way), and frankly, we ought to celebrate.
Like · Reply · 1 hr

Paul H: Whatever. He is still a modalist. You didn't show me to be wrong at all.
Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Paul H: Potter's House belief statement on God: "There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The language of modalism.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

The One Thing Christians Should Stop Saying - By Scott Dannemiller

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

There are things we say casually that become a part of our language as Christians. They are not theological treatises, nor are they intended to portray the entirety of every thought on the subject. They are innocent expressions of general thoughts.

The author objects to one of these, on the basis that the expression is misleading and incomplete. He makes it sound like a grave sin or heresy, but it isn't.
------------------------

7 Signs of Tyranny - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich used to be interesting, then pedantic, and now he's finally ridiculous.

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

Proposal for carbon dividends smart for economy - By John Noreika

Letter found here. This is the organization. Amazingly similar to the Citizens' Climate Lobby. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------

As a former member of President Reagan’s Republican Senatorial Committee, I am enthusiastic about getting this new “Carbon Dividends” proposal before Chronicle readers. (Sorry to nitpick, but I have to stop and note that this common grammatical mistake grates on me. Whenever one writes an introductory clause in a sentence, it must connect to or form a basis to help understand what's coming next in the sentence. 

However, in this case the author is providing a fact about himself that is not related to the remainder of the sentence. That he was a member of a senatorial committee is completely irrelevant to the topic of the sentence, and in fact is misleading. One might think that he has some sort of official capacity as a former committee member, or that he has some sort of approval or mandate from this past membership, or that it lends credence to his position. None of this is true, of course.)

A leftist changes his mind about the Department of Education - FB conversation

A FB friend posted this, and a leftist objected. But... the leftist actually changed his mind when confronted with the evidence. This is a rare event indeed.

-----------------------
Yup time to dismantle Dept of Ed. Let states do the job. Let PTA's influence school education.

Like Show more reactions CommentShare Comments

Kyle  Uh... well all the countries we are trying to catch up to have a centralized, national organization in charge of standards. They also have a separation between religious motivation and education so that their system can be more inclusive. It's been a model for success and EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU AND THIS IDIOT ARE PROPOSING! Have we fallen so far that we just ignore what has proven successful?

Like · Reply · February 16 at 1:47pm

Rich  Like Latvia and Slovenia?

Like · Reply · February 16 at 1:56pm

Rich  http://fairreporters.net/.../the-best-education-systems.../

The Best Education Systems In The World In 2015 | Fair Reporters

FAIRREPORTERS.NET

Like · Reply · February 16 at 1:57pm

Kyle  Thanks for the info Rich. But, my point is that these countries all have a centralized organization nationally that oversees standards. The proposal to remove the Department of Education would merely diminish children in low income and disadvantaged areas from receiving education while funneling more money to more privileged people. I'm sorry, but appointing someone that is completely unqualified does not then allow excuse to dismantle the DOE. That's like taking a functioning engine, although one that needs work, and smashing it to pieces and saying, "see I told you it was broken."

Like · Reply · February 16 at 2:42pm

Rich  Oh, you mean like "no child left behind?" Apparently you support that national standard?

The removal of the department of education would not diminish children in low income and disadvantaged areas.

Like · Reply · February 16 at 2:49pm

Kyle No child left behind was a terrible attempt to improve. That, also a republican plan, allowed for discrimination school to school and was used to excuse the institution of the voucher system and funneling of funds to predominantly white areas.

Like · Reply · February 16 at 2:58pm

Rich  I thought you said central control was always better?

Like · Reply · February 16 at 3:00pm

Kyle Oversight yes. The policy changes have been the problem. And worse yet, the politicians' changes are financially motivated for personal gain at a cost to the American people and especially the children. 

I would recommend looking into the scholastic material suppliers if you haven't already. It's a huge racket.

Like · Reply · February 16 at 3:52pm

Rich  Ok, so your walking back your claim that the end of central planning is bad? 

Oh, and by the way, here's the historical US ACT test performance. You'll note that scores were on the way down past 1980 (when the Department of Education was started), and have stayed down. In other words, there is no evidence that federal involvement has helped. Likewise, there is no evidence that discontinuing the department will hurt.

Like · Reply ·  February 16 at 4:00pm

Kyle  Well, I've thought about and I'm changing my position. You are right Rich and Bob. We should eliminate the Federal Department of Education. Fiscally I can support that. Rich you were right to point out that the racket that is the school supplies company might be better eliminated if the Federal funds were no longer being utilized. And, your info on the drop in test scores in correlation to the activities of the DOE was compelling.

Like · Reply · 17 hrs

Kyle  Plus, no more DeVos..

Unlike · Reply · 17 hrs

Lyle  ^^^ Kyle proving he has no facts to support any argument he has put forth.

Like · Reply · 45 mins

Rich  Lyle, in a respectful conversation with a polite exchange, Kyle examined the situation and determined that his position was not correct. Give him credit where credit is due, please.

Does prophecy have to be 100% correct?

Excepted from here.

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

Tim Challies is reviewing a book by Sam Storms called "Practicing the Power." While it is a charitable review, considering Mr. Challies' opposition to the charismatic position, he makes the below point without any explanation:

His understanding of prophecy hangs on a fatally flawed interpretation of those key passages in Acts. It ignores all the Old Testament restrictions on prophecy and its requirement that prophets be without error. It makes no distinction between the necessity of prophecy before God revealed the Scriptures and after the biblical canon was closed.

So this is an opportunity to discuss the nature of NT prophecy and its differences from OT prophecy. Mr. Challies relies on De. 18:19-22 for his assertion:

Government requires separate, independent branches - By Matt Dodd

My comments in bold.

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

On Feb. 4, President Trump responded to Judge James Robart’s decision to block the travel ban by tweeting, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

While the Gallatin County Bar Association, made up of lawyers from all political parties, respects the president’s right to disagree with (and even criticize) judicial decisions, it is wrong for any sitting president to personally attack a member of the judiciary. Judge Robart is not a “so called judge,” but a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by a Senate vote of 99 to 0 in 2003. (The writer's outrage seems excessive. This judge attempted to legislate from the bench according to his political preferences, therefore is not acting as a judge, so calling him a "so-called judge" seems to be a legitimate criticism.

I'm guessing that the writer had no criticism to offer when Obama criticized the Supreme court when they supposedly "reversed a century of law." And Obama did this in a state of the union address with the Supreme court in attendance!)

I’m A Scientist. This Is What I’ll Fight For. - BY JONATHAN FOLEY

Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------
With a fervor bordering on religious zealotry, the author defends the high morality and matchless majesty of SCIENCE. And he insists we all bow to his god, the source of all hope and purpose.

This man is not a scientist, he's a partisan wrapping himself in the trappings of science. Nothing in his article is an expression of science.
--------------------------------

The War on Science is more than a skirmish over funding, censorship and “alternative facts.” It’s a battle for the future, basic decency and the people we love. (We can state with confidence that it is a war over funding. It's a political war, not a war on science. It's an ideological war. It's a war about worldviews. It's a war about power. And the Left, beholden to extremists and activists and those who think that every solution is found in government, are on the warpath.) 

This post originally appeared at The Macroscope.

Make no mistake: There is a War on Science in America.

The White House not only denies obvious, empirical facts on a regular basis, but they have invented the Orwellian concept of “alternative facts.” In the past, we simply called them “lies,” but now they are used in the world’s most powerful office. And that should scare all of us. ("Alternative facts" is simply an alternate interpretation of information. And when this happens, and the Left is challenged on their narrative, they react with hysteria, shouting down heretics and unleashing barrages of invective and name-calling.)

This attack on science, and on knowledge itself, (Kellyann Conway used the phrase "alternative facts" in reference to the number of people attending Trump's inauguration. She was not attacking science or knowledge. She wasn't talking about science funding or global warming. She wasn't discussing pollution or nuclear waste.)