Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------
In 1814, First Lady Dolley Madison helped hide the White House’s famous portrait of George Washington from the British when they burned and sacked the capital. But if the current pack of brigands raiding DC has its way, by the time they’re done, that painting and every other piece of government property that isn’t nailed down will be stolen and put up for sale on eBay. (The author is using a wildly hyperbolic statement to set the stage for his premise.)
That’s because a smash-and-grab mob is running the government. If they continue the way they are, every agency, every social program, every benefit and every one of us not-rich-people will take it in the wallet as they rapaciously loot the system. (Not content with his previous statement, the author piles on.)
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Friday, December 8, 2017
A Brief History of Pastors
We are all used to the prevailing model of church leadership, which is a pastor over subordinates. Indeed, the church has been structured this way for centuries.
What is the biblical support for a pastor leading a church? Well, there is none. None at all. There is but a single mention of the word Pastor in the scriptures, Ephesians 4:11:
Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.Then how did we get pastors? Some time in the late second century, central power began to be consolidated in the leadership via the development of a professional clergy:
According to some historians and scholars The early Christian Church was very loosely organized, resulting in diverse interpretations of Christian beliefs. In part to ensure a greater consistency in their teachings, by the end of the 2nd century Christian communities had evolved a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop having authority over the clergy in his city, leading to the development of the Metropolitan bishop.
The organization of the Church began to mimic that of the Empire; bishops in politically important cities exerted greater authority over bishops in nearby cities. The churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome held the highest positions. Beginning in the 2nd century, bishops often congregated in regional synods to resolve doctrinal and policy issues.
Monday, December 4, 2017
What is Heresy? Is Arminianism Heresy, Part I - J.D. Hall
Found here. Part two found here.
A generally valuable list. Not sure we agree that every "heresy" listed is actually heresy as defined by the author. For example, preterism is an eschatological viewpoint where a Christian can be otherwise completely orthodox.
We also note that the author has a requirement that there needs to be a name for the heresy in order for there to be heresy. Yet in his list there are several heresies for which he has simply made up his own name for. But according to Mr. Hall, John MacArthur is not a heretic because there is no named heresy.
Part two here.
-----------------------
That’s pretty much how the majority of heresy discussions go. The term is often – but not always – misapplied in various ways. Unfortunately, the term has been misapplied so frequently that some have thrown out the term altogether, and choose not to use it at all. But, heresy is a fine word. There’s no reason to throw it out. Heretic is a fine title to give someone, and there’s no reason we should stop. We just need to make sure that we’re using it correctly.
WHAT HERESY IS NOT.
Firstly, how should we not use the term heresy or heretic? A heretic is not defined as “someone with whom you disagree.” Sure, a heretic may – in fact – be someone with whom you disagree. But that’s not what makes the person a heretic. That’s not the distinctive characteristic of heresy.
Secondly, a heretic is not someone who behaves poorly, merely because they behave poorly. Although heretics often do behave poorly, and their behavior may be due to a heresy they hold, the poor behavior in and of itself isn’t heresy. Heresy relates to beliefs or doctrines, and not behavior. There is an exception to this rule, and it is found in Titus 3:10, in which the schismatic man (αἱρετικὸν or “heretic”) is to be warned once and then avoided. This is a behavioral heresy that causes schism in a local church, and the heresy could be called schismaticism, the intentional disruption and warrantless division in a local church body.
Thirdly, a heretic is not someone who is merely wrong about a point of doctrine. Yes, a heretic is wrong about a point of doctrine, but heresy pertains to particular points of doctrine of which they are wrong which rise to the level of “heresy.” For example, holding an eschatological view (like how the Mark of the Beast works) that maintains essential doctrines like the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and coming judgment, it’s not heresy.
WHAT IS HERESY?
Heresy – properly understood – is a false teaching with eternal consequences for those who hold to it, and typically deal with either the ontology (nature) of God or soteriology (salvation). Chiefly explained, heresy is a false doctrinal teaching that so changes the nature of God that the object of one’s worship is no longer the God of Scripture or changes the understanding of salvation to the extent that it cannot save.
Historically, heresy has been understood as dealing with these two primary issues. Arianism, Modalism, and Marcionism all change the ontology of God so severely, that it cannot be said that those holding to these doctrines are worshiping the God of Scripture. Denying the deity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, or the sameness of the God of the Old and New Testament (respectively) all make that god not the God of Holy Writ. Therefore, those holding to it are practicing idolatry and are damned in their doctrine.
WHAT IS DAMNABLE HERESY?
Damnable heresy is a redundant term. All heresy is damnable – by its very definition. The term is used (unwisely, often times) by those trying to distinguish heresy from heterodoxy.
WHAT IS HETERODOXY?
Heterodoxy is a teaching that is not orthodox. It can be any teaching that is wrong, and doesn’t accord to standard or historic Christian teaching. There are many, many heterodox teachings that – although wrong – do not rise to the level of heresy. These are what we might call “secondary issues” or “tertiary issues.” Depending upon your theological outlook, one might view mode of baptism, eschatological views, worship convictions, or evangelism methodologies as issues of heterodoxy rather than heresy because misunderstanding some of these doctrines are tragic, yet do not damn the soul (it is granted that more extreme viewpoints on anything could be heretical, but I am writing in the most general way possible while recognizing the infinite number of ways people have thought up to be stupid, doctrinally).
So then, if Doctrine A is wrong Biblically, but it does not affect one’s worship of the True God and it does not affect the true understanding of salvation, it is not yet heretical but is heterodoxical. If Doctrine B is wrong Biblically, and it so mangles their understanding of God that it makes him into a false god, or if it botches salvation entirely, it’s not merely heterodox, it is heretical.
WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?
Orthodoxy has a two-fold definition. In its plainest of terms, to be orthodox means to simply be “right thinking.” All correct doctrine is, by definition, orthodox. However, academically, orthodoxy also has a historic component to it. As Protestants (myself holding to the Second London Baptist Confession), we recognize that the only infallible rule of faith or practice is the Holy Scripture, and not church history. However, there is such a thing as “historic theology,” and it is a helpful tool to use in determining how far something has strayed from orthodoxy. The second component of orthodoxy is historicity. The question should be, “Has the historic church condemned this [aberrant teaching] as heresy?” In certain (but extremely rare) cases, heresies are new, and there is no historic record of its denunciation by the church. However, most heresies – or variant strains of them – go back millennia, and if the “Church Historic” has widely (that’s an important adjective) denounced those things as heresy, then they do not qualify as orthodoxy. Other practices or doctrines, which we find objectionable but which the church has historically found great peace with in certain centuries or regions and which do not affect God’s ontology or soteriology, we should be slow to say aren’t orthodox.
Understanding both the Biblical and historical caveats of orthodoxy should make us understand that saying something is or isn’t orthodox doesn’t mean that we are saying it is necessarily right or necessarily wrong, but speaks to how far outside the spectrum of acceptable historic Christian thought that practice or doctrine may be.
HISTORIC HERESIES
As stated above, there are occasionally (yet rarely) new heresies that develop over time, but the vast majority of heresies developed in the first three or so centuries of the church. Thankfully, this provides a historical example of the church’s anathematizing these doctrines as heretical, to leave us little doubt that our interpretation of the Sacred Writ is on par with that of the early church fathers.
Historic heresies that the church named, marked, and rejected include, but are not limited to Antinomianism, Arianism, Modalism, Montanism, Pelagianism, Sabellianism, and the Galatian Heresy (works righteousness). Of these more prominent heresies, early church councils explicitly rejected them and called them such.
For a fuller list of specified, defined heresies, here you go (note, some are newer, but are typically spawns of older, historic heresies):
Abortionism The belief that Abortion is not a sin
Adoptionism The belief Jesus is not eternally God but became God sometime after His birth
Antinomianism The belief that Christians are not bound by God’s law and are free to sin as they please
Anti-Paulism The belief that the Apostle Paul was a heretic and that the books he wrote are not a part of Biblical Canon
Arianism The belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not persons of the Godhead but instead later creations of God the Father
Behavioral Heresy Unrepentant sin that proves one is not a member of the Body of Christ
Christian Deism The belief that God does not intervene in or interact with the world
Dual Covenant Theology The belief that Jews can still be saved without believing in Jesus
Inclusivism The belief that faith is not necessary for salvation
Kenosis The belief that Jesus ceased to be divine while on Earth
Liberalism The belief that Scripture is not inerrant or infallible (Not to be confused with the political system of the same name)
Limited Theism The belief that God’s powers are or can be limited and He is not All-Powerful
Macedonianism The belief that God the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Godhead but merely a creation of God
Manichaeism The belief that good and evil are both equally powerful in ability and/or authority
Matriatheism* The belief that there is a member of the Godhead who is a mother goddess
Modalism The belief that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but three different aspects of the same person
Montanism The belief that the Bible is either insufficient or incomplete, and that new revelation from God is being regularly given
Neinauferstehungism The denial of the resurrection
Neo-Orthodoxy The belief that the Bible is not the Inspired Word of God unless it is being read by a believer
Nonnatarianism* The belief that there are 9 members of the Godhead
Open Theism The belief that God is not omniscient and doesn’t know the future
Papal Primacy The belief that the Pope is the head of the Church while it is on Earth as well as the vicar of Christ
Partialism The belief that each member of the Trinity is 1/3 of God rather than being fully God
Pelagianism The belief that human nature is untainted by the Fall of Man and is not corrupted with Original Sin
Pluralism The belief that two or more religions can be true at one time
Positive Thinking The belief that your thoughts have the God-like ability to create your reality
Prosperity Gospel The belief that the promises of the Gospel include good physical health and Earthly wealth
Pullumism* The belief that God is a literal chicken
Rauschenbuschism* The belief that the point of the Gospel is to be the cure for social issues rather than the forgiveness of sins
Renatism* The belief that Jesus was born again
Second Chance Theology The belief that the unsaved will be permitted to repent and trust in Christ after they die
Tritheism The belief that the Godhead is actually three separate gods
Universalism The belief that everyone will go to Heaven
Vinism The belief that homosexuality is not a sin
Word of Faith The belief that human words have the God-like power to create or destroy
Works Righteousness The belief that we are saved by works or a combination of faith and works rather than by faith alone
Heresies We’ve Yet to Write About
Alogi (The belief that the Johannine books, or books written by the Apostle John, are not a part of the canon of Scripture)
Apollinarianism (The belief that Jesus never assumed a human nature)
Audianism (The belief that God the Father has a human body)
Calcagnoism (The belief that Jesus was in a homosexual and pedophilic relationship with the Apostle John)*
Campbellism (The belief that water baptism justifies those who are baptized)
Chrislam (A blending of Christianity and Islam that claims both are compatible and both worship the same god)
Christ Claiming (To claim to be the Messiah or a reincarnation of Jesus)
Christo-Claytonism (The belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel )*
Christoneuterism (Belief that Jesus lacks gender)*
Christosodomism (Belief that Jesus was Homosexual)*
Christus Exemplar (The belief that Jesus lived and died to be an example rather than for the forgiveness of sins)
Collyridianism (The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus)
Deuterocanonism (The acceptance of extra-biblical books as canonical)
Docetism (The belief that Jesus did not have a human body but instead was fully spirit)
Dualism (The Belief that all Spiritual things are good and all physical things are evil)
Eternal Progression (The Mormon belief that God was once a human being on another planet under a different god, and that we can possibly become gods ruling our own planets after we die)
Ethnodominism (Belief that one Ethnic group will enslave every other ethnic group after Jesus retur)*
Eutychianism (The belief that Jesus’s human nature and Jesus’s divine nature mixed together to create a mostly divine nature)
Expiogensism (Belief that Jesus only died to save a specific ethnic group)*
Feeneyism (The belief that one must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved)
Full Preterism (The belief that all of the End Times prophecies made in the Bible have already happened)
Herodianism (The acceptance of a false Christ’s claim to be Jesus/the Messiah)
Hesychasm (The mystic practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church which seeks to shut off the senses in order to obtain experiential knowledge of God)
Hyper-Nestorianism (The belief that Jesus consisted of two different persons, a human person and a divine person)
Immaculate Conception (The belief that the Virgin Mary was born sinless and lived a sinless life)
Infused Righteousness (The belief that believers only receive a small bit of righteousness through Jesus’s death and that believers need to do works with that righteousness in order to obtain full salvation)
Investigative Judgement (The belief that Jesus will judge someone based on the law to see if they measure up to the standard of perfection)
Johannitism (The belief that John the Baptist was the Messiah rather than Jesus)
Lewisism (The denial of Substitutionary Atonement)**
Little Gods Heresy (The belief that humans or believers are little gods)
Marcionism (The belief that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are separate gods and that the Old Testament God is evil)
Monophysitism (The belief that Jesus only has one nature)
Monothelitism (The belief that Jesus has two natures but only has one will)
Moral Relativism (The belief that morality is subjective)
Mysticism (The practice of trying to become one with God through mystic practices such as meditation or altered consciousness)
Nestorianism (The belief that Jesus did have two wills and natures but that they did not unite into one Hypostasis)
Nonadorantism (A denial or rejection of the worship of Jesus)
Ophitism (The belief that Satan and the Edenic Serpent were the heroes and God is the villain)
Pantheism (The belief that God is everything and everything is God)
Patripassionism (The belief that God the Father suffered and died on the cross)
Peccatheism (The belief that God sinned)*
Pneumo-Claytonism (The belief that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel)*
Psilanthropism (The denial of the Virgin Birth)
Positive Christianity (A mixing between Christianity and Nazi Dogma)
Post-Modernism (The belief that all truth is subjective)
Polytheism (The belief that there are many gods)
Purgatory (A Roman Catholic heresy that states that Christians that have not done enough good in this life will be permitted to work off the rest of their sins after they die in a place called Purgatory)
Rape Doctrine (A heresy unique to the GMS sub-sect of Black Hebrew Israelites that teaches that “Israelites” either are or will be permitted to rape “non-Israelite” women either in this life or the one to come)
Red Letter Christianity (The belief that the words Jesus said within Scripture are more inspired than other parts of Scripture)
Sadotheism (The belief that God is evil)
Sethianism (The belief that Satan and the Edenic Serpent were agents of God who brought about the Fall of Man by God’s command)
Sinless Perfectionism (The belief that one can stop sinning or being a sinner)
Spanish Adoptionism (The belief that Jesus was the adoptive son of God rather than the begotten son of God)
Subordinationism (The belief that the Son and the Holy Spirit are lesser in being and nature than the Father)
Theoerosism (Ascribing eros/sexual love to the relationship between one person and God)*
IS ARMINIANISM HERESY?
That seems to be the question of the hour. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. We will cover that in Part II.
A generally valuable list. Not sure we agree that every "heresy" listed is actually heresy as defined by the author. For example, preterism is an eschatological viewpoint where a Christian can be otherwise completely orthodox.
We also note that the author has a requirement that there needs to be a name for the heresy in order for there to be heresy. Yet in his list there are several heresies for which he has simply made up his own name for. But according to Mr. Hall, John MacArthur is not a heretic because there is no named heresy.
Part two here.
-----------------------
Random Internet Denizen: John MacArthur is a heretic!
Us: Why?
Random Internet Denizen: Because he said you could accept the Mark of the Beast and still be saved!
Us: What heresy is that?
Random Internet Denizen: What do you mean?
Us: Heresies have names. What is the name of that heresy?
Random Internet Denizen: I don’t know.
Us: So John MacArthur is a heretic, but you don’t know what kind of heretic?
Random Internet Denizen: [silence]
That’s pretty much how the majority of heresy discussions go. The term is often – but not always – misapplied in various ways. Unfortunately, the term has been misapplied so frequently that some have thrown out the term altogether, and choose not to use it at all. But, heresy is a fine word. There’s no reason to throw it out. Heretic is a fine title to give someone, and there’s no reason we should stop. We just need to make sure that we’re using it correctly.
WHAT HERESY IS NOT.
Firstly, how should we not use the term heresy or heretic? A heretic is not defined as “someone with whom you disagree.” Sure, a heretic may – in fact – be someone with whom you disagree. But that’s not what makes the person a heretic. That’s not the distinctive characteristic of heresy.
Secondly, a heretic is not someone who behaves poorly, merely because they behave poorly. Although heretics often do behave poorly, and their behavior may be due to a heresy they hold, the poor behavior in and of itself isn’t heresy. Heresy relates to beliefs or doctrines, and not behavior. There is an exception to this rule, and it is found in Titus 3:10, in which the schismatic man (αἱρετικὸν or “heretic”) is to be warned once and then avoided. This is a behavioral heresy that causes schism in a local church, and the heresy could be called schismaticism, the intentional disruption and warrantless division in a local church body.
Thirdly, a heretic is not someone who is merely wrong about a point of doctrine. Yes, a heretic is wrong about a point of doctrine, but heresy pertains to particular points of doctrine of which they are wrong which rise to the level of “heresy.” For example, holding an eschatological view (like how the Mark of the Beast works) that maintains essential doctrines like the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and coming judgment, it’s not heresy.
WHAT IS HERESY?
Heresy – properly understood – is a false teaching with eternal consequences for those who hold to it, and typically deal with either the ontology (nature) of God or soteriology (salvation). Chiefly explained, heresy is a false doctrinal teaching that so changes the nature of God that the object of one’s worship is no longer the God of Scripture or changes the understanding of salvation to the extent that it cannot save.
Historically, heresy has been understood as dealing with these two primary issues. Arianism, Modalism, and Marcionism all change the ontology of God so severely, that it cannot be said that those holding to these doctrines are worshiping the God of Scripture. Denying the deity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, or the sameness of the God of the Old and New Testament (respectively) all make that god not the God of Holy Writ. Therefore, those holding to it are practicing idolatry and are damned in their doctrine.
Likewise, those holding to Pelagianism, the Galatian Heresy, or Antinomianism all change the doctrine of salvation (respectively) that they are damning for those who hold to them.
WHAT IS DAMNABLE HERESY?
Damnable heresy is a redundant term. All heresy is damnable – by its very definition. The term is used (unwisely, often times) by those trying to distinguish heresy from heterodoxy.
WHAT IS HETERODOXY?
Heterodoxy is a teaching that is not orthodox. It can be any teaching that is wrong, and doesn’t accord to standard or historic Christian teaching. There are many, many heterodox teachings that – although wrong – do not rise to the level of heresy. These are what we might call “secondary issues” or “tertiary issues.” Depending upon your theological outlook, one might view mode of baptism, eschatological views, worship convictions, or evangelism methodologies as issues of heterodoxy rather than heresy because misunderstanding some of these doctrines are tragic, yet do not damn the soul (it is granted that more extreme viewpoints on anything could be heretical, but I am writing in the most general way possible while recognizing the infinite number of ways people have thought up to be stupid, doctrinally).
So then, if Doctrine A is wrong Biblically, but it does not affect one’s worship of the True God and it does not affect the true understanding of salvation, it is not yet heretical but is heterodoxical. If Doctrine B is wrong Biblically, and it so mangles their understanding of God that it makes him into a false god, or if it botches salvation entirely, it’s not merely heterodox, it is heretical.
WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?
Orthodoxy has a two-fold definition. In its plainest of terms, to be orthodox means to simply be “right thinking.” All correct doctrine is, by definition, orthodox. However, academically, orthodoxy also has a historic component to it. As Protestants (myself holding to the Second London Baptist Confession), we recognize that the only infallible rule of faith or practice is the Holy Scripture, and not church history. However, there is such a thing as “historic theology,” and it is a helpful tool to use in determining how far something has strayed from orthodoxy. The second component of orthodoxy is historicity. The question should be, “Has the historic church condemned this [aberrant teaching] as heresy?” In certain (but extremely rare) cases, heresies are new, and there is no historic record of its denunciation by the church. However, most heresies – or variant strains of them – go back millennia, and if the “Church Historic” has widely (that’s an important adjective) denounced those things as heresy, then they do not qualify as orthodoxy. Other practices or doctrines, which we find objectionable but which the church has historically found great peace with in certain centuries or regions and which do not affect God’s ontology or soteriology, we should be slow to say aren’t orthodox.
Understanding both the Biblical and historical caveats of orthodoxy should make us understand that saying something is or isn’t orthodox doesn’t mean that we are saying it is necessarily right or necessarily wrong, but speaks to how far outside the spectrum of acceptable historic Christian thought that practice or doctrine may be.
HISTORIC HERESIES
As stated above, there are occasionally (yet rarely) new heresies that develop over time, but the vast majority of heresies developed in the first three or so centuries of the church. Thankfully, this provides a historical example of the church’s anathematizing these doctrines as heretical, to leave us little doubt that our interpretation of the Sacred Writ is on par with that of the early church fathers.
Historic heresies that the church named, marked, and rejected include, but are not limited to Antinomianism, Arianism, Modalism, Montanism, Pelagianism, Sabellianism, and the Galatian Heresy (works righteousness). Of these more prominent heresies, early church councils explicitly rejected them and called them such.
For a fuller list of specified, defined heresies, here you go (note, some are newer, but are typically spawns of older, historic heresies):
Abortionism The belief that Abortion is not a sin
Adoptionism The belief Jesus is not eternally God but became God sometime after His birth
Antinomianism The belief that Christians are not bound by God’s law and are free to sin as they please
Anti-Paulism The belief that the Apostle Paul was a heretic and that the books he wrote are not a part of Biblical Canon
Arianism The belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not persons of the Godhead but instead later creations of God the Father
Behavioral Heresy Unrepentant sin that proves one is not a member of the Body of Christ
Christian Deism The belief that God does not intervene in or interact with the world
Dual Covenant Theology The belief that Jews can still be saved without believing in Jesus
Inclusivism The belief that faith is not necessary for salvation
Kenosis The belief that Jesus ceased to be divine while on Earth
Liberalism The belief that Scripture is not inerrant or infallible (Not to be confused with the political system of the same name)
Limited Theism The belief that God’s powers are or can be limited and He is not All-Powerful
Macedonianism The belief that God the Holy Spirit is not a member of the Godhead but merely a creation of God
Manichaeism The belief that good and evil are both equally powerful in ability and/or authority
Matriatheism* The belief that there is a member of the Godhead who is a mother goddess
Modalism The belief that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but three different aspects of the same person
Montanism The belief that the Bible is either insufficient or incomplete, and that new revelation from God is being regularly given
Neinauferstehungism The denial of the resurrection
Neo-Orthodoxy The belief that the Bible is not the Inspired Word of God unless it is being read by a believer
Nonnatarianism* The belief that there are 9 members of the Godhead
Open Theism The belief that God is not omniscient and doesn’t know the future
Papal Primacy The belief that the Pope is the head of the Church while it is on Earth as well as the vicar of Christ
Partialism The belief that each member of the Trinity is 1/3 of God rather than being fully God
Pelagianism The belief that human nature is untainted by the Fall of Man and is not corrupted with Original Sin
Pluralism The belief that two or more religions can be true at one time
Positive Thinking The belief that your thoughts have the God-like ability to create your reality
Prosperity Gospel The belief that the promises of the Gospel include good physical health and Earthly wealth
Pullumism* The belief that God is a literal chicken
Rauschenbuschism* The belief that the point of the Gospel is to be the cure for social issues rather than the forgiveness of sins
Renatism* The belief that Jesus was born again
Second Chance Theology The belief that the unsaved will be permitted to repent and trust in Christ after they die
Tritheism The belief that the Godhead is actually three separate gods
Universalism The belief that everyone will go to Heaven
Vinism The belief that homosexuality is not a sin
Word of Faith The belief that human words have the God-like power to create or destroy
Works Righteousness The belief that we are saved by works or a combination of faith and works rather than by faith alone
Heresies We’ve Yet to Write About
Alogi (The belief that the Johannine books, or books written by the Apostle John, are not a part of the canon of Scripture)
Apollinarianism (The belief that Jesus never assumed a human nature)
Audianism (The belief that God the Father has a human body)
Calcagnoism (The belief that Jesus was in a homosexual and pedophilic relationship with the Apostle John)*
Campbellism (The belief that water baptism justifies those who are baptized)
Chrislam (A blending of Christianity and Islam that claims both are compatible and both worship the same god)
Christ Claiming (To claim to be the Messiah or a reincarnation of Jesus)
Christo-Claytonism (The belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel )*
Christoneuterism (Belief that Jesus lacks gender)*
Christosodomism (Belief that Jesus was Homosexual)*
Christus Exemplar (The belief that Jesus lived and died to be an example rather than for the forgiveness of sins)
Collyridianism (The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus)
Deuterocanonism (The acceptance of extra-biblical books as canonical)
Docetism (The belief that Jesus did not have a human body but instead was fully spirit)
Dualism (The Belief that all Spiritual things are good and all physical things are evil)
Eternal Progression (The Mormon belief that God was once a human being on another planet under a different god, and that we can possibly become gods ruling our own planets after we die)
Ethnodominism (Belief that one Ethnic group will enslave every other ethnic group after Jesus retur)*
Eutychianism (The belief that Jesus’s human nature and Jesus’s divine nature mixed together to create a mostly divine nature)
Expiogensism (Belief that Jesus only died to save a specific ethnic group)*
Feeneyism (The belief that one must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved)
Full Preterism (The belief that all of the End Times prophecies made in the Bible have already happened)
Herodianism (The acceptance of a false Christ’s claim to be Jesus/the Messiah)
Hesychasm (The mystic practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church which seeks to shut off the senses in order to obtain experiential knowledge of God)
Hyper-Nestorianism (The belief that Jesus consisted of two different persons, a human person and a divine person)
Immaculate Conception (The belief that the Virgin Mary was born sinless and lived a sinless life)
Infused Righteousness (The belief that believers only receive a small bit of righteousness through Jesus’s death and that believers need to do works with that righteousness in order to obtain full salvation)
Investigative Judgement (The belief that Jesus will judge someone based on the law to see if they measure up to the standard of perfection)
Johannitism (The belief that John the Baptist was the Messiah rather than Jesus)
Lewisism (The denial of Substitutionary Atonement)**
Little Gods Heresy (The belief that humans or believers are little gods)
Marcionism (The belief that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are separate gods and that the Old Testament God is evil)
Monophysitism (The belief that Jesus only has one nature)
Monothelitism (The belief that Jesus has two natures but only has one will)
Moral Relativism (The belief that morality is subjective)
Mysticism (The practice of trying to become one with God through mystic practices such as meditation or altered consciousness)
Nestorianism (The belief that Jesus did have two wills and natures but that they did not unite into one Hypostasis)
Nonadorantism (A denial or rejection of the worship of Jesus)
Ophitism (The belief that Satan and the Edenic Serpent were the heroes and God is the villain)
Pantheism (The belief that God is everything and everything is God)
Patripassionism (The belief that God the Father suffered and died on the cross)
Peccatheism (The belief that God sinned)*
Pneumo-Claytonism (The belief that the Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel)*
Psilanthropism (The denial of the Virgin Birth)
Positive Christianity (A mixing between Christianity and Nazi Dogma)
Post-Modernism (The belief that all truth is subjective)
Polytheism (The belief that there are many gods)
Purgatory (A Roman Catholic heresy that states that Christians that have not done enough good in this life will be permitted to work off the rest of their sins after they die in a place called Purgatory)
Rape Doctrine (A heresy unique to the GMS sub-sect of Black Hebrew Israelites that teaches that “Israelites” either are or will be permitted to rape “non-Israelite” women either in this life or the one to come)
Red Letter Christianity (The belief that the words Jesus said within Scripture are more inspired than other parts of Scripture)
Sadotheism (The belief that God is evil)
Sethianism (The belief that Satan and the Edenic Serpent were agents of God who brought about the Fall of Man by God’s command)
Sinless Perfectionism (The belief that one can stop sinning or being a sinner)
Spanish Adoptionism (The belief that Jesus was the adoptive son of God rather than the begotten son of God)
Subordinationism (The belief that the Son and the Holy Spirit are lesser in being and nature than the Father)
Theoerosism (Ascribing eros/sexual love to the relationship between one person and God)*
IS ARMINIANISM HERESY?
That seems to be the question of the hour. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. We will cover that in Part II.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Politics from the Pulpit - BY SUSANNAH JACOB
Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------
As is typical for Leftists, you find the author neither understands the role of government, the Christian faith, nor the obvious implications of her position as it relates to the issue at hand.
----------------------
Tucked inside the enormous House tax proposal (Since when has the Left been troubled by the size of a bill?)
is a provision that would roll back a 63-year-old ban on tax-exempt organizations — including churches — from making explicit political endorsements. In 1954, then-Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson proposed the amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code after a brutal campaign during which a tax-exempt group ran advertisements labeling him a communist. With its passage, Johnson hoped to quiet his opponents. (Hmm. Did the author just admit that the law was specifically designed by a liberal democrat to silence dissent?)
But in decades since, the ban has drawn a bright line between pulpits and political podiums, validating one of this country’s founding principles: the separation of church and state. (Was this really a founding principle? And is the author representing the principle correctly? We shall find out.)
------------------
As is typical for Leftists, you find the author neither understands the role of government, the Christian faith, nor the obvious implications of her position as it relates to the issue at hand.
----------------------
Tucked inside the enormous House tax proposal (Since when has the Left been troubled by the size of a bill?)
is a provision that would roll back a 63-year-old ban on tax-exempt organizations — including churches — from making explicit political endorsements. In 1954, then-Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson proposed the amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code after a brutal campaign during which a tax-exempt group ran advertisements labeling him a communist. With its passage, Johnson hoped to quiet his opponents. (Hmm. Did the author just admit that the law was specifically designed by a liberal democrat to silence dissent?)
But in decades since, the ban has drawn a bright line between pulpits and political podiums, validating one of this country’s founding principles: the separation of church and state. (Was this really a founding principle? And is the author representing the principle correctly? We shall find out.)
Monday, November 27, 2017
We Need to Have a Talk About Matt Chandler - BY NEWS DIVISION
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
Ever on the alert for doctrinal purity, the Doctrinal Police cannot see past their own preconceptions and discern the reality of the diversity of faith and practice.
You will note the author quotes absolutely no Scripture, supplies little documentation of his claims aside from hostile references to the very blog his article appears on, and seems unable to treat the issues at hand without disdain or personal attack.
Most grievously, the author hides behind a "news division" moniker.
--------------
Okay, Christians. We need to have a talk about Matt Chandler.
We like Matt. Who couldn’t like Matt? He’s a great preacher. He’s entertaining as can be. He handled a nearly-terminal brain tumor like a God-glorifying champ. He gets the Gospel. So there’s that. We should applaud him for all those things. But that’s not what we need to talk about.
Let’s all admit that being really, really right on some things doesn’t make being really, really wrong on some other things okay. Neither does saying somebody is wrong about some things imply that we think they’re wrong on everything. So, we’re going to ask the legions of New Calvinist fanboys to set down their venti split-quad no foam lattes, put down their mole skin journals, and listen. Hear us out on this.
Matt Chandler – as swell of a guy as he is – has some deep theological problems. Chandler took over the troubled, Driscoll-stained Acts 29 Network at a difficult time of self-induced celebrity implosion. And, Chandler was one who – reluctantly and a day late and dollar short – finally gave Driscoll the boot. But, the charismatic commitment that forms the heart of the Acts 29 Network (it has always been charismatic, and includes on its board other charismatics, like Sam Storms) is a different kind of cancer that seems to have been slowly eating away at the doctrinal soul of Matt Chandler.
Endorsing Ann Voskamp – who writes theoerotic literature about making love to God – is not cool. (Endorsing an article about suicide is not the same as endorsing the person or everything she believes.)
---------------------
Ever on the alert for doctrinal purity, the Doctrinal Police cannot see past their own preconceptions and discern the reality of the diversity of faith and practice.
You will note the author quotes absolutely no Scripture, supplies little documentation of his claims aside from hostile references to the very blog his article appears on, and seems unable to treat the issues at hand without disdain or personal attack.
Most grievously, the author hides behind a "news division" moniker.
--------------
Okay, Christians. We need to have a talk about Matt Chandler.
We like Matt. Who couldn’t like Matt? He’s a great preacher. He’s entertaining as can be. He handled a nearly-terminal brain tumor like a God-glorifying champ. He gets the Gospel. So there’s that. We should applaud him for all those things. But that’s not what we need to talk about.
Let’s all admit that being really, really right on some things doesn’t make being really, really wrong on some other things okay. Neither does saying somebody is wrong about some things imply that we think they’re wrong on everything. So, we’re going to ask the legions of New Calvinist fanboys to set down their venti split-quad no foam lattes, put down their mole skin journals, and listen. Hear us out on this.
Matt Chandler – as swell of a guy as he is – has some deep theological problems. Chandler took over the troubled, Driscoll-stained Acts 29 Network at a difficult time of self-induced celebrity implosion. And, Chandler was one who – reluctantly and a day late and dollar short – finally gave Driscoll the boot. But, the charismatic commitment that forms the heart of the Acts 29 Network (it has always been charismatic, and includes on its board other charismatics, like Sam Storms) is a different kind of cancer that seems to have been slowly eating away at the doctrinal soul of Matt Chandler.
Endorsing Ann Voskamp – who writes theoerotic literature about making love to God – is not cool. (Endorsing an article about suicide is not the same as endorsing the person or everything she believes.)
Friday, November 24, 2017
Time to ask how we will get better election results - by Kevin Crawford
My comments in bold.
--------------------
How do we get better election outcomes than the GOP liars and miscreants (One who has behaved badly, or illegally. The author paints with a wide brush, while of course exempting his own side.)
we largely have now? I see four possibilities:
1. Get corporate money out of elections? Never happen – not with a Republican Congress; they (and even too many Democrats) (Um, most every Democrat. There is virtually no difference between the parties regarding big money contributions. Apparently the author has bought into the frequently told lie that Democrats are the party of the little guy while Republicans are the party of big corporations. It's amazing what people will believe.)
--------------------
How do we get better election outcomes than the GOP liars and miscreants (One who has behaved badly, or illegally. The author paints with a wide brush, while of course exempting his own side.)
we largely have now? I see four possibilities:
1. Get corporate money out of elections? Never happen – not with a Republican Congress; they (and even too many Democrats) (Um, most every Democrat. There is virtually no difference between the parties regarding big money contributions. Apparently the author has bought into the frequently told lie that Democrats are the party of the little guy while Republicans are the party of big corporations. It's amazing what people will believe.)
Monday, November 20, 2017
Sermon Notes 11/19/17 Rom 5:1-5 - How to walk out your faith
S1 How to walk out your faith.
I don’t know if we’ve ever actually said it, but the elders have been embracing a general theme over the past several weeks, “how to walk out your faith.” We have been trying to flesh out some of the spiritual and practical ways to have a real and relevant faith.
For example, the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fasting. The ministry of the body, one to another. The honor we give as we recognize what Father has place in others. The matters of structure and authority and gifting and course corrections. All of this you have heard from this stage.
Father has been preparing us, even as we didn’t know what was coming. He’s been laying the groundwork, not only to equip us to overcome difficulty, but also to draw us together in love and prepare us for what He wants us to do.
He knows our need. He knows what’s coming. He’s always faithful, always loving, and always lifegiving. Knowing this really builds faith in me.
So, “how to walk out your faith” has indeed become real. I stood up here a few weeks ago and said there was an earthquake coming. I didn’t know what that meant, other than the fact that we need to plant our feet firmly on the Rock, believe God in obedience, and to love one another.
My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand, All other ground is sinking sand.
When darkness veils His lovely face, I rest on His unchanging grace; In every high and stormy gale,
My anchor holds within the veil.
His oath, His covenant, His blood Support me in the whelming flood; When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my hope and stay.
When the storms come, when the earth shakes, when what we thought was trustworthy turns out to be unstable, we will either depend wholly on Jesus and stand firm in faith, or we will walk away, injured and jaded and mistrustful.
We get to choose. Choose wisely.
One of my favorite preachers, TD Jakes once said, S2 “You will never know you have faith until you’re in a good fight.” And that’s where we are, we are in a good fight. Not good as in pleasant, but good as in real. Paul tells Timothy in S3 1Tim. 6:12: Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
It is a good fight. But we aren’t fighting for a man, an ideology, or an organization. Our fight is not fleshly. We are fighting for what Father has promised. We are fighting for our lives, including our lives together as a people of God. We are fighting for the sake of what has been set before us.
We do this together. This is what we must do. Together: Commit to discern and then stand firm in what Holy Spirit is saying to the church. Commit to hold on tight to the Scriptures. Commit to rely on each other as the body of Christ. Commit to trust Father for his faithfulness.
And let me tell you, you are up to the challenge of this fight. You can overcome. You can persevere. You have what it takes. And, you have the people of God right there with you. You are not alone.
Say this with me: I wasn’t ready before… but now I’m ready for this fight.
What can you do? You can love. You can pray. You can build faith in others as well as guard your own faith.
And may I say, you shouldn’t speculate. You shouldn’t take sides. You shouldn’t be so sure that you know enough to render judgment. S4 1Ti. 5:22 …do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.
That word “share,” koinoneo, is also translated “participate,” or “partake.” The definition is, “come into communion or fellowship with, to become a sharer, be made a partner.”
That means, don’t come on board with someone’s sin. Do be a part of it. Don’t think you have all the information to necessary to take up a cause. Don’t carry someone else’s offense.
The enemy wants to mess things up. He’s putting in a lot of overtime. Apparently something is happening here in the spirit that worries him. So I hope you’re ready to fight in the Spirit. But even more, I hope that you’re desire is to be positioned for what Father is doing next. He has big plans.
*********
That’s my introduction. Now let’s look at today’s passage.
S5 How to walk out your faith.
S6 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
S7 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
I usually like to study my Bible in a topical way. I like to take an idea or a word and explore everything the Bible has to say about it.
But today I want to focus on the elements of this particular passage to see if we can dig out something meaningful.
So we come to the first word… S8 Ro. 5:1 Therefore…
Whenever we see the word “therefore,” we need to see what it’s there for. We need to look back to what was written before. In the previous chapter, chapter four, we find that Paul is discussing Abraham’s faith.
Paul tells us that God had promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations. And Abraham believed God, even though his wife Sarah was too old to get pregnant.
Paul writes that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Paul is using Abraham’s faith to set up a premise -- to make a point. Paul says he’s not just talking about Abraham. He writes: S9 Ro. 4:23-24 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
The phrase “it was credited to him” is more traditionally the word “imputed.” S10 ascribe to someone a quality, by virtue of that quality in another.
What does this mean? Let’s say you know someone who is a soldier, and he always acts with respect and honor, he has a noble bearing and is highly trained and disciplined. This is what you think a soldier is like. So whenever you see a soldier, it would be quite natural for you to think in those terms, even though it’s quite possible this particular soldier doesn’t possess those qualities at all.
What you have done is imputed qualities to him based on the qualities someone else possesses. You regard him through that lens.
That’s what Father does with us. He regards us as righteous. But He takes this further. When Father imputes something to someone, that quality actually becomes present in that person.
So Father deemed Abraham as righteous by faith. Abraham wasn’t righteous, but when he believed God he was righteous. Imputed.
So Paul asserts that this same principle is in operation today, S11 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us. And Paul says it’s the same way for us. Righteousness by faith is as true for us as it was true for Abraham. It’s like Father makes a cash deposit in your account and then honors you for being rich. It isn’t your money, but it is. It isn’t your righteousness, but it is. It isn’t your faith, but it is. It’s imputed to us. It’s to our credit.
Say this with me: I am righteous… because Father says so.
So that’s the groundwork Paul lays for us, bringing us to “therefore.”
***
S12 How to walk out your faith.
S13 Ro. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
Paul now runs with the concept he just established. He tells us we are justified through faith.
Our contemporary understanding of justified is different than the biblical usage. We think of it in terms of, “Oh, she was justified in getting angry.” “His divorce was justified.” “The police were justified in arresting Jeff Kitto.” Basically, understandable under the circumstances.
But the Bible uses the term differently. S14 Justify: to render righteous, or to declare, to pronounce, someone to be righteous.
S15 Therefore.
S16 Therefore, through faith
S17 Therefore, we are justified by faith.
S18 Therefore, we are made righteous.
Father makes a thunderous pronouncement. Justified. Righteous. This declaration from heaven resounded through the cosmos: S19 This is my beloved daughter, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. You. This is you.
He justified us and proclaimed it as truth. He opened his mouth with a trustworthy saying, that we are righteous through faith in Jesus.
And He spoke this right to our innermost being. You are my beloved daughter, you are my beloved son.
He called forth your identity, destiny, and purpose. It wasn’t there until he spoke. He made something out of nothing. He formed something in you that brings you life. He regards you according to what He says about you, not what you think about yourself or what you are or what you did or how you failed . Nope, you’re
S20 justified through faith
There was some moment when I started to believe. Do you remember your moment? In a particular combination of circumstances of your life, maybe dissatisfaction or hopelessness or questioning or finally hitting bottom in your sin, or even thinking, “there must be something more,” revelation came to you. Father revealed himself.
Say this: Everything I know about Father… He revealed to me.
He cracked open my darkness with the light of His word. Barely visible at first, way off in the distance. A flicker of hope. A tiny shred of faith.
I didn’t even know it was there before. Could it be true? What was that? Did I hear something? Wait, what did He just say? Did he whisper or shout?
S21 You are my beloved.
We were loved before we were lovable. He spoke and said we belong to Him. Suddenly we’re a child of the King. He imputes to us righteousness. Forgiveness. Sonship.
He calls us something we’re not. Imputed. We didn’t deserve it before, but… But… now we do deserve it as co-heirs in Christ. Did you hear that? Now we deserve the promises He has spoken. We never earned them. We didn’t do anything. They were imputed. Credited to our account.
That might be controversial to you. “Who is this guy to tell us that we deserve God’s blessing?” Let me say this: It isn’t arrogant to agree with Father. This is what He has done for us!
Does that mean we have some sort of inside track or secret understanding? No. Are we superior or special compared to others? No. Should we stop being concerned about avoiding sin? Shall we stop being humble? No.
But should we live our lives according to the truth? Yes! Father has imputed righteousness.
Say this with me: I didn’t know… how big my inheritance is.
S22 Yes
And this you can be sure of, He makes promises that never fail. He speaks a big fat “yes” over us. Promises. Every promise of God is trustworthy. It’s a sure thing. Bank on it. S23 2Cor. 1:20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ.
Father says “yes.” Yes in Christ. In Christ. You are in Christ. S24 1Co. 1:30 It is because of him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Father says S25 “yes.” Yes you are delivered. Yes you are saved. Yes you are forgiven. Yes you are freed from bondage.
Father says “yes.” Yes you are His. Yes you are justified. Yes you are worthy. YES!
Because we are S26 justified. Our status changed. Our position is elevated. Our identity has changed. Once I was dead, now I’m alive. Once I was destined for hell, now I’m a citizen in heaven. Once I was an orphan, now I am found in Christ. Once I had no future, now I know where I’m going. Once I had no future, now I have a living hope. Once I was nothing, but Father made me something. Something precious. Something valuable.
S27 You. S28 Are. S29 My. S30 Beloved.
Does this make you a little uncomfortable? Don’t let it. Instead, let it change how you might walk out your faith.
***
Let me pause a moment and ask, what is your status? Are you S31 justified? S32 Righteous? S33 Beloved?
It’s time for your S34 faith to arise Let me call it forth. It’s time to believe. Jesus, the Son of God, victor over death and the grave, offers life to you right at this moment.
Your life may be a disaster. Jesus is the answer. You have many worries and troubles. Jesus is the answer. You’ve become aware of your sin and how it separates you from how your life should be. Jesus is the answer.
Or maybe your life is not particularly troubled. God doesn’t bother you and you don’t bother God. But you know deep down that there is something better. Jesus is the answer.
Or maybe you’re simply a skeptic. Is there really a God out there? How can I know for sure? Jesus is the answer.
So I call forth faith. Hear the word of the Lord! S35 Ro. 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
If you’re not saved, S36 let faith arise. If you’re saved but you feel without hope, let faith arise. If you know deep down there must be more, let faith arise. Come to the Father, who loves you.
Any questions?
****
S37 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
S38 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Justification comes through faith, and from that we have peace with God. When He imputed righteousness to us, we received peace with God.
We were all enemies of God. It wasn’t a case of agree to disagree. It wasn’t ambivalence. It wasn’t let bygones be bygones. We were actively, in your face, over the top, hostile, enemies of God. It isn’t so much that He was angry with us, it was actually that we were haters of God.
Father took care of that through Jesus. Father’s justification brought peace. Through Jesus the score is settled, the war is over. Through Jesus there is a cessation of hostilities. But notice, peace is not just the absence of war; the term implies a reconnection between the former opposing factions.
S39 Ep. 2:17-19 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household…
Holy Spirit provides the avenue that connects us to Father. S40 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. That is, both those who are near and those who are far can enter this relationship. No matter how evil you’ve been, there is a way.
Because of this, we’re no longer foreigners, we are citizens. We are no longer fatherless, we are family. There is no longer emnity, there is now peace through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Say this with me: Jesus has done much more for me… than I first thought.
***
S41 How to walk out your faith
S42 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
S43 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
S44 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
Access by faith. That’s us. We have access.
Do you look at yourself and think there is no way you qualify for this access? Do you think you don’t measure up? Yes, on one hand we know we have this sin nature, and that of course disqualified. Past tense. That’s what we were.
But I hope you haven’t forgotten that righteousness has been imputed to us. We are new creations in Christ, by faith. You are no longer who you were.
But too many of us have lived in the faulty understanding that the old man is still alive. But he’s dead. We are new creations.
Too many of us are enamored with the dead man. That’s where condemnation comes from. May I say that you need to stop slow dancing with your corpse?
So, we see a way has been opened. Access has been gained. S45 …through whom we have gained access by faith... Faith has brought justification, which gains us peace with God by way of Jesus, and now we see that this faith gives us access to grace.
This is a door I want each of us to walk through. It’s a new way, based not on our perception of our merit, but on righteousness by faith. S46 He. 10:19-20 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body…
Confidence to enter the very presence of Father. Righteousness grants us this access. I’m not advocating that you fire up your bravado and pretend you’re something you’re not. You don’t need some sort of hyper faith. It’s not psyching yourself up. No, this is already you. I’m just telling you who you are.
S47 …into this grace in which we now stand. So we’re at grace yet again. This is the third time I’ve stood before you and the third time I’ve talked about grace.
S48 GRACE
The word grace appears 147 times in the NT, and 95 of those are Paul’s. So I hope you forgive me if I talk about if a few times. I think it’s that important. S49 Grace: God’s empowering presence to do what we are called to do and be what we’re called to be.
S50 Grace is the power to stand.
S51 Grace is the power to stand firm.
S52 Grace is the power to stand firm in faith.
S53 Grace is the power to stand firm in faith and identity.
S54 Grace is the power to stand firm in faith and identity and do the will of Father.
S55 …into this grace in which we now stand. My feet are firmly planted in Father’s grace. How did I get here? Faith was counted to me as righteousness, which ushered me into the presence of Father. Now I am unshakable. Confident. I know who I am. Father said so, and I believed.
…into this grace in which we now stand. There’s power there. It’s a solid rock position where we can stand and not be shaken by the earthquakes. Even when everything seems unstable.
There have been some things happening lately that make it feel a bit shaky. But grace is the safe place. Let me tell you, don’t look to man for this safety. Father’s grace is where you must stand.
***
S56 How to walk out your faith
S57 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
S58 And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope.
S59 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
***
A main prayer focus of mine has been that we would see the glory of God in this place. It consumes me that God would find us as people completely surrendered to Him, and He would be pleased to move among us with salvations, healings, deliverances, and impartation.
A move of God. That’s my hope. I have hope in me because I know whom I have believed. It’s hope that enlivens us. Hope builds faith. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness…
Verse 5: S60 hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
This is the money quote for me today. S61 hope does not disappoint us. His Holy Spirit lives in us, and He is the reason we have the hope of God’s glory. It’s a confidence not based on our circumstances or our difficulties or our successes or what we thought we knew about God.
If we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, we will not be disappointed! The reason? S62 because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. Oh how He loves us! I still can’t get my mind around this even as I’ve studied it.
And I think it’s for us right now. Why? Because we have his Holy Spirit NOW. It’s not just the great by and by. Some people believe that the promises of Father are for the afterlife. If that were true, then it would be like someone giving you the keys to a Ferrari, but telling you that you can’t drive it until your bicycle wears out. Nope. It’s for now.
Say this with me: I think it’s time… for me to take a road trip.
I think this ought to change our thinking. It ought to change the way we live. It ought to change the way we pray. It ought to change how we love.
We should start hoping. We should be rejoicing. We should be celebrating. How good Father is to pour His love into us by the Holy Spirit! This was Jeff’s point a couple of weeks ago. If all this is true, we should be worshiping like crazy!
Hope does not disappoint. Ever been disappointed? Father will not disappoint! S63 He. 6:19-20 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf.
The inner sanctuary is the place of God’s presence. The Holy of Holies. The place where the high priest only could enter, and then only once a year. The same Holy of Holies where the curtain was torn in two. Our anchor, the place where our boat is secured, is in the presence of the Creator of the universe!
But sandwiched in between verse 2 and verse 5 are verses 3 and 4. S64 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope.
Here Paul acknowledges a sober reality, and he sticks it right in the middle of our party. Sometimes things don’t go our way. We struggle. We fail. We suffer. It doesn’t always work out.
I quoted TD Jakes: S65 You will never know you have faith until you’re in a good fight. I’d take it further and say, you will never have perseverance unless you have struggles. And you will never gain character if you never have to persevere. And you will never have hope if you never gain character.
And you will be forever powerless without hope.
Rejoice in our sufferings. Nothing can intervene in our worship. We must worship right on through our difficulties and pain and hardship. That’s how we get to the place of hope as Father develops Christ-likeness in us. The reward is great: The glory of God.
(Worship team)
Our word for this year is harvest. My idea of harvest has expanded. Let’s reap souls, but let’s also reap a harvest of righteousness.
But let me give you a new word. Hope. Michael blitzed you with Scriptures at then end of his sermon last week, and I’m going to follow his lead to hammer my point: We need to fire up our hope.
S66 Scripture Blitz
S67 Ro. 15:4-6 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
S68 1Co. 13:6-7 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
S69 Ep. 1:17-19 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe.
S70 Ep. 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
S71 Col. 1:3-6 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints — 5 the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel 6 that has come to you.
S72 Col. 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven…
S73 Tit. 2:11-13 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…
S74 He. 10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
S75 He. 11:1-2 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
S76 1Pe. 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…
I’m not saying all this to make you feel better about yourself. This is not a motivational speech. This is a call to righteousness that comes by faith.
I think we have to get a better handle on who we are in Christ before we can live a life of fullness in the Holy Spirit. If you cannot accept who Father says you are, you make Him out to be a liar. You will be forever buffeted by the storms. You will be rudderless and powerless.
We look to the promises of Father, to His unvarying faithfulness, to the glory set before us, to live and move and have our being in the currents of Holy Spirit, by the blood of Jesus.
If that happens, we are in a good place.
I don’t know if we’ve ever actually said it, but the elders have been embracing a general theme over the past several weeks, “how to walk out your faith.” We have been trying to flesh out some of the spiritual and practical ways to have a real and relevant faith.
For example, the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fasting. The ministry of the body, one to another. The honor we give as we recognize what Father has place in others. The matters of structure and authority and gifting and course corrections. All of this you have heard from this stage.
Father has been preparing us, even as we didn’t know what was coming. He’s been laying the groundwork, not only to equip us to overcome difficulty, but also to draw us together in love and prepare us for what He wants us to do.
He knows our need. He knows what’s coming. He’s always faithful, always loving, and always lifegiving. Knowing this really builds faith in me.
So, “how to walk out your faith” has indeed become real. I stood up here a few weeks ago and said there was an earthquake coming. I didn’t know what that meant, other than the fact that we need to plant our feet firmly on the Rock, believe God in obedience, and to love one another.
My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand, All other ground is sinking sand.
When darkness veils His lovely face, I rest on His unchanging grace; In every high and stormy gale,
My anchor holds within the veil.
His oath, His covenant, His blood Support me in the whelming flood; When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my hope and stay.
When the storms come, when the earth shakes, when what we thought was trustworthy turns out to be unstable, we will either depend wholly on Jesus and stand firm in faith, or we will walk away, injured and jaded and mistrustful.
We get to choose. Choose wisely.
One of my favorite preachers, TD Jakes once said, S2 “You will never know you have faith until you’re in a good fight.” And that’s where we are, we are in a good fight. Not good as in pleasant, but good as in real. Paul tells Timothy in S3 1Tim. 6:12: Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
It is a good fight. But we aren’t fighting for a man, an ideology, or an organization. Our fight is not fleshly. We are fighting for what Father has promised. We are fighting for our lives, including our lives together as a people of God. We are fighting for the sake of what has been set before us.
We do this together. This is what we must do. Together: Commit to discern and then stand firm in what Holy Spirit is saying to the church. Commit to hold on tight to the Scriptures. Commit to rely on each other as the body of Christ. Commit to trust Father for his faithfulness.
And let me tell you, you are up to the challenge of this fight. You can overcome. You can persevere. You have what it takes. And, you have the people of God right there with you. You are not alone.
Say this with me: I wasn’t ready before… but now I’m ready for this fight.
What can you do? You can love. You can pray. You can build faith in others as well as guard your own faith.
And may I say, you shouldn’t speculate. You shouldn’t take sides. You shouldn’t be so sure that you know enough to render judgment. S4 1Ti. 5:22 …do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.
That word “share,” koinoneo, is also translated “participate,” or “partake.” The definition is, “come into communion or fellowship with, to become a sharer, be made a partner.”
That means, don’t come on board with someone’s sin. Do be a part of it. Don’t think you have all the information to necessary to take up a cause. Don’t carry someone else’s offense.
The enemy wants to mess things up. He’s putting in a lot of overtime. Apparently something is happening here in the spirit that worries him. So I hope you’re ready to fight in the Spirit. But even more, I hope that you’re desire is to be positioned for what Father is doing next. He has big plans.
*********
That’s my introduction. Now let’s look at today’s passage.
S5 How to walk out your faith.
S6 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
S7 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
I usually like to study my Bible in a topical way. I like to take an idea or a word and explore everything the Bible has to say about it.
But today I want to focus on the elements of this particular passage to see if we can dig out something meaningful.
So we come to the first word… S8 Ro. 5:1 Therefore…
Whenever we see the word “therefore,” we need to see what it’s there for. We need to look back to what was written before. In the previous chapter, chapter four, we find that Paul is discussing Abraham’s faith.
Paul tells us that God had promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations. And Abraham believed God, even though his wife Sarah was too old to get pregnant.
Paul writes that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Paul is using Abraham’s faith to set up a premise -- to make a point. Paul says he’s not just talking about Abraham. He writes: S9 Ro. 4:23-24 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
The phrase “it was credited to him” is more traditionally the word “imputed.” S10 ascribe to someone a quality, by virtue of that quality in another.
What does this mean? Let’s say you know someone who is a soldier, and he always acts with respect and honor, he has a noble bearing and is highly trained and disciplined. This is what you think a soldier is like. So whenever you see a soldier, it would be quite natural for you to think in those terms, even though it’s quite possible this particular soldier doesn’t possess those qualities at all.
What you have done is imputed qualities to him based on the qualities someone else possesses. You regard him through that lens.
That’s what Father does with us. He regards us as righteous. But He takes this further. When Father imputes something to someone, that quality actually becomes present in that person.
So Father deemed Abraham as righteous by faith. Abraham wasn’t righteous, but when he believed God he was righteous. Imputed.
So Paul asserts that this same principle is in operation today, S11 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us. And Paul says it’s the same way for us. Righteousness by faith is as true for us as it was true for Abraham. It’s like Father makes a cash deposit in your account and then honors you for being rich. It isn’t your money, but it is. It isn’t your righteousness, but it is. It isn’t your faith, but it is. It’s imputed to us. It’s to our credit.
Say this with me: I am righteous… because Father says so.
So that’s the groundwork Paul lays for us, bringing us to “therefore.”
***
S12 How to walk out your faith.
S13 Ro. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
Paul now runs with the concept he just established. He tells us we are justified through faith.
Our contemporary understanding of justified is different than the biblical usage. We think of it in terms of, “Oh, she was justified in getting angry.” “His divorce was justified.” “The police were justified in arresting Jeff Kitto.” Basically, understandable under the circumstances.
But the Bible uses the term differently. S14 Justify: to render righteous, or to declare, to pronounce, someone to be righteous.
S15 Therefore.
S16 Therefore, through faith
S17 Therefore, we are justified by faith.
S18 Therefore, we are made righteous.
Father makes a thunderous pronouncement. Justified. Righteous. This declaration from heaven resounded through the cosmos: S19 This is my beloved daughter, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. You. This is you.
He justified us and proclaimed it as truth. He opened his mouth with a trustworthy saying, that we are righteous through faith in Jesus.
And He spoke this right to our innermost being. You are my beloved daughter, you are my beloved son.
He called forth your identity, destiny, and purpose. It wasn’t there until he spoke. He made something out of nothing. He formed something in you that brings you life. He regards you according to what He says about you, not what you think about yourself or what you are or what you did or how you failed . Nope, you’re
S20 justified through faith
There was some moment when I started to believe. Do you remember your moment? In a particular combination of circumstances of your life, maybe dissatisfaction or hopelessness or questioning or finally hitting bottom in your sin, or even thinking, “there must be something more,” revelation came to you. Father revealed himself.
Say this: Everything I know about Father… He revealed to me.
He cracked open my darkness with the light of His word. Barely visible at first, way off in the distance. A flicker of hope. A tiny shred of faith.
I didn’t even know it was there before. Could it be true? What was that? Did I hear something? Wait, what did He just say? Did he whisper or shout?
S21 You are my beloved.
We were loved before we were lovable. He spoke and said we belong to Him. Suddenly we’re a child of the King. He imputes to us righteousness. Forgiveness. Sonship.
He calls us something we’re not. Imputed. We didn’t deserve it before, but… But… now we do deserve it as co-heirs in Christ. Did you hear that? Now we deserve the promises He has spoken. We never earned them. We didn’t do anything. They were imputed. Credited to our account.
That might be controversial to you. “Who is this guy to tell us that we deserve God’s blessing?” Let me say this: It isn’t arrogant to agree with Father. This is what He has done for us!
Does that mean we have some sort of inside track or secret understanding? No. Are we superior or special compared to others? No. Should we stop being concerned about avoiding sin? Shall we stop being humble? No.
But should we live our lives according to the truth? Yes! Father has imputed righteousness.
Say this with me: I didn’t know… how big my inheritance is.
S22 Yes
And this you can be sure of, He makes promises that never fail. He speaks a big fat “yes” over us. Promises. Every promise of God is trustworthy. It’s a sure thing. Bank on it. S23 2Cor. 1:20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ.
Father says “yes.” Yes in Christ. In Christ. You are in Christ. S24 1Co. 1:30 It is because of him [God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Father says S25 “yes.” Yes you are delivered. Yes you are saved. Yes you are forgiven. Yes you are freed from bondage.
Father says “yes.” Yes you are His. Yes you are justified. Yes you are worthy. YES!
Because we are S26 justified. Our status changed. Our position is elevated. Our identity has changed. Once I was dead, now I’m alive. Once I was destined for hell, now I’m a citizen in heaven. Once I was an orphan, now I am found in Christ. Once I had no future, now I know where I’m going. Once I had no future, now I have a living hope. Once I was nothing, but Father made me something. Something precious. Something valuable.
S27 You. S28 Are. S29 My. S30 Beloved.
Does this make you a little uncomfortable? Don’t let it. Instead, let it change how you might walk out your faith.
***
Let me pause a moment and ask, what is your status? Are you S31 justified? S32 Righteous? S33 Beloved?
It’s time for your S34 faith to arise Let me call it forth. It’s time to believe. Jesus, the Son of God, victor over death and the grave, offers life to you right at this moment.
Your life may be a disaster. Jesus is the answer. You have many worries and troubles. Jesus is the answer. You’ve become aware of your sin and how it separates you from how your life should be. Jesus is the answer.
Or maybe your life is not particularly troubled. God doesn’t bother you and you don’t bother God. But you know deep down that there is something better. Jesus is the answer.
Or maybe you’re simply a skeptic. Is there really a God out there? How can I know for sure? Jesus is the answer.
So I call forth faith. Hear the word of the Lord! S35 Ro. 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
If you’re not saved, S36 let faith arise. If you’re saved but you feel without hope, let faith arise. If you know deep down there must be more, let faith arise. Come to the Father, who loves you.
Any questions?
****
S37 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
S38 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Justification comes through faith, and from that we have peace with God. When He imputed righteousness to us, we received peace with God.
We were all enemies of God. It wasn’t a case of agree to disagree. It wasn’t ambivalence. It wasn’t let bygones be bygones. We were actively, in your face, over the top, hostile, enemies of God. It isn’t so much that He was angry with us, it was actually that we were haters of God.
Father took care of that through Jesus. Father’s justification brought peace. Through Jesus the score is settled, the war is over. Through Jesus there is a cessation of hostilities. But notice, peace is not just the absence of war; the term implies a reconnection between the former opposing factions.
S39 Ep. 2:17-19 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household…
Holy Spirit provides the avenue that connects us to Father. S40 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. That is, both those who are near and those who are far can enter this relationship. No matter how evil you’ve been, there is a way.
Because of this, we’re no longer foreigners, we are citizens. We are no longer fatherless, we are family. There is no longer emnity, there is now peace through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Say this with me: Jesus has done much more for me… than I first thought.
***
S41 How to walk out your faith
S42 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
S43 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
S44 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
Access by faith. That’s us. We have access.
Do you look at yourself and think there is no way you qualify for this access? Do you think you don’t measure up? Yes, on one hand we know we have this sin nature, and that of course disqualified. Past tense. That’s what we were.
But I hope you haven’t forgotten that righteousness has been imputed to us. We are new creations in Christ, by faith. You are no longer who you were.
But too many of us have lived in the faulty understanding that the old man is still alive. But he’s dead. We are new creations.
Too many of us are enamored with the dead man. That’s where condemnation comes from. May I say that you need to stop slow dancing with your corpse?
So, we see a way has been opened. Access has been gained. S45 …through whom we have gained access by faith... Faith has brought justification, which gains us peace with God by way of Jesus, and now we see that this faith gives us access to grace.
This is a door I want each of us to walk through. It’s a new way, based not on our perception of our merit, but on righteousness by faith. S46 He. 10:19-20 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body…
Confidence to enter the very presence of Father. Righteousness grants us this access. I’m not advocating that you fire up your bravado and pretend you’re something you’re not. You don’t need some sort of hyper faith. It’s not psyching yourself up. No, this is already you. I’m just telling you who you are.
S47 …into this grace in which we now stand. So we’re at grace yet again. This is the third time I’ve stood before you and the third time I’ve talked about grace.
S48 GRACE
The word grace appears 147 times in the NT, and 95 of those are Paul’s. So I hope you forgive me if I talk about if a few times. I think it’s that important. S49 Grace: God’s empowering presence to do what we are called to do and be what we’re called to be.
S50 Grace is the power to stand.
S51 Grace is the power to stand firm.
S52 Grace is the power to stand firm in faith.
S53 Grace is the power to stand firm in faith and identity.
S54 Grace is the power to stand firm in faith and identity and do the will of Father.
S55 …into this grace in which we now stand. My feet are firmly planted in Father’s grace. How did I get here? Faith was counted to me as righteousness, which ushered me into the presence of Father. Now I am unshakable. Confident. I know who I am. Father said so, and I believed.
…into this grace in which we now stand. There’s power there. It’s a solid rock position where we can stand and not be shaken by the earthquakes. Even when everything seems unstable.
There have been some things happening lately that make it feel a bit shaky. But grace is the safe place. Let me tell you, don’t look to man for this safety. Father’s grace is where you must stand.
***
S56 How to walk out your faith
S57 Ro. 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
S58 And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope.
S59 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
***
A main prayer focus of mine has been that we would see the glory of God in this place. It consumes me that God would find us as people completely surrendered to Him, and He would be pleased to move among us with salvations, healings, deliverances, and impartation.
A move of God. That’s my hope. I have hope in me because I know whom I have believed. It’s hope that enlivens us. Hope builds faith. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness…
Verse 5: S60 hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
This is the money quote for me today. S61 hope does not disappoint us. His Holy Spirit lives in us, and He is the reason we have the hope of God’s glory. It’s a confidence not based on our circumstances or our difficulties or our successes or what we thought we knew about God.
If we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, we will not be disappointed! The reason? S62 because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. Oh how He loves us! I still can’t get my mind around this even as I’ve studied it.
And I think it’s for us right now. Why? Because we have his Holy Spirit NOW. It’s not just the great by and by. Some people believe that the promises of Father are for the afterlife. If that were true, then it would be like someone giving you the keys to a Ferrari, but telling you that you can’t drive it until your bicycle wears out. Nope. It’s for now.
Say this with me: I think it’s time… for me to take a road trip.
I think this ought to change our thinking. It ought to change the way we live. It ought to change the way we pray. It ought to change how we love.
We should start hoping. We should be rejoicing. We should be celebrating. How good Father is to pour His love into us by the Holy Spirit! This was Jeff’s point a couple of weeks ago. If all this is true, we should be worshiping like crazy!
Hope does not disappoint. Ever been disappointed? Father will not disappoint! S63 He. 6:19-20 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf.
The inner sanctuary is the place of God’s presence. The Holy of Holies. The place where the high priest only could enter, and then only once a year. The same Holy of Holies where the curtain was torn in two. Our anchor, the place where our boat is secured, is in the presence of the Creator of the universe!
But sandwiched in between verse 2 and verse 5 are verses 3 and 4. S64 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope.
Here Paul acknowledges a sober reality, and he sticks it right in the middle of our party. Sometimes things don’t go our way. We struggle. We fail. We suffer. It doesn’t always work out.
I quoted TD Jakes: S65 You will never know you have faith until you’re in a good fight. I’d take it further and say, you will never have perseverance unless you have struggles. And you will never gain character if you never have to persevere. And you will never have hope if you never gain character.
And you will be forever powerless without hope.
Rejoice in our sufferings. Nothing can intervene in our worship. We must worship right on through our difficulties and pain and hardship. That’s how we get to the place of hope as Father develops Christ-likeness in us. The reward is great: The glory of God.
(Worship team)
Our word for this year is harvest. My idea of harvest has expanded. Let’s reap souls, but let’s also reap a harvest of righteousness.
But let me give you a new word. Hope. Michael blitzed you with Scriptures at then end of his sermon last week, and I’m going to follow his lead to hammer my point: We need to fire up our hope.
S66 Scripture Blitz
S67 Ro. 15:4-6 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
S68 1Co. 13:6-7 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
S69 Ep. 1:17-19 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe.
S70 Ep. 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
S71 Col. 1:3-6 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints — 5 the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel 6 that has come to you.
S72 Col. 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven…
S73 Tit. 2:11-13 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…
S74 He. 10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.
S75 He. 11:1-2 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
S76 1Pe. 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…
I’m not saying all this to make you feel better about yourself. This is not a motivational speech. This is a call to righteousness that comes by faith.
I think we have to get a better handle on who we are in Christ before we can live a life of fullness in the Holy Spirit. If you cannot accept who Father says you are, you make Him out to be a liar. You will be forever buffeted by the storms. You will be rudderless and powerless.
We look to the promises of Father, to His unvarying faithfulness, to the glory set before us, to live and move and have our being in the currents of Holy Spirit, by the blood of Jesus.
If that happens, we are in a good place.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Americans Are Stressed About the Future. Here’s Why That’s Promising - BY SARAH VAN GELDER
Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------
This is a classic example of Confirmation Bias. The author interprets the results of the poll in light of what she feels is wrong with the country. And that is the typical leftist perspective: It's the fault of Eeevil Donald Trump, inequality, racism, pollution, and greed.
But she doesn't know why people answered the way they did. A conservative might say that people are stressed by the continual ideological bombardment by the Left. White privilege, micro aggressions, how we're destroying the planet and it's America's fault, etc.. You know the litany. We could just as easily conclude that the average person has grown weary of being accused of every sort of wrong.
Second, the poll offers no historical context. There are no past polls made available. We don't know how people felt about these issues 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. The author assumes without evidence that this is a new development and has never been a problem before.
And we note that the author attributes this disquiet to fear. This is a typical leftist rhetorical technique, to impute irrational emotion to people as a way of disqualifying them.
The author then wanders off into irrelevancies about finding meaning and embracing progressive causes. It makes me wonder how this article made it past the editor's desk.
------------------------
-----------------
This is a classic example of Confirmation Bias. The author interprets the results of the poll in light of what she feels is wrong with the country. And that is the typical leftist perspective: It's the fault of Eeevil Donald Trump, inequality, racism, pollution, and greed.
But she doesn't know why people answered the way they did. A conservative might say that people are stressed by the continual ideological bombardment by the Left. White privilege, micro aggressions, how we're destroying the planet and it's America's fault, etc.. You know the litany. We could just as easily conclude that the average person has grown weary of being accused of every sort of wrong.
Second, the poll offers no historical context. There are no past polls made available. We don't know how people felt about these issues 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. The author assumes without evidence that this is a new development and has never been a problem before.
And we note that the author attributes this disquiet to fear. This is a typical leftist rhetorical technique, to impute irrational emotion to people as a way of disqualifying them.
The author then wanders off into irrelevancies about finding meaning and embracing progressive causes. It makes me wonder how this article made it past the editor's desk.
------------------------
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
The GOP Tax Plan Tells Us Everything About Who Matters In American Democracy - BY ZACH CARTER
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
This post originally appeared at HuffPost.
The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. Last year, the genius and muscle of the American people generated more than $18.6 trillion in wealth. This year, our brains and brawn will combine to create well over $19 trillion. Despite all the debt theatrics of the Republican Party during the Obama presidency, we owe just $6.2 trillion to other countries — less than four months of our collective labors at their present value. (There are at least three non sequiturs in this paragraph.
This post originally appeared at HuffPost.
The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. Last year, the genius and muscle of the American people generated more than $18.6 trillion in wealth. This year, our brains and brawn will combine to create well over $19 trillion. Despite all the debt theatrics of the Republican Party during the Obama presidency, we owe just $6.2 trillion to other countries — less than four months of our collective labors at their present value. (There are at least three non sequiturs in this paragraph.
First, the Republicans have not made the debt to other countries an issue. It is always been the debt in whole.
Second, The value of America's private sector is not relevant to government debt. Government debt must be compared to government revenue.
Third, the amount of debt does not mean the debt is justified. A small debt achieved irresponsibly is still unacceptable.)
Under these circumstances, the question of what the American government can afford is functionally meaningless. (That is, under the dishonest criteria offered by the author, government apparently can afford much more. However, if we look at government revenue to debt, the story is starkly different.
Under these circumstances, the question of what the American government can afford is functionally meaningless. (That is, under the dishonest criteria offered by the author, government apparently can afford much more. However, if we look at government revenue to debt, the story is starkly different.
In addition, the author seems to think that the productivity of the private sector is a government asset. But actually, that money belongs to those who earned it.)
If any nation has ever been able to afford quality housing, education, health care, parks, museums — anything — the United States can. (The author continues to conflate government and the private sector. Also, we have quality housing, education, healthcare, parks, and museums.)
And we ("we" means government.)
And we ("we" means government.)
don’t need to tax anyone, rich or poor, in order to afford these fine things. The wealth — the fruits of our labor — already exists. (? The author seems to be suggesting that all these things can be taken care of by the private sector, so taxation is unnecessary. I kind of doubt this is what he intended to say...)
Taxes are a way of managing the bookkeeping system, of setting national priorities for the distribution of wealth created by good ideas and hard work. (Ah, so he didn't intend to say that. He wants taxation, for the purpose of "distribution of wealth," which of course means the rich have too much money and government's job is to spread it around. But actually, taxation is the method by which the constitutional functions of government are funded.
Government does not have the ability to ascertain national priorities. And it shouldn't have the ability to fund those priorities by appropriating peoples' money.)
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Prophets need... - by Jeremiah Johnson
I liked this, because I've been studying the five-fold ministries and am hoping to see God-ordained leadership reinstalled in the the Church.
This explanation begins to explore the interconnection between the offices of the five fold ministries. Hopefully the author will continue with the other offices and why they need each other.
---------------
Friday, October 27, 2017
HERE COME THE TRAVAILING PROPHETS - Jeremiah Johnson
Jeremiah Johnson Ministries
God is releasing a new breed of travailing prophets in the earth right now who have been convinced that their greatest privilege in life is to make intercession to the Lord of Hosts. These burning ones are being forged in the context of night and day prayer. They are more devoted to the secret place than the public place.
These travailing prophets are more familiar with a prayer room than a playroom called a stage. These men and women would rather minister to an audience of One than an audience of hundreds or even thousands. They crave the attention of the throne room more than the praise afforded to them on a platform and is the very generation Jeremiah spoke of in Jeremiah 27:18 when he said, “But if they are true prophets and if the word of the Lord is really spoken by them, let them now make intercession to the LORD of hosts…”
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Sermon notes, 10/22/17
NEW SEASON, NEW PARADIGMS
We’ve heard about:
a new season
how we need to examine our thinking
how we are entering a time of shaking and change and new things and vision and course corrections and fasting.
ideas about how church should look
how we need to better discern what our role in the Kingdom might be
a cohesive message in a variety of voices
this season is a little uncertain, sabbatical
we aren’t overthrowing the pastor/going weird
heresy creeping in? historically speaking, having credentialed pastors or being part of a denomination hasn’t done a thing.
We’ve heard about:
a new season
how we need to examine our thinking
how we are entering a time of shaking and change and new things and vision and course corrections and fasting.
ideas about how church should look
how we need to better discern what our role in the Kingdom might be
a cohesive message in a variety of voices
this season is a little uncertain, sabbatical
we aren’t overthrowing the pastor/going weird
heresy creeping in? historically speaking, having credentialed pastors or being part of a denomination hasn’t done a thing.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Actually, hate speech is protected speech - by Ken White
Found here. A good explanation.
-------------------
Free speech and its limitations are on Americans’ minds. In the past year we’ve seen Nazis and white supremacists rally in our cities, angry protesters chase provocateurs off of college campuses, a comedian wield a bloody effigy of the president’s severed head, and slurs and overt racial animus made a staple of political discourse. Controversial speech has people talking about what restrictions, if any, society can enforce on words we despise.
That inquiry isn’t inherently bad. It’s good for citizens to want to learn more about the contours of our constitutional rights. The dilemma is that the public debate about free speech relies on useless cliches, not on accurate information about the law.
Here are some of the most popular misleading slogans:
“Not all speech is protected. There are limits to free speech.”
This slogan is true, but rarely helpful. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct. First Amendment exceptions are not an open-ended category, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to add to them, especially in the last generation. Merely observing that some exceptions exist does not help anyone determine whether particular speech falls into one of those exceptions. It’s a non sequitur.
Imagine you’re bitten by a snake on a hike, and you want to know rather urgently whether the snake is venomous. You describe the snake to your doctor. “Well, not all snakes are venomous,” your doctor responds. Not very helpful, it is?
“You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
-------------------
Free speech and its limitations are on Americans’ minds. In the past year we’ve seen Nazis and white supremacists rally in our cities, angry protesters chase provocateurs off of college campuses, a comedian wield a bloody effigy of the president’s severed head, and slurs and overt racial animus made a staple of political discourse. Controversial speech has people talking about what restrictions, if any, society can enforce on words we despise.
That inquiry isn’t inherently bad. It’s good for citizens to want to learn more about the contours of our constitutional rights. The dilemma is that the public debate about free speech relies on useless cliches, not on accurate information about the law.
Here are some of the most popular misleading slogans:
“Not all speech is protected. There are limits to free speech.”
This slogan is true, but rarely helpful. The Supreme Court has called the few exceptions to the 1st Amendment “well-defined and narrowly limited.” They include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats and speech integral to already criminal conduct. First Amendment exceptions are not an open-ended category, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to add to them, especially in the last generation. Merely observing that some exceptions exist does not help anyone determine whether particular speech falls into one of those exceptions. It’s a non sequitur.
Imagine you’re bitten by a snake on a hike, and you want to know rather urgently whether the snake is venomous. You describe the snake to your doctor. “Well, not all snakes are venomous,” your doctor responds. Not very helpful, it is?
“You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
CAN A SUPREME COURT RULING BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS RICK SANTORUM SUGGESTED? - BY TAYLOR WOFFORD
Found here. My comments in bold.
-------------------
This is an article published a couple of years ago, but the issue raised is still relevant.
-------------------
As part of the "undercard" debate for second-tier Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the United States Supreme Court's June 26 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage, was "unconstitutional."
Santorum's comments came after candidates were asked to respond to the incarceration and subsequent release of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis after she refused to issue gay marriage licenses on religious grounds.
It is technically impossible for a Supreme Court decision to be unconstitutional, as the Court is endowed with judicial review, a right derived from Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution. (It is not impossible, technically or otherwise, for the Supreme court to render unconstitutional decisions. History is riddled with egregious decisions that have been reversed.)
Judicial review allows the Court to decide if actions by the Legislative and Executive branches are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution, and, if not, to rule them unconstitutional. The right to judicial review was codified in the landmark 1803 Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison. (Waaait. So the Supreme court rendered a decision about its own power? And that's constitutional by definition? The author has an odd idea about what is and isn't constitutional. In actual fact, what the constitution says is what is constitutional. What the court opines about the constitution is a Category Error.)
-------------------
This is an article published a couple of years ago, but the issue raised is still relevant.
-------------------
As part of the "undercard" debate for second-tier Republican presidential candidates on Wednesday, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the United States Supreme Court's June 26 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage, was "unconstitutional."
Santorum's comments came after candidates were asked to respond to the incarceration and subsequent release of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis after she refused to issue gay marriage licenses on religious grounds.
It is technically impossible for a Supreme Court decision to be unconstitutional, as the Court is endowed with judicial review, a right derived from Articles III and VI of the United States Constitution. (It is not impossible, technically or otherwise, for the Supreme court to render unconstitutional decisions. History is riddled with egregious decisions that have been reversed.)
Judicial review allows the Court to decide if actions by the Legislative and Executive branches are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution, and, if not, to rule them unconstitutional. The right to judicial review was codified in the landmark 1803 Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison. (Waaait. So the Supreme court rendered a decision about its own power? And that's constitutional by definition? The author has an odd idea about what is and isn't constitutional. In actual fact, what the constitution says is what is constitutional. What the court opines about the constitution is a Category Error.)
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Peeling the Whitewash From Our Myths: Susan K. Smith and Bill Moyers talk about the Bible, the Constitution and Race
Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------
There's a lot of leftist agitprop here.
------------------
(...)
Moyers: Does this help explain why you have spent so much of your adult life grappling with the myths of democracy, as you did in that speech I heard last summer. You are trying to correct the faulty perception of black people by exposing the myths to scrutiny?
Smith: Absolutely. I believe in the power of words. And I said at Chautauqua that I think that America has two guiding sacred texts, the Christian Bible and the US Constitution, and within both those texts are words that should lead us to a place of community and understanding of humanity on pretty much the same level. But the words in those texts have been violated, or perhaps it is that we have ignored them, but whatever the reason, they have not been successful in bringing us to a place where we can use them to destroy racism and sexism. So “all men are created equal” does not mean what we think those words should mean. (Um, that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution...)
At their very inception they meant white, male, Christian property owners were created equal. These are powerful words, life-giving words, but at the time they were never meant to apply to African-Americans — or women or Native Americans, for that matter. (That's not true in the least. The Declaration's statements are universal in nature, even if the political climate of the day didn't allow for their full expression.)
By the same token, the words in the Bible, which are also life-giving, are not interpreted (Emphasis added.)
the same way by whites and blacks, by people who study the same words but who belong to different races. I don’t remember if it was the late Strom Thurmond or the late Sen. Robert Byrd, but both were religious men and one of them was asked if he knew the Bible, and he said yes, of course. And he was asked, “Do you believe the words that say that you should love your neighbor as yourself?” And the senator answered, “Sure, I know those words, but I get to choose my neighbor.” (Byrd was a Democrat and a former KKK leader.)
Well, if we get to make decisions about the validity of those words being something universally applied or not, the words lose their power. (If there's anyone trying to selectively apply the Bible, it would be the Left.)
The Bible is said to be “holy” but the definition of “holy” seems defined by culture — different cultures in different ways.
So I’ve come to believe we are really a polytheistic society. We have at least two different Gods — the God of the oppressed and the God of the oppressor. The God of the oppressor seems to sanction and agree with the practices of those who oppress others. This God sanctions and supports militarism, sexism, homophobia and capitalism. (Capitalism is oppression? Only to a socialist.)
We also have one Bible — but at least two groups of people who interpret the same words in a radically different way. (It surprises Ms. Smith that there are a variety of biblical interpretations? Indeed, she goes to great pains to explain to us why hers is correct.)
And when it comes to the Constitution, we have two groups who interpret those words in radically different ways. As for democracy, well, for me there is no such thing as the egalitarian democracy we were told about as children, where the worth of all people is respected and appreciated. That’s a myth. You know, the Pledge of Allegiance thing about “liberty and justice,” or the Declaration on equality. The white supremacist and I worship different Gods. The white supremacist’s God is okay with somebody going out on a Saturday night and lynching somebody else, then going to church on Sunday morning in a three-piece suit and giving communion. (Hyperbolic nonsense.)
The God that my mama taught me, the God that I learned about in my Sunday School lessons, was different than the God that is evident in our society today. That God taught us to love our enemies. When my mama told me that, I would look over at the white folks on the other side and say, “How come they don’t have to do God like I have to do God? (Ms. Smith is making things up. Either people are like her or they are hypocritical racist homophobes. There are apparently no other categories.)
------------------
There's a lot of leftist agitprop here.
------------------
(...)
Moyers: Does this help explain why you have spent so much of your adult life grappling with the myths of democracy, as you did in that speech I heard last summer. You are trying to correct the faulty perception of black people by exposing the myths to scrutiny?
Smith: Absolutely. I believe in the power of words. And I said at Chautauqua that I think that America has two guiding sacred texts, the Christian Bible and the US Constitution, and within both those texts are words that should lead us to a place of community and understanding of humanity on pretty much the same level. But the words in those texts have been violated, or perhaps it is that we have ignored them, but whatever the reason, they have not been successful in bringing us to a place where we can use them to destroy racism and sexism. So “all men are created equal” does not mean what we think those words should mean. (Um, that's in the Declaration, not the Constitution...)
At their very inception they meant white, male, Christian property owners were created equal. These are powerful words, life-giving words, but at the time they were never meant to apply to African-Americans — or women or Native Americans, for that matter. (That's not true in the least. The Declaration's statements are universal in nature, even if the political climate of the day didn't allow for their full expression.)
By the same token, the words in the Bible, which are also life-giving, are not interpreted (Emphasis added.)
the same way by whites and blacks, by people who study the same words but who belong to different races. I don’t remember if it was the late Strom Thurmond or the late Sen. Robert Byrd, but both were religious men and one of them was asked if he knew the Bible, and he said yes, of course. And he was asked, “Do you believe the words that say that you should love your neighbor as yourself?” And the senator answered, “Sure, I know those words, but I get to choose my neighbor.” (Byrd was a Democrat and a former KKK leader.)
Well, if we get to make decisions about the validity of those words being something universally applied or not, the words lose their power. (If there's anyone trying to selectively apply the Bible, it would be the Left.)
The Bible is said to be “holy” but the definition of “holy” seems defined by culture — different cultures in different ways.
So I’ve come to believe we are really a polytheistic society. We have at least two different Gods — the God of the oppressed and the God of the oppressor. The God of the oppressor seems to sanction and agree with the practices of those who oppress others. This God sanctions and supports militarism, sexism, homophobia and capitalism. (Capitalism is oppression? Only to a socialist.)
We also have one Bible — but at least two groups of people who interpret the same words in a radically different way. (It surprises Ms. Smith that there are a variety of biblical interpretations? Indeed, she goes to great pains to explain to us why hers is correct.)
And when it comes to the Constitution, we have two groups who interpret those words in radically different ways. As for democracy, well, for me there is no such thing as the egalitarian democracy we were told about as children, where the worth of all people is respected and appreciated. That’s a myth. You know, the Pledge of Allegiance thing about “liberty and justice,” or the Declaration on equality. The white supremacist and I worship different Gods. The white supremacist’s God is okay with somebody going out on a Saturday night and lynching somebody else, then going to church on Sunday morning in a three-piece suit and giving communion. (Hyperbolic nonsense.)
The God that my mama taught me, the God that I learned about in my Sunday School lessons, was different than the God that is evident in our society today. That God taught us to love our enemies. When my mama told me that, I would look over at the white folks on the other side and say, “How come they don’t have to do God like I have to do God? (Ms. Smith is making things up. Either people are like her or they are hypocritical racist homophobes. There are apparently no other categories.)
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? - By Daniel Villarreal
Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------
The author's refreshing honesty about the gay agenda is no surprise to anyone. We all know that it's about power, not equal rights. And we have to shut up if we don't like it.
---------------------
In response to New York’s recently introduced marriage equality bill, the so-called National Organization for Marriage got a bunch of pictures of black people and some guy who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009. They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.
The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.
Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?
----------------------
The author's refreshing honesty about the gay agenda is no surprise to anyone. We all know that it's about power, not equal rights. And we have to shut up if we don't like it.
---------------------
In response to New York’s recently introduced marriage equality bill, the so-called National Organization for Marriage got a bunch of pictures of black people and some guy who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009. They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.
The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.
Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?
Thursday, September 28, 2017
What the NFL protests are about - email from Jeff Robinson, ACLU Action
Hi ACLU Supporter,
If Donald Trump is not a white supremacist, his actions and words show a great deal of comfort with the values of white supremacy. We saw this most recently in his response to the NFL protests that included standing against racial injustice and police brutality. This started with Colin Kaepernick last season and shows no signs of stopping.
This past weekend over 200 football players – and performers and athletes in other sports – exercised their right to protest after our president resorted to time-tested racial code words to marginalize protestors as unpatriotic. He asked his overwhelmingly white audience in Alabama to get angry because "people like yourselves turn on the television and you see those people taking the knee." Those people – before Saturday, almost all of them Black. The sons of bitches. (Racial code words? What? "People like yourselves," that is, people who aren't getting paid millions of dollars to play a game, people who simply want to turn on the TV and watch highly skilled athletes and not be assaulted with political agitprop, people who enjoy the strategy and spectacle of the game of football... that's the people we are talking about.
And it's "those people," those pampered, privileged, coddled multi-millionaires who pervert their access to the national stage by dragging in highly charged, controversial issues. "Those people" are alienating half their fan base.)
If Donald Trump is not a white supremacist, his actions and words show a great deal of comfort with the values of white supremacy. We saw this most recently in his response to the NFL protests that included standing against racial injustice and police brutality. This started with Colin Kaepernick last season and shows no signs of stopping.
This past weekend over 200 football players – and performers and athletes in other sports – exercised their right to protest after our president resorted to time-tested racial code words to marginalize protestors as unpatriotic. He asked his overwhelmingly white audience in Alabama to get angry because "people like yourselves turn on the television and you see those people taking the knee." Those people – before Saturday, almost all of them Black. The sons of bitches. (Racial code words? What? "People like yourselves," that is, people who aren't getting paid millions of dollars to play a game, people who simply want to turn on the TV and watch highly skilled athletes and not be assaulted with political agitprop, people who enjoy the strategy and spectacle of the game of football... that's the people we are talking about.
And it's "those people," those pampered, privileged, coddled multi-millionaires who pervert their access to the national stage by dragging in highly charged, controversial issues. "Those people" are alienating half their fan base.)
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Sessions offers impassioned defense of free speech on Fox, totally contradicts himself seconds later - MELANIE SCHMITZ
---------------------
It is clear the author doesn't understand free speech. She seems to think that possessing free speech includes freedom from criticism.
-------------------
It is clear the author doesn't understand free speech. She seems to think that possessing free speech includes freedom from criticism.
-------------------
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday spoke with Fox & Friends hosts about the ongoing debate over free speech, but swiftly contradicted himself as soon as the hosts broached the topic of NFL protests. (Let's see if the author can actually identify a contradiction.)
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Just ‘not being a racist’ is no longer sufficient - by Sara Rushing
Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------
On Sept. 15, the Montana Racial Equity Project held a one-day forum on “Race in Montana.” The panels were excellent (though I may be biased, since I was on one), and the attendance was amazing. There is clearly a hunger in Bozeman, and around the state, for conversations about this crucial topic. Folks came from as far away as Great Falls to attend the forum. (I wonder what that attendance figure might really be, since leftists are given to prevaricating.)
Unfortunately, the people who worked tirelessly to organize this event and make sure it was a success are having their efforts repaid in harassment by white supremacists. (Again, we have no reason to believe the author. What constitutes harassment? Who are these white supremacists? Were there any police reports filed? How many arrests have been made? Who was harassed?)
On Sept. 15, the Montana Racial Equity Project held a one-day forum on “Race in Montana.” The panels were excellent (though I may be biased, since I was on one), and the attendance was amazing. There is clearly a hunger in Bozeman, and around the state, for conversations about this crucial topic. Folks came from as far away as Great Falls to attend the forum. (I wonder what that attendance figure might really be, since leftists are given to prevaricating.)
Unfortunately, the people who worked tirelessly to organize this event and make sure it was a success are having their efforts repaid in harassment by white supremacists. (Again, we have no reason to believe the author. What constitutes harassment? Who are these white supremacists? Were there any police reports filed? How many arrests have been made? Who was harassed?)
This may not come as a surprise, given the many racist groups that call Montana home. As a report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in August showed, Montana leads the nation per capita in hate groups. (No one believes the SPLC any more, except leftists. That's because it long ago abandoned its mandate to fight racism and oppression and turned instead to leftist political advocacy.)
Monday, September 25, 2017
Extinguishing hate - letters to the editor between Stanley Racine and Nick Soderstrom
This is a little exchange of letters to the editor in the Chronicle. My comments at the end in bold.
----------------------
First, Dr. Soderstrom:
"In the wake of the horrific events that recently plagued Charlottesville, Virginia, I’ve heard many people—most notably, the current president—attempt to draw a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose them. News flash: Exposing and countering hate is not itself hateful. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
"By condemning and extinguishing hate at every turn, we inch ever closer to a peaceful, happy society. I don’t know about you, but that’s the type of America—the type of world—that I want my children and grandchildren to call home."
Now, Mr. Racine's response:
----------------------
First, Dr. Soderstrom:
"In the wake of the horrific events that recently plagued Charlottesville, Virginia, I’ve heard many people—most notably, the current president—attempt to draw a false equivalency between white supremacists and those who oppose them. News flash: Exposing and countering hate is not itself hateful. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
"By condemning and extinguishing hate at every turn, we inch ever closer to a peaceful, happy society. I don’t know about you, but that’s the type of America—the type of world—that I want my children and grandchildren to call home."
Now, Mr. Racine's response:
Thursday, September 21, 2017
It’s Time to Start Calling Evangelicals What They Are: The American Taliban - By J.C. Weatherby
Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------
Here we have a tour de force of leftist talking points about Christian conservatives. Not a single assertion is documented. There are no quotes from evangelical leaders. The author can't seem to trouble himself with any references at all to this supposed danger.
------------------
“The Council For National Policy” is a Conservative Think Tank, made up of a who’s who of prominent conservatives; Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Reince Priebus, Tim LaHaye, Bobby Jindal, John McCain… the list goes on…
This article, published by the Washington Post, but reported elsewhere, lays out the group’s plan to “restore education in America,” by bringing god into classrooms.
I have said for years and years, the Christian Right is really seeking to establish a theocracy in the United States — at least regionally, throughout the deep south. (The only people who talk about theocracy is the Left. The religious right doesn't. Christians aren't interested in theocracy, they pretty much all believe that the world system is not to be participated in. And those Christians who want to participate in government believe they have as much right to express their beliefs as the religion-haters.
In fact, Christians generally want to be left alone, like most people. Ironically, this is why they finally began to engage the culture. They were forced to by the Left. The Left keeps pushing, keeps intruding, they keep adding mandates and requirements and restrictions and provisos. They police peoples' speech. They insist on their way of doing things, and everyone else is a bigot and a hater. Thus the Left has brought the battle to the religious right, and the religious right got pushed into a battle they don't want but the Left does.
Ironically, the Christians' response is then branded "theocracy." But it's the Left that seeks theocracy, a godless theocracy where everyone is controlled and surveilled and brought into compliance by the hand of a government that knows better than you how you should lead your life. The Left's theocracy knows which light bulb you must use, what words you must say, which causes you must support, They even know how your religion ought to be practiced.
It is actually the Left that wants theocracy.)
--------------------
Here we have a tour de force of leftist talking points about Christian conservatives. Not a single assertion is documented. There are no quotes from evangelical leaders. The author can't seem to trouble himself with any references at all to this supposed danger.
------------------
“The Council For National Policy” is a Conservative Think Tank, made up of a who’s who of prominent conservatives; Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Reince Priebus, Tim LaHaye, Bobby Jindal, John McCain… the list goes on…
This article, published by the Washington Post, but reported elsewhere, lays out the group’s plan to “restore education in America,” by bringing god into classrooms.
I have said for years and years, the Christian Right is really seeking to establish a theocracy in the United States — at least regionally, throughout the deep south. (The only people who talk about theocracy is the Left. The religious right doesn't. Christians aren't interested in theocracy, they pretty much all believe that the world system is not to be participated in. And those Christians who want to participate in government believe they have as much right to express their beliefs as the religion-haters.
In fact, Christians generally want to be left alone, like most people. Ironically, this is why they finally began to engage the culture. They were forced to by the Left. The Left keeps pushing, keeps intruding, they keep adding mandates and requirements and restrictions and provisos. They police peoples' speech. They insist on their way of doing things, and everyone else is a bigot and a hater. Thus the Left has brought the battle to the religious right, and the religious right got pushed into a battle they don't want but the Left does.
Ironically, the Christians' response is then branded "theocracy." But it's the Left that seeks theocracy, a godless theocracy where everyone is controlled and surveilled and brought into compliance by the hand of a government that knows better than you how you should lead your life. The Left's theocracy knows which light bulb you must use, what words you must say, which causes you must support, They even know how your religion ought to be practiced.
It is actually the Left that wants theocracy.)
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
MSU students speak up for free speech - By Gail Schontzler
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------------
This is a curious article, with false premises and ironies aplenty.
-----------------------
Montana State University students say they want to protect free speech, even for unpopular views. (Unpopular? Is this the standard for free speech?)
“I don’t particularly like what ‘angry Bible man’ has to say” when the preacher makes an annual visit to the Bozeman campus to harangue students (harangue: a scolding or a long or intense verbal attack; diatribe. 2. a long, passionate, and vehement speech, especially one delivered before a public gathering. 3. any long, pompous speech or writing of a tediously hortatory or didactic nature; sermonizing lecture or discourse. We see here that the reporter is injecting commentary by pejoratively describing a street preacher. It is out of place to do so in a news article.)
— but still he should be allowed to speak, says philosophy student Mike Dembek. (Mr. Dembek uses the word "allowed." This makes me wonder who he thinks should not be allowed to speak, and who has the power to make such determinations.)
This is a curious article, with false premises and ironies aplenty.
-----------------------
Montana State University students say they want to protect free speech, even for unpopular views. (Unpopular? Is this the standard for free speech?)
“I don’t particularly like what ‘angry Bible man’ has to say” when the preacher makes an annual visit to the Bozeman campus to harangue students (harangue: a scolding or a long or intense verbal attack; diatribe. 2. a long, passionate, and vehement speech, especially one delivered before a public gathering. 3. any long, pompous speech or writing of a tediously hortatory or didactic nature; sermonizing lecture or discourse. We see here that the reporter is injecting commentary by pejoratively describing a street preacher. It is out of place to do so in a news article.)
— but still he should be allowed to speak, says philosophy student Mike Dembek. (Mr. Dembek uses the word "allowed." This makes me wonder who he thinks should not be allowed to speak, and who has the power to make such determinations.)
Friday, September 15, 2017
The House just passed a bill that could politicize churches - by JACK JENKINS
Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------
Jack Jenkins comes up from time to time on my blog, usually due to his creative Bible interpretations. He is a doctrinaire Leftist, whose faith is filtered through his politics. The below article is no exception.
The U.S. House of Representatives quietly (If by quietly the author means "covered extensively by the media.")
-----------------------
Jack Jenkins comes up from time to time on my blog, usually due to his creative Bible interpretations. He is a doctrinaire Leftist, whose faith is filtered through his politics. The below article is no exception.
-----------------
The U.S. House of Representatives quietly (If by quietly the author means "covered extensively by the media.")
passed a spending bill on Thursday that could transform churches and other houses of worship into entities more closely resembling SuperPACs. (The implication here is that this bill would require churches to be transformed into different entities. In actual fact, the bill REMOVES a requirement from churches, so now they are free to act differently if they so choose.)
When House members passed a $1.2 trillion “megabus” spending bill yesterday in a 211-198 vote, media attention largely focused on the proposal’s high cost and potential challenges in the Senate. (Waaait. I thought the bill was quietly passed?)
When House members passed a $1.2 trillion “megabus” spending bill yesterday in a 211-198 vote, media attention largely focused on the proposal’s high cost and potential challenges in the Senate. (Waaait. I thought the bill was quietly passed?)
But according to the House Appropriations Committee press release, the bill contains a rider with a provision that would make it difficult to enforce the so-called Johnson Amendment, a part of the tax code that prohibits churches and other houses of worship from endorsing political candidates. (Ah, so the truth slips out. The author admits that government is prohibiting churches from speaking, and the change will allow them to resume speaking as they like.)
“Members of Congress had ample opportunities to strike [the provision] from this bill; when it was debated at the sub-committee level, at the full committee level, when Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz offered an amendment to cut it from the bill, and when it was on the floor of the House of Representatives,” Larry T. Decker, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, said in a statement. “At every point, Congress failed to stand up for a law which has helped maintain the separation of church and state for more than 63 years.” (Another admission that the provision PREVENTS churches from certain kinds of speech.
“Members of Congress had ample opportunities to strike [the provision] from this bill; when it was debated at the sub-committee level, at the full committee level, when Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz offered an amendment to cut it from the bill, and when it was on the floor of the House of Representatives,” Larry T. Decker, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, said in a statement. “At every point, Congress failed to stand up for a law which has helped maintain the separation of church and state for more than 63 years.” (Another admission that the provision PREVENTS churches from certain kinds of speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)