Examining Discernment in Worship - by Rev. Anthony Wade

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

But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things." Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he." -- John 4: 23-26 (ESV)

As a discernment minister (There is no such thing in Scripture.)

I spend a great deal of time researching and reacting to the latest whims and waves of doctrine that can shipwreck the faith of my brothers and sisters or those who otherwise might encounter the real God. (That is, he spends inordinate amounts of time looking for people who aren't toeing his doctrinal line.)

I have several websites I monitor daily who hold great sway over the minds of the sheep and who are leading them down the broad path that can only lead to their destruction. Nothing brings me more joy than the occasional email from someone I do not know, who has come out from the darkness or sometimes cult like experience and into the glorious light of salvation and the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Every now and again though, the Lord reminds me of an area I am overlooking. (This surely will be that he is overlooking something in his "discernment ministry," not a personal conviction regarding something lacking in his own spiritual walk...)

This past week I was visiting a church, where I had promised to meet some old friends. The main worship set consisted of two songs from Elevation Church and one from Jesus Culture. (No mention of which songs.)

The conviction from the Holy Spirit was thick that night. (Conviction that the author's heart is not right regarding his treatment of doctrinal opponents? Probably not...)

We just do not give proper consideration to the theology and topic of worship. There is no reason for this beloved as we spend more time worshipping collectively than listening to doctrinal sermons. (Given the above quoted Scripture, which says the Father is seeking such people to worship him..., one might conclude that spending time worshiping Him is of paramount importance.)

The average sermonette in a purpose driven church is probably about 20 minutes. The time spent worshipping God well exceeds that as that is the more entertaining portion for the goats the service is marketed to. (It's this kind of scorch-earth rhetoric that offends us. The author cannot know these things, but he's happy to pass judgment on them without any evidence at all. This is a surprisingly common attitude of so-called "discernment ministers.")

Position Paper #6 The Cessation of Tongues and Prophecy in the Reformed Tradition - by Greg Loren Durand

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

Most of this has already been covered elsewhere in our blog. In fact, this is nearly a repeat of what we discussed here. Apparently there's nothing new or more rigorous from the author.

Therefore, we shall simply supply a link to our other writings for those points so as not to excessively interrupt the narrative.

There are a couple of new points, which we shall deal with.

The main reason we are posting this is it is a spectacularly presumptive presentation. The author simply assumes his position is correct, and barely makes an effort to biblically document or even explain his claims.
---------------

Can the words of Christians create reality?

Our criteria for doctrinal debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions 
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any doctrinal defense must be Sola Scriptura.
-----------------------

Paul Went to the Third Heaven. What in the World Is He Talking About? - by Wyatt Graham

Found here. This is a fascinating explanation on a seldom-discussed passage.
----------------------

Somewhat apologetically, Paul describes himself as a man “in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven” (2 Cor 12:2). What in the world is he talking about? Or better: what in heaven is he talking about?

Here are four textual clues that can help us answer this question. And I have to admit at the get-go, I am attempting to understand Paul’s experience myself. So please read this as an example of thoughts-in-process. With that caveat in place, here we go.

First, Paul defines the third heaven as paradise

Paul in his own words defines the third heaven as “paradise” (2 Cor 12:2). Luke 23:43 records Jesus on the cross as saying, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Since Luke accompanied Paul on some of his journeys, likely they both mean the same thing by the word “paradise.” Luke could have heard Paul preaching and teaching on the matter.

We can be more specific about what Jesus means by paradise. The thief on the cross asks Jesus, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 22:42). Jesus does not reply, “you will be in my kingdom” but “today you will be with me in paradise.”

Likely, these two concepts (kingdom and paradise) overlap since Jesus claims that God’s power to cast out demons signifies “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20) and claims that the kingdom of God was in the midst of the Pharisees where Jesus was speaking (Luke 17:21). Where Jesus is, the kingdom is. And Jesus tells the thief “today you will be with me.”

So paradise at least has some conceptual overlap with the kingdom. Both signify at minimum being in the presence of Jesus.

The other biblical passage that mentions paradise is Revelation 2:7. In that passage, Jesus speaks of the tree of life as being in the paradise of God. Later John identifies the tree of life as being in the city of God where God dwells (Rev 22:2, 14, 19).

The tree’s leaves will heal the nations and then: “They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev 22:5). So God’s presence, and thus the connection to life, seem to be the reality that John signifies when he speaks about the tree of life. Further, those inside the city of God will live; and those outside of it will sin (Rev 22:14–15).

The point at hand is this: paradise means being in the presence of God who is life. The tree of life symbolizes God’s life-giving presence. In Luke 22, Jesus must mean something similar because he claims that after the thief dies, he will then live in paradise with Jesus. So life comes to the thief alongside of Jesus’s presence.

Therefore, Paul likely means something like this: he entered into God’s presence by ascending to the third heaven or the paradise of God. That he describes his visionary revelation as a revelation “of the Lord” only confirms this notion (2 Cor 12:1). 

Second, Paul defines his experience in terms of ascension

Friend of God Worship and Theology -- Damage Assessment 15 Years Later - Rev. Anthony Wade

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

Confusion abounds in this screed. The author can't quite decide if anyone beyond David is a friend of God. He seems to deny it then take it back later. Then he ends with the statement "Friend of God? I am still working on being a servant of God." 

We do not intend to defend the missteps of the songwriters, or even the song they wrote. In fact, we don't particularly like it.

Rather, we shall examine the assertions of the author, who is his usual acerbic and careless-with-the-facts self.
-----------------

No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. -- John 15:15-17 (ESV)

Sometime around 2005 two men sat down to write a worship song that would capture Churchianity for a decade. It had it all. A catchy lyric, a happy beat and of course a great hook -- I am a Friend of God! The song was nominated twice for a Dove Award and soon it was a staple song in nearly every church across this country and soon the world. Fast forward 15 years and it is time to do a damage assessment. Because this was not a sound worship song. This paved the way for equally unbiblical songs that have created a generation of entitled churchgoers who believe worship and the bible is actually about them. (Undocumented assertion.)

The two writers? Michael Gungor was once the toast of the evangelical world. Him and his wife Lisa won multiple Dove awards and Grammy nominations. A few years later they were out of the church and the faith. Michael even proclaimed he was an atheist and openly challenged the veracity of the bible. (The author seems almost celebratory. He also seems to imply that this negates Mr. Gungor's work in the faith. If so, does the author employ a similar standard to Horatio Spafford, the writer of "It is well with my soul," who also fell from the faith? If not, why not?)

Can Believers Manipulate the Power and Presence of Christ? - by Cameron Buettel

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

The author offers a question contained in the title: Can Believers Manipulate the Power and Presence of Christ? He never answers it. He does quote Dr. MacArthur's bare assertions at length. He offers his own opinions about Matthew 18. But beyond that, there is precious little about "manipulating the power and presence of Christ." The article isn't even really about this.

And aside from the subject verse, there isn't a single Bible quote in the entire article. We would have hoped for a biblical explanation, not the author's (or Dr. MacArthur's) undocumented opinions.

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

Billionaire Bonanza: The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us - by Chuck Collins, Josh Hoxie

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

This report has a scholarly veneer, but it's nothing but a left-wing screed. All of it is founded on a single assumption: Rich people are bad.

There's a lot of data here, almost all of it coming from sources with an agenda. That is, the sources are cited because they agree with the author's premises.

And there are also a lot of bare assertions here, based on undocumented assumptions and politicized perspectives. 

It is not even slightly a surprise that every one of the proposed "solutions" is a government action, consisting mostly of increasing taxes. But the relatively small amounts of taxes collected will barely make a dent. A government that spends $4.4 trillion a year would not be impacted. In fact, the top 400 wealthiest Americans combine for $2.34 trillion in total wealth. Confiscating 100% of their money would run the government for barely 6 months.

And last we note that nowhere in this document is a definition of what "equality" looks like. That is, there is no stated goal as to when the proper level of equality has been achieved. If that scares you, it should. The authors want to give even more power to an already unaccountable government in order for it to affect social outcomes.

This has never worked in the history of mankind, but it has left a 100 million people dead it its wake.

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

The 4 Biggest Conservative Lies About Inequality - by Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich pretends to be a truth-teller, which is ironic considering he can't even accurately represent conservatives.

Indeed, he isn't even able to tell the difference between an opinion and a true/false statement. All of the below are opinions about how things should work, not factual statements.

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

Even though we’re heading toward levels of inequality not seen since the days of the 19th century robber barons, (A trend which has been going on for more than thirty years. Interestingly, it is leftists who controlled government for most of that time.)

conservatives keep lying about what’s happening and what to do about it. Here are their four biggest lies about inequality, followed by the truth.

1. The rich and CEOs are America’s job creators, so we dare not tax them.

The truth is the middle class and poor are the job-creators through their purchases of goods and services. (This is a chicken/egg debate. It is also an expression of an opinion based on a world view, as opposed to a statement of fact.

Dr. Reich, being a Leftist, also has a world view, filtered through the bourgeois/proletariat template. 

It takes employers doing what they do, employees doing what they do, and consumers doing what they do, in order to have a functioning economy. It's called capitalism, a proven and sure structure that has been in operation since man first decided to trade one thing for another.

Further, no one is suggesting that "we dare not tax them." This is what I mean by Dr. Reich not accurately representing conservatives. He is most certainly unable to name a single conservative of note that has advocated for no corporate taxation.  If we can't trust Dr. Reich on this detail, we cannot trust him on the remaining three points. Indeed, this will prove itself as we continue.)

Private business and "public accommodation"

Found here.

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

The idea of "public accommodation" is ensconced in federal anti-discrimination statutes, one of which is 42 U.S.C. §2000a. While we agree that discrimination is repugnant, and people should not discriminate, the idea that the law should prevent people from voluntary associations is repugnant to us as well. And that's what these laws do.

Here is the statute:

42 U.S.C. §2000a 

(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: 

1. any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. 
2. any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;
3. any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

Why does this violate our rights? The First Amendment reads

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We have a right to peaceably assemble, which means our assembly is voluntary. We choose those with whom we wish to assemble. We assemble for an agreed purpose, with agreed persons, at the times and places of our choosing. The government violates this right by forcing people to assemble.

Is God Angry at Me When I Sin? - by John Piper

Found here. Some interesting thoughts.
--------------

As you can imagine, we get a lot of questions about what it means to live as a child of God. We go from being a rebel against the King to becoming a child of the King. So how does God’s disposition toward us change? And specifically, is God angry at his children when they sin? It’s a question from a listener named Kathleen.

“Pastor John, hello! As a born-again believer, is God still angry at me when I sin? I believe God’s wrath is real, and I have embraced Christ’s propitiation for my sins. But I struggle to understand the difference between God’s wrath and anger over my sin before and after my justification. I personally hate my own sin and want to be done with it all. But for now, does Christ’s death for my sins and subsequent propitiation mean that God is never angry at me when I sin? Or just that his final wrath on me was satisfied? What is God’s affectional disposition toward me, in Christ, when I stumble and sin in my life right now?”

It might be possible to put in a sentence or two the complex affectional disposition of God toward his children in this age. But it seems to me that such an effort does less than what the Scriptures actually do when we read them regarding God’s disposition toward us.

It gives some help to try to synthesize those words; I do this all the time. That’s what preaching and theology is: the effort to make sense out of all the passages of the Bible. But when it comes down to it early in the morning, late at night, when we need some word of truth and firmness and helpfulness and encouragement, it isn’t so much the syntheses that have power in our lives, but the very words of God himself in Scripture. So let me do both, but really put the emphasis on the Scriptures.

Disciplined, Not Condemned

“Even though God is displeased when we sin, he never looks on us with contempt.”

Let me say just a short word of synthesis and then refer Kathleen to the very specific passages of Scripture. Here’s my synthesis:

Should We Abolish Billionaires? - by Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich's premise is astonishing. Who is this "we" he refers to? And on what basis does "we" get the power to decide who has too much money and who else deserves it more? And by what moral process would "we" abolish the ability to earn more than a billion dollars?

The fact that anyone would take Dr. Reich seriously now is astounding.

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

America now has more billionaires than at any time in history, (How could it be any other way? It's easier now than ever to become a billionaire, as inflation takes its toll on the value of the dollar.)

while most Americans are struggling to make ends meet. (Undocumented assertion. Indeed, Dr. Reich's intent is to set us up with an "us vs. them" scenario - - classic socialist agitprop.)

With such staggering inequality, (Dr. Reich does not establish that some people having more money than others is unequal.)

it’s fair to ask: should we abolish billionaires? (No, it's not at all fair to ask.)

There are basically only four ways to accumulate a billion dollars – and none of them is a product of so-called free market capitalism. (Oops. Dr. Reich will outline these, some of which are illegal, but admits that none of them are capitalism. 

So Dr. Reich, if capitalism doesn't create billionaires, then is it socialism? Dictatorship? Monarchy? Oh, I know: It's democratic socialism, the only system currently in operation in the US.

Yet we will discover that capitalism is the target. )

Billionaires themselves aren’t the problem. (Really? Then why does Dr. Reich's solution involve punishing billionaires?)

The real failure is in how our economy is organized. (That is, our current economy, with its ever-increasing government intervention into the free market over the past few decades, is organized improperly.)

Cessationism: Episode 10: Does God speak only through the Scriptures?

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.