Five Ways You’re Probably Not A Calvinist - By Wes Bredenhof

Found here. Interesting things here.
------------------

What’s a Calvinist? That can be a tough question to answer. It’s fair to say there are Reformed people who believe it simply means we’re followers of John Calvin. If a Lutheran follows the teachings of Martin Luther, then a Calvinist must follow the teachings of John Calvin. In a general sense, that’s true. We do follow and share some of the important tenets held by John Calvin – not because he said so, but because the Bible teaches these things. Most importantly of all, with Calvin we maintain the gospel of sovereign grace.

Nevertheless, there are things John Calvin taught or practiced that few, if any, self-identifying Calvinists would hold to today. Let me outline five of them.

This Week In NAR Absurdity -- God is a Capitalist - Rev. Anthony Wade proves he's Left

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Yes, another commentary regarding the incendiary Rev. Wade. We apologize for posting his hyperbolic screeds, but we feel the need to counter the heretical Reverend at every point. He is a false teacher, yet he has gained some traction on the various websites of the Doctrinal Police. It is troubling when these supposed "discernment ministries" have no discernment.

The Reverend is writing about Sam Rohrer, who heads up something called The American Pastors Network. Read its doctrinal statement and the write-ups about its leadership, and with those in mind, consider Rev. Wade's presentation.

Lastly, the Reverend confirms his leftist bonafides, something we have suspected for a long time.

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

12 Scriptures cessationists misinterpret

It has become our quest to discover the biblical basis for cessationism. We should explain that a cessationist is a person who believes the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit ended with the death of the last Apostle, so for them there are no gifts of healing, prophecy, tongues, or words of knowledge today.

We have reviewed many articles and many writers in our quest, but have been left unsatisfied. We suppose our lack of success is partly because errant teaching is so ingrained in the Church that even solid Christians cannot see past their biases (we would include ourselves, of course). This is largely the result of a church culture that accepts without question what pastors say and what theologians teach.

In addition, too many cessationists are reluctant to quote Scripture in their defenses. Thus it is frequently difficult to ascertain the biblical basis for cessationist arguments when they fail to quote it.

And the reason for this? We would speculate that it is because of an accidental or intentional tendency to misrepresent Scripture. Or, it is because those cessationists simply have not read those Scriptures closely enough. Or, they think their case is so self-evident that they don't need to quote Scripture.

But cessationists will sometimes appeal to a central core of Scriptures in their defense of their position. Today's post will review the most commonly misrepresented/misinterpreted Scriptures used to defend cessationism. As an aside, it is interesting that the entire case for cessationism relies on just a handful of misinterpreted Scriptures. Those Scriptures are:

• Hebrews 1:2 
• 2 Peter 1:19 
• 2 Peter 1:3
• 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 
• Acts 1:21 
• 2 Co. 12:12
• Hebrews 2:4 
• Ep. 2:20 
• Jude 3
• Re. 22:18-19
• 2 Tim. 3:16 - 17
• 1Co. 4:6

Should Christians be Praying for Wolves? - by Rev. Anthony Wade

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

Bombastic and inscrutable as usual, Rev. Wade expends thousands of words trying to explain why he is exempted from praying for certain people. 
--------------------

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -- 1Timothy 2:1-4 (ESV)

(...)

In making a generic post the other day regarding the purpose of discernment, I casually referenced the truth -- which is that we should not be praying for wolves. While many agreed there was the same choir responding that the bible says we should just be loving and praying for everyone. Once again, I get that. It sounds noble and pious. I do not actually care what it sounds like however. I just want to know if it is sound biblically and guess what? It is not.

(...)

False teachers are not our brethren who have sinned against us, as referenced in Matthew 18. (Let's actually quote the passage: 

Mt. 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you,  go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ [Deut. 19:15] 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Follow Rev. Wade's train of thought: 

• Rev. Wade disagrees with someone's doctrine. 
• because Rev. Wade has the correct doctrine, the other person is a false teacher. 
• because the person is a false teacher, he's not saved. 
• because he's not saved he is not a brother. 
• because he's not a brother, Rev. Wade is excused from Matthew 18.
• Therefore, Rev. Wade does not have to pray for him. 

Note that each subsequent step requires us to accept an additional assumption, treated as fact.  And each assumption must prove correct in turn in order to arrive at his conclusion. If any assumption is in error, the whole train of thought collapses.

Each assumption places Rev. Wade in the position of God by making judgments about someone's eternal state, which he cannot know. 

It is upon this basis that Rev. Wade derives his smug certainty, excusing him from his Christian duty. He is attempting to relieve himself of his obligation to individual members of the Body of Christ, essentially by claiming they are not.)

Four kinds of church-goers

When it comes to what church people want:

• Some want to be taught what they’ve been taught
• Some want to hear things they’ve never heard before 
• Some want something they can run with
• Some want what is life and Spirit

The first kind are people who already know what they believe. They simply want the pastor to repeat it back to them. This group tends to be sticklers for doctrinal purity, systematized down to the last detail.

Understanding Discernment 101 - By Rev. Anthony Wade

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

Rev. Wade continues to be a rich treasure-trove of breathless outrage, machine gun rhetoric, and hyperbolic claims.

In today's "devotional" he provides us with 1704 words (not including the two Scripture quotes), in which he manages only an attempt to justify his bombastic methods and mocking tactics. He tells us nothing about "Discernment 101," which of course would be an introductory explanation about what the Bible teaches about discernment. 

Rev. Wade should not be regarded as a teacher of the Bible.

We thoroughly discuss discernment here.
-------------------

Pizza and Coke for Communion? - by Clint Archer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Yet another teacher who cannot bring himself to quote any Scripture, beyond a piece of a phrase here and there. Why this is so prevalent among those who fancy themselves as Correctors Of Doctrine is frankly beyond us.

In addition, the author will create a whole structure of what is and isn't permitted, based on suppositions and inferences. It's a confusing mess.

We thoroughly discuss communion here.

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

The NAR Charismatic Call to Turn Church into a Chaotic, Demonic Free-for-All - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Well, Rev. Wade is back, and as is his usual practice, employs scorched-earth rhetoric, misdirection, and wild tangents in a vain attempt to put together a single cogent idea. 3035 words (excluding the opening Scripture and the Burton quotes), and he still cannot assemble an argument.

We will agree with Rev. Wade that there are apostate churches and false teachers. We will not agree, however, with his broad generalizations and unsupported assertions.

And, except for the opening Scripture, not a single Bible verse!

This is very long, but we hope the reader will persevere to the end.

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

Discernment IS Love - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have noted that "discernment ministers" do not like being criticized. One particularly egregious "minister" goes off on his critic for the critic's simple suggestion that disagreement does not mean heresy. This kind of response is too typical.

Mas. Lesley is herself is a "discernment minister," and she also bristles at criticism. She tries to justify her actions by comparing herself to Jesus and Paul. Of course, what Jesus and Paul did are not under discussion and in no way justify her behavior. 

Thus she simply diverts in order to avoid answering the question put to her. And as typical for "discernment ministers," she quotes absolutely no Scripture.

In addition, Ms. Lesley isolates behavior from motivation. She appeals solely to her self-avowed noble behavior, and simply presumes that this behavior demonstrates love.

Here is the comment to which Ms. Lesley responds:

RACHEL
January 10, 2018 at 4:25 am

Michelle,
You have written an article here to help address issues you feel strongly about today in the church. It sounds like you are concerned people are watering down the gospel. What is your sense of what the gospel’s message is? It is said that they will know we are Christians by our love. It is said that we can have all knowledge and truth, but without love we are just a noisy gong. It lists the gifts of the spirit and says that the greatest of these is love. It says love covers a multitude of sins. And that the greatest commandment is that we love God and love our neighbor as ourself. It says he laid down his life in love for others and that he expects we will take up that same cross and do the same as his followers. Our Lord is gentle in heart, slow to anger, abounding in Grace, quick to forgive. He climbed up on the cross to die for those who persecuted him. He laid down his life for us while we were full of sin. He seems hardest on the ones who fail to show grace to others, urging us to love unconditionally our brothers and sisters and also those who are not our brothers and sisters. My question is do you feel that kind of love for these folks you are talking about in this article? Do you think someone reading this would sense that love in this article towards the ones you disagree with? Is our gospel And good news that Jesus died for us out of love and that now we’ve got love overflowing in our hearts? I wondered if this is an article stemmed from that kind of love. I would think if the world looks on and sees how we speak of one another they will be encouraged if they see love and grace pouring out for one another even if we don’t agree. That we might try to season every conversation with love above all things. I wondered if you would agree with that?

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

Are there apostles and prophets today? - COLLEEN TINKER

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author can't seem to make up her mind. She wants to be cessationist but concedes that people do hear from God. Except they don't. But... the gifts of the Spirit are real. But people shouldn't seek to hear from God.

Actually, she just doesn't know. And, she never actually quotes a Scripture in defense of her position.

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

Being led by the Spirit: What does it mean exactly? Should I expect to hear directly from Him? part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We thoroughly discuss impressions here.

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

Yesterday in part 1 I'd (sic) examined the fact that women for generations now have been taught from so-called Bible teachers and book & devotional authors that we hear directly from God. Whether these revelations or direct contacts are in the form of whispers, prompts, visions, impressions on our heart, ‘told me,’ or audibly, we've been taught that it's supposed to be normal to have a relationship full of lively, direct communication.

I'd said (sic) no, that is not the normal method of communication from God, He speaks from the Bible and the Bible alone. (Go back and read her part 1. She indeed asserted there that He speaks from the Bible and the Bible alone, but she did not demonstrate it from the Bible in that article, nor will she demonstrate it here. 

It is upon this undocumented premise the rest of her presentation rests.)