Lessons From a Prayer Warrior - by Mike Phay

Found here. A very good article.

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

This is not an article for spiritual giants who spend three hours a day on their knees, attend every prayer meeting, and pack each spare moment with petitions and praises.

If this is you, feel free to stop reading now (and pray for the rest of us).

This is an article for those of us who think the word “PRAY” is the most jarring four-letter word uttered in the church. It’s for those of us who struggle to pray, who are afraid to pray, or who feel guilty about our crummy prayer lives.

I get it. I struggle to pray, too. I don’t consider myself a prayer warrior or a prayer giant. I’m more of a prayer toddler.

But I want to learn to pray. Not set any prayer records—just learn to pray. I want to be a man known for prayer. When you don’t know how to do something, you ask an expert. So that’s what I did.

More thoughts from an 80 year old - reflections from the 1980s

6/10/85 - Be still and know I am God. Your guidance is for one day at a time. The future you could not bear otherwise. I am with you and you will have the necessary strength. All is secondary to My plan. Have more faith.

8/29/85 - Praise and thanksgiving are to be used every day. Love more. Be cheerful and happy in the Lord at all times. I am directing your paths. Be obedient.

The Argument from the Bible (1996) - By Theodore M. Drange

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Another analytical attempt at debunking the Bible. Many of the author's arguments can be dismissed on their face because a lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Some can be dismissed because there is no issue. And had the author took some time to look up what's already been written about some of these, he wouldn't even bother to include them. 

Others we will examine in greater detail.

This is a very long article.  I'm not quite sure I will be able to critique it in its entirety. However, it is very clear that the author's objections are of a sort that can be easily dealt with. Given that, we can safely assume that what I do not get to will be of the same vein.

I might return to this post from time to time to add commentary. 
-------------------

Almost all evangelical Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was divinely inspired and represents God's main revelation to humanity. They also believe that the Bible contains special features which constitute evidence of its divine inspiration. This would be a use of the Bible to prove God's existence within natural theology rather than within revealed theology, since the book's features are supposed to be evident even to (open-minded) skeptics. Furthermore, since a divinely inspired work must be true, those features are thereby also evidence of the Bible's truth, and thus can be used in support of Christianity as the one true religion. When expressed that way, the reasoning can be construed as an argument both for God's existence and for the truth of the gospel message from the alleged special features of the Bible. We may refer to it as "the Argument from the Bible". Although almost all evangelical Christians agree with it at least to some extent, it is an argument that is for the most part ignored by professional philosophers of religion. One explanation for such neglect is that the argument can be easily refuted. In this essay/outline, I shall try to sketch how such a refutation might be formulated, though I am sure many will feel that I am attacking a strawman. (I believe there are millions of such "strawpeople" out there!)

1. The Argument Formulated

The Argument from the Bible is usually regarded as a kind of "cumulative-case" argument. It may be formulated as follows:

(1) The Bible contains a large number of prophecies of future events which have been remarkably fulfilled. (Agree.)

(2) The Bible does not contain any unfulfilled prophecies. (Disagree.)

(3) The only reasonable explanation for the above facts is that God used his foreknowledge to make the prophecies and inspired the authors of the Bible to record them. (Agree.)

(4) The Bible contains a convincing eye-witness account of the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Jesus of Nazareth. (Agree.)

(5) The only reasonable explanation for the above fact is that Jesus was and is a divine being, which shows the truth of the Bible and its gospel message. (Agree.)

(6) The Bible contains no contradictions. (Agree and disagree.)

(7) The Bible contains amazing facts about the planet earth, compatible with modern science, which were unknown in ancient times. (Agree and disagree.) Also, the Bible contains no conflicts with modern science or errors of a factual nature. (Agree and disagree.)

(8) The Bible contains a perfect morality, and no ethical defects. (Agree.)

(9) The only reasonable explanation for facts (6)-(8), above, is that the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself. (Agree and disagree.)

(10) Putting together results (3), (5), and (9), above, we may infer that the Bible is not a purely manmade work, but divinely inspired, which establishes the truth of Christianity and its gospel message. (Agree.)

Other premises are sometimes appealed to in the formulation of the argument. For example, Henry M. Morris places much emphasis on the alleged uniqueness of the Bible. [1] He also mentions what he takes to be remarkable numerical designs in it. [2] But for our purposes, the given formulation should suffice. It includes what are regarded to be the main factors within the Argument from the Bible. (We have some additional criteria.

1. The historical accuracy of the Bible
2. The huge variety and numerousness of manuscripts placed close to the events
3. The presentation of main characters that include all their flaws.

The Bible is a trustworthy book for what it presents. It is the best-attested document from antiquity. There is no reason to doubt what it contains, except for those who enter the equation with preconceptions and biases against God and the supernatural.)

The Bible is sufficient. - Excerpt from Tim Challies

Found here.
----------

I wonder if the author is cleverly phrasing his statements in order to sort of say something without saying it. He writes:

1. The Bible is the final and sufficient authority on matters of life and faith. 
2. We do not need any other revelations from God to complete the Christian faith. 
3. By saying it is the final authority, we acknowledge that other forms of Special Revelation have ceased. 
4. We no longer expect to receive God’s revelation by dreams, visions or by hearing His voice directly. 
5. The Bible is complete and perfect, meaning that no more books can be added to it or taken from it.

Three Bible verses that say the Bible is NOT God’s word! - by Scepcop

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

It's not often you come across an atheist who quotes the Bible, expounds on the ideas contained in those quotes, and then draws reasonable and discuss-able conclusions from those ideas, all without excessive mocking or derision. Such is the author of today's article.

His presentation is not without its flaws. Ultimately, the author deems the Bible to be unremarkable and unprovable. But such a standard is one not possible for any document from antiquity.  

For example, we cannot prove the Constitution was written by James Madison. We have no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses to interview, no photographs. All we have is historical documentary evidence. It is unprovable, therefore, that James Madison wrote the Constitution.

So of course we can't prove that God inspired the Bible. We can only read it for ourselves, study the original languages, read apologists and critics, and reach our own conclusions. We think the average person who retains a balanced and unbiased approach to the Scriptures, will conclude they are indeed unique, worthy of devotion, and quite possibly the answer to all the questions of life.
-------------------

Argument # 1: The Bible is the infallible word of God.

This is the first and most fundamental claim that Christians make when Evangelizing. It is just taken for granted that it is true, but if you analyze the weight of the evidence for this doctrine, you find that it is in actuality both weak and nearly non-existent. First of all, the first sentence of this argument, that the “Bible is the word of God” implies that the text in the Bible books are God’s words verbatim. However, we all know, including the Christians, that humans wrote those books. The only difference is that Christians believe that the humans (the identity of many of them are unknown) who wrote the Bible were guided by God the Holy Spirit, and therefore, they are God’s words verbatim and without flaw.(That may indeed be the implication in the author's mind, but it's not the only thing that can be inferred. Other reasonable inferences are

1. The Bible is filtered through the personalities of the writers, yet is still inspired and trustworthy
2. The Bible captures the essence of what God wanted humankind to know and is sufficient for communicating His purposes towards us
3. The Bible is wholly written by man, yet God moved through those writings
4. A combination of any of these.)

 The question then becomes, were they? Furthermore, they argue that since we would assume that God would protect his own word, that the Bible has remain unchanged.

Now these are huge assumptions for one thing. It would take A LOT to prove or even demonstrate such outlandish claims literally. (The author has not demonstrated that these are outlandish claims. And in fact voluminous scholarship has been undertaken over the centuries to demonstrate these very things. The field is apologetics, sir.)

However, not only do Christian Evangelists make these assumptions, but they just assume it to be true as well without any real basis. (The author has not demonstrated Christians are making assumptions, nor has he established that there is no basis. So far, he has only made summary statements.)

In general, the issue is not questioned or analyzed in the church as to whether the Bible is God’s word or not. It is simply ASSUMED to be so. It’s a GIVEN. (Another summary statement. As we mentioned, there is a substantial field of study in Christian apologetics.)

And it rests on a very shaky foundation, much more so than they could imagine. What most Christians don't realize and never think about is that God himself never actually told them directly that the Bible was his word. (Undocumented assertion.)

Spiritual Gifts: What they Are and Why they Matter - review by Tim Challies

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

Yes, I'm reviewing the reviewer's review.
-----------------

The movement called the New Calvinism has been around for quite a long time now, but still hasn’t solved one of its most basic questions: Do the miraculous or revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to the present time or have they ceased (positions that are generally labeled “continuationism” and “cessationism” respectively)? (If we are to be honest, cessationism also has not solved the problem. Their case is particularly weak, as I've noted many times before. In fact, prominent cessationist Tom Pennington admits their case isn't definitive:

First of all, they’ll (continuationists) say the New Testament nowhere directly states that the miraculous gifts will cease during the church age. But that argument cuts both ways because the New Testament doesn’t directly say they will continue either.

That is, Mr. Pennington concedes that neither side gets to claim a definitive solution.)

If it's not in the 66 books of the Bible, God didn't say it - John MacArthur

Found here.

Assuming Dr. MacArthur actually said it, this is so false we are surprised anyone would spread it around.

Implicit in this statement is that everything God has ever said is contained in the Bible. This of course is preposterous. We know full well that the entirety of what God has said could not be contained in any book. The Scriptures themselves are quite clear.

Jn. 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

And we note that many other things are not in the Bible. For example, what happened to the annals of Solomon?

1Kg. 11:41 As for the other events of Solomon’s reign — all he did and the wisdom he displayed — are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?

Or the annals of Jehu?

2Ch. 20:34 The other events of Jehoshaphat’s reign, from beginning to end, are written in the annals of Jehu son of Hanani, which are recorded in the book of the kings of Israel.

Why don't we have the letter written to Laodicea?

Col. 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

Bozeman ramps up affordable housing effort - By Katheryn Houghton Chronicle Staff Writer

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

The City of Bozeman has been pushing for "affordable housing" since at least 2002. but despite their near total failure, members of the city commission persist in their leftist utopian dreams. 

The existing plan, 42 (!) pages long, created exactly zero affordable housing units. Not to be deterred, the commission has created yet another plan. 
----------------

Hillsong: A Breeding Ground for False Converts – And Your Church Pays for It - by by Jeff Maples

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Maples has appeared in these pages before, writing about the exact same thing: Hillsongs. We also critiqued him here on another subject.

This is a long and bombastic article. Mr. Maples has a slash and burn style of rhetoric, frequently devoid of thoughtful analysis and often containing undocumented assertions. Most egregiously, he's also willing to say some pretty awful things about those with whom he differs theologically. 

This is the biggest complaint I have about some of the "doctrinal police," or as they would describe themselves, "discernment ministries." This article pins it down the problem pretty well. We would regard Mr. Maples as a textbook example.

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

The Wretched Art of Loveless Discernment - by REAGAN ROSE

Found here.

This is an extremly important article, especially in view of the mocking attitude many "discernment ministries" (I call them the "doctrinal police") have when they deal with pastors, churches, or movements they disagree with.

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


Christians are called to speak the truth (Eph 4:15). It is no surprise, therefore, that our enemy’s preferred tactic is deception (Rev 12:9). Consequently, because of this war between truth and deception, believers are called to exercise discernment—to be vigilant in dividing truth from error (Acts 17:11; Jude 3).

Tragically, the modern church often neglects this essential duty to contend for the truth. Even worse, professing Christians often scorn attempts at discernment as uncharitable and judgmental, subsequently dismissing it all together. This is one reason why those of us who practice discernment must be vigilant to not embody what the scoffers accuse us of. As we contend for right doctrine, we must take care to adorn it with right attitudes and behavior (Titus 2:10).

But isn’t that the exact opposite of what we see today among self-described discerners? For some Christians, what begins with a healthy interest in discernment can end in an unhealthy addiction to gossip and debate. Many of them manifest a cruelty in how they go about condemning error. There’s an almost giddiness when they get to call someone “false teacher” and a haughty attitude of superiority. These things ought not be so.

We must wield discernment like a surgeon’s scalpelWe are called to speak the truth, yes. But we are called to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). That does not mean speaking less truth. But, it should be a heart check for us in how we speak the truth. How sad it would be if, in our attempts to be discerning, that ever-clever Devil twisted our love for truth into a love of gossip and contempt for others. What if he succeeded in tempting us to err in our walk even as we were seeking to reject error in our doctrine?

If we are to practice discernment in love, we must discern with precision, humility, and sorrow. Not to temper the truth, but rather that we might bolster the truth with our love that we might more honor Christ and persuade the erring.

Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism - Michael Shermer

Our comments in bold.
-------------

We're guessing Dr. Shermer is a smart man, but reading this article leaves us completey unsatisfied. As you read you'll find many undocumented premises, leaps of logic, and a verbosity that eventually gets tedious. 

We are unable to grant to Dr. Shermer his presumption of Christian morality to establish his theses. We agree that starving people is bad, that wars are bad, and that racism is bad. But we also acknowledge objective morality. It falls to Dr. Shermer to establish the basis of his beliefs without assuming our morality for himself.

This he does not do.
------------

To cite this article: Michael Shermer (2017): Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment
Humanism, Theology and Science, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060
Published online: 19 Jun 2017.

Abstract
The success of the Scientific Revolution led to the development of the worldview of scientific naturalism, or the belief that the world is governed by natural laws and forces that can be understood, and that all phenomena are part of nature and can be explained by natural causes, including human cognitive, moral and social phenomena. The application of scientific naturalism in the human realm led to the widespread adoption of Enlightenment humanism, a cosmopolitan worldview that places supreme value on science and reason, eschews the supernatural entirely and relies exclusively on nature and nature’s laws, including human nature.

In June of 1510, 64 women and men were burned at the stake in Val Camonica, Italy, for causing drought and fires and for harming people, animals and land.

In July of 1518, 60 women and men were burned at the stake in Breto, Italy, for triggering thunder and lightning and for causing sickness and death of nearly 200 people. In June of 1582, the wife of an English sawyer named Alice Glosscock from the town of Chelmsford was stripped naked and her body searched for “the marks of a witch,” which were found, leading to her conviction and execution.

In May of 1653, a Connecticut colonialist named Elizabeth Godman asked her neighbor Goodwife Thorp if she had any chickens to sell, but none were available. The next day Thorp’s chickens dropped dead, leading to Godman’s arrest and trial.

In May of 1692, seven teenage girls writhed on the floor of a Salem, Massachusetts, courtroom during the trial of a suspected witch named Martha Carrier, crying out “There is a black man whispering in her ear!” Carrier was one of 20 people executed in what became the most famous witch trial in history.

(Joseph Stalin [18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953], presiding over the atheist paradise of the Soviet Union, was responsible for the death of up to 9 million people.

Pol Pot [19 May 1925 – 15 April 1998], atheist, was responsible for up to 2 million deaths.

Mao Zedong [China 1949-75], atheist, death toll: 40 million.)

What were these people thinking?1 It is convenient to dismiss them as unthinking naïfs caught up in the hysterics of a moral panic, but in fact they were thinking quite clearly and they had the authority of the Bible behind them, as in Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (A puerile assertion. Evil people do evil things. It doesn't require a Bible for them to perpetrate their horrors, although it is a convenient excuse. But evil people don't need an excuse.

Further, Christians are not Jews, and as a result are not obligated to do the things Jews did.

The balance of the author's presentation is based on this premise, with an additional premise that science solved the problem.)

The Gracious Work of the Holy Spirit - by Sinclair Ferguson

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

At first we thought that this article was going to provide some useful and edifying information, but as we read we discovered some deep flaws.

The author manages to quote only a snippet of a single Scripture. This is a Bible teacher, mind you. A Bible teacher who barely quotes Scripture.
------------

A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

As we've noted many times, we are in search of a biblical explanation of cessationism, including the cessation of the gift of prophecy. Let's see how Mr. Busenitz does. A commentary on another of his articles is here.

This is a long article. We've deleted the introduction and several irrelevant passages.
------------------

(...)

The Bible articulates three criteria for identifying a false prophet. (The author is unable to cite the Scriptures that articulate these three criteria.)

And Tom Pennington hit on these quickly in his seminar just this morning. These three tests, I’m just going to state them briefly and then we’ll go through them in more detail. The first would be the test of doctrinal orthodoxy. (We would counter with biblical orthodoxy. "Things that agree with my doctrine" is not the same as "things that agree with the Bible.")

God’s true prophets proclaim doctrines that are right and true. New Revelation is always consistent with previous revealed truth.

Second, moral integrity. God’s true prophets are characterized by personal holiness. Those who claim to speak for God must also live out that truth in their lives.

And then thirdly, predictive accuracy…predictive accuracy. God’s true prophets foretell future events or reveal hidden things with 100 percent accuracy. (We have a quibble with this, so we will skip the first two criteria and move right to this one.)

Proposed ordinance will improve community’s health - Stephanie McDowell

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

On May 14, at 6 p.m., Bozeman Cities for CEDAW will stand together and ask our Bozeman city commission to pass a resolution to advance the human rights of all women and girls.

CEDAW (Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) (Text here.)

is a 1979 international Women’s Bill of Rights that has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Although the U.S. is the only developed country in the world that hasn’t ratified CEDAW, change can still be made at a local level. (Hmm. What about undeveloped nations? Some of the worst nations for women's rights have signed on. Like the Congo, which signed on in 1980, but is among the worst discriminators against women.

Given this, what is the point of CEDAW? How is it that nations like Sudan and Ethiopia have signed on but women there are still barely more than chattel?)

Debunking 12 Erroneous Views About the Apostolic - by JOSEPH MATTERA

Found here. A very good article.

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

Through the years there has been much opposition to the restoration of apostolic ministry today. Having been educated in non-charismatic bible institutes and universities, I have a very good understanding of those who misunderstand the global restoration of the fivefold ministry gifts as seen in Ephesians 4:11.

The following are 12 of the arguments against it and my responses:

1. There were no apostles after the original Twelve.
The fact of the matter is, in addition to the original Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, there were numerous people either cited as apostles or who were sent as apostles in the New Testament.

During the days of the early church, the word "apostle" was a common word used to denote a person sent on official business to represent another person, nation or government. Hence, when Jesus designated the original Twelve disciples as apostles, the connotation was that they were being sent out to represent Jesus and the kingdom of God.

To make the point that there were more apostles than the original Twelve, we read in Luke 10:1 that Jesus sent (apostolos) another 70—thus, apostolic ministry expanded to a total of 82 disciples. Furthermore, there were others recognized as apostles besides those already cited:

• Apollos (1 Cor. 4:6-13)
• Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25; "messenger" is apostolos in the Greek)
• James, the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19)
• Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor. 9:5, 6)
• Andronicus (Rom. 16:7)
• Junia (Rom. 16:7)
• Titus (2 Cor. 8:23; "messenger" is apostolos in the Greek)
• An unnamed brother (2 Cor. 8:18, 22, 23)
• Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6)

Consequently, this indicates that the apostolic ministry was not only not limited to the original Twelve Apostles, but that the ministry was meant to continue until the fullness of time when Christ returns bodily a second time. To this the Apostle Paul alludes to in Ephesians 4:11-13, when he says all five cluster gifts will continue until the unity of the faith and until the church comes to the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Obviously, since this has not happened yet we can expect God to continue to manifest these ministry gifts on the earth.

Here Is How You Say Goodbye To Your Forever Person - By Heidi Priebe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

When we consider the case someone is making for taking action, we should always examine the premises. Here we have an author who in the final analysis is seeking to justify a decision, not provide a framework for making it.

On a style note, it's really irritating when the writer employs so many one-sentence paragraphs. I suppose it's intended to come across as conversational and down to earth, but it's simply distracting.

-------------- 

Our ‘forever people’ are, by definition, the ones we’re meant to never say goodbye to. (This sentence implies there is a higher reason for relationship, in that there is some sort of destiny to be together. We're "meant to never say goodbye." So how is it that the author is going to provide us a way out of what was meant to be?

And we note that later the author will assert there are no "forever people," except for one's self.)

Is Your Church Christian or Christianish? - Tim Challies

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

I understand that the author wants people to embrace authentic Christianity as he sees it, yet the false binary choices he offers adds little light to the situation.

The reader will note the complete absence of Scriptural references from the author.
--------------------

Three little letters make a world of difference. Together i, s, and h distinguish Christian from Christianish and mark the difference between right and wrong, life and death, heaven and hell. (This is a serious charge. In other words, everything he will offer below is a matter of salvation. It appears that he thinks it isn't even possible to be a Christian if you're in the wrong church.)

There is nothing better for your spiritual wellbeing than to be in a Christian church. There is nothing worse for your spiritual wellbeing than to be in a Christianish church. Here are a few marks of each.

A Christian church teaches the Bible. It is committed to the inerrancy, sufficiency, clarity, and authority of the Word of God and therefore preaches it week by week with confidence and consistency. A Christianish church teaches about the Bible. It is committed to imparting life lessons and uses the scriptures as a starting point to teach people how to live lives of success and fulfillment. (This is a distinction without a difference. Teaching the Bible and teaching about the Bible is basically synonymous. And part the purpose of teaching the Bible is to teach people how to live, including "living lives of success and fulfillment." Living successful and fulfilling lives according to biblical precepts is a primary raison d'être of the church.)

A Response to Andy Stanley on “Theological Correctness”–With Help from Jonathan Edwards - BY OWEN STRACHAN

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

I am not intending to defend Andy Stanley per se; I am interested in examining the case the author makes. It is interesting to note that the author is reluctant to quote Scripture in making his case.

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

Andy Stanley just made waves. At the recent Orange Conference, Stanley spoke on John 17 and said that oneness in the faith is “more important than being theologically correct.” The broader context of his remarks was the need for church unity, as seen in this summary:

“He prayed for our oneness, that we’d be on the same page,” said Stanley. “This is mission critical. If they are not one, we will not win … unity is mission critical and disunity disrupts the mission. … Will we prioritize our oneness over our doctrinal peculiarities? Our baptism, our communion, our style of worship, our preaching?” According to the Christian Post, Stanley said of Acts 15 that the early church was willing to make “theological and cultural concessions for the sake of unity and so should you and so should I.”

Read the whole report. Let me offer three quick responses to these comments on being “theologically correct” and unity.

First, we attain Christian unity only when we are “theologically correct.” (That is, if you agree with the author's doctrine exactly, we can be in unity. However, there is no such precept in the Bible. The Bible tells us, Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. Eph. 4:3)

Think of the passage Stanley preached on at Orange. There, Christ prays for the Father to bless his blood-bought people. “Sanctify them in the truth,” he petitions the Father (John 17:17). There is no unity, no sanctification, no hope outside of the truth. (The author is term switching. We shall quote the entire verse. Jn. 17:17: Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. Note that Jesus did not say, "sanctify them with correct doctrine.")

In similar terms, the apostle Paul grounds unity in the truth. In Ephesians 4:13, he lays out why the Lord gave teachers (Only teachers? What about the other four?)

to the church. They are to “build up the body” until the point that “we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). (An appeal absent apostles and prophets. I still await the case to be made from Scripture that these two offices have ceased while the other three continue. 

Sorry for the aside. Back to the matter at hand. Again we are left to quote the passage. 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.

Notice that the unity Paul advocates is to obtain the fullness of Christ. Doctrine is not under discussion.

Since we are dealing with what the Paul teaches about unity, let us refer to 1Co. 1:11-12: My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”;  still another, “I follow Christ.” 

Why did Paul Bring this up? The previous verse tells us. 1Co. 1:10: I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

That is, they were dividing over doctrine, and Paul was setting them straight. They were to be unified despite what they believed about the source of their teaching. No matter how great the teaching of a man is regarding doctrine, Paul believed unity is more important.)

Five Extraordinary Benefits of Pentecost - BY RICHARD D. PHILLIPS

Found here. Despite its Reformed origins, the article gets a lot right.
--------------------

We are wrapping the 2018 Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology this weekend at Proclamation Presbyterian Church outside Philadelphia. Our theme this year is "Spirit of the Age - Age of the Spirit." As we have been celebrating the exalted Christ's outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost and its implications for our age of history, let me briefly highlight some of the main benefits we now enjoy:

1. By the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, the gospel is unleashed with power from on high. Prior to Pentecost, the gospel was confined to a small cultural and geographical corner of the world. But with the Spirit's coming, the gospel "has gone forth everywhere" (1 Thess. 1:8). Paul could state that the gospel has gone out "in the whole world" and "is bearing fruit and increasing" (Col. 1:5-6). Because of the outpoured Spirit, we who live in lands distant from the original church have heard and believed, and we have a mighty confidence in God for the success of the gospel among those who have still not heard its saving message.

2. At Pentecost, Christ has joined his ministry to the Spirit to advance his saving ministry with great power. Paul makes the stunning statement in 2 Cor. 3:17: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." The point is not an ontological union of the Second and Third Persons of the Godhead but an economical joining in the application of that salvation which Christ has achieved. It was for this reason that Jesus told his disciples, "it is to your advantage that I go away" (Jn. 16:7). Now Christ lives and moves in his people by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit comes "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith...that you may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:17-19). What a joyous realization that by his Spirit, Christ lives in us!

The "doctrinal police" - are they mockers?

I have posted numerous times regarding the Doctrinal Police, and as I've engaged their arguments I have come to a realization. I'm about to conclude that they are mockers. Like this article. And this one. And this from Ferocious Truth:

What do I mean? Well, it is a good thing to stand for the truth and correct doctrine. It is entirely another to belittle, disparage, and impugn people. Merriam Webster defines mock:

1: to treat with contempt or ridicule : deride

The Greek word is ἐμπαίκτης, which means "mocker."