Daily Archives: October 17, 2018

OCTOBER 17 A SACRED GIFT OF SEEING

Your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.

Acts 2:17

As God created us, we all have to some degree the power to imagine. That imagination is of great value in the service of God may be denied by some persons who have erroneously confused the word imagination with the word imaginary.

The gospel of Jesus Christ has no truck with things imaginary. The most realistic book in the world is the Bible. God is real. Men are real and so is sin and so are death and hell! The presence of God is not imaginary; neither is prayer the indulgence of a delightful fancy.

The value of the cleansed imagination in the sphere of religion lies in its power to perceive in natural things shadows of things spiritual. A purified and Spirit-controlled imagination is the sacred gift of seeing—the ability to peer beyond the veil and gaze with astonished wonder upon the beauties and mysteries of things holy and eternal.

The stodgy pedestrian mind does no credit to Christianity!

Lord, thank You for the vision You gave to John, which is recorded in the book of Revelation. What a beautiful picture of heaven he describes! Such a view makes this earthly pilgrimage tolerable.[1]


[1] Tozer, A. W. (2015). Mornings with tozer: daily devotional readings. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

OCTOBER 17 LORD, SEND THE OIL

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments.

—Psalm 133:1-2

And just as Aaron’s body had the oil dripping down around it, onto his clothing, so that he smelled like the oil that had been put on his head, so this living together in unity among the Lord’s people brings a blessing of oil, an anointment that comes down upon us. It’s the same ointment that ran on the head of Jesus, even the Holy Spirit, and comes down all over His people. You and I are members of that Body of which He is the Head and the oil that flowed on His head can flow down over His Body which is you and me, and we can keep an unbroken continuity of life from the Jordan River. The life of the Holy Spirit came upon the head of Jesus and it comes now upon you and me and upon all the people of God that dwell together in unity.

Are we such that God can bless us? Do we have this unity of determination to glorify the Lord alone … of a determination to see the Lord work, of oneness in present expectation, of submission to the Lord and of resolution to put away everything that hinders? If we are, then we’re a united people and we may expect any time the oil that flowed on the head of Jesus to flow down over us and bring oil and blessing and life for evermore. SAT101

Lord, give us that unity, that absorption, that resolution to put away anything that hinders. Let us feel the oil. Amen [1]


[1] Tozer, A. W., & Eggert, R. (2015). Tozer on the almighty god: a 365-day devotional. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Midweek Apologetics Hit & Misc: Presenting the Case for Christianity – The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network

Pyromaniacs: What Did Jesus Say about “Social Justice?”

s the “social justice” juggernaut continues to batter the breastwork of the Church, it would seem to be a propitious moment to look deeper into what the Head of the Church thinks about the issue. Scripture actually gives considerable insight into the thoughts of Jesus regarding the “social justice” movement. And—to the likely surprise of those pushing the movement forward—His words should give them considerable pause.

Let’s start with the obvious: Jesus does not oppose justice. On the contrary, Jesus is the Originator, Definer, Overseer and Executor of justice (Mt. 12:18, 20). With regard to human interactions, the Bible uses the term “justice” to denote the condition of being impartial, even-handed, and scrupulous, and Jesus explicitly supports such an ethic (Luke 11:42; 18:7-8; John 7:24). Another manner by which justice is understood is moral perfection, and on that score, Jesus is the supreme example (Ps. 145:17). Further, the biblical concept of justice ultimately contends that all its supplicants will get exactly what they are promised, and Jesus guarantees that He will be there at the end, making it so (John 5:27-29).

So if Jesus is the author, champion, and living exemplar of all justice, He must be in favor of “social justice”—right? To get an accurate biblical answer to that question we must understand how the modifier compromises and corrupts the virtue. The Bible actually never uses any modifiers for “justice,” let alone “social,” which in itself should deter those who would speak and reason biblically from use of this term (for this reason, throughout this article the term “social justice” is set off in quotations to indicate its illegitimacy as a biblical term and notion). But because the culture has conjured this idea which the undiscerning Church seemingly cannot resist, it is incumbent upon those who would claim to represent Jesus to understand and discuss its full portent.

For our purposes, we will use the following definition for “social justice”: “A philosophical and political concept holding that, because all people in this world should have equal access to wealth, health, opportunity and well-being, all people of this world are thus obliged to make it so.”

You may ask, what’s wrong with that? All for one and one for all in striving for equality? Why wouldn’t the One who is ultimately bringing “justice to victory” (Isa. 42:1-3; Matt. 12:20) support this effort? The Bible gives us four compelling reasons why He does not:

One text in Scripture giving particular insight into Christ’s perspective on the matter of “social justice” is found in Luke 12:13-15. It reads: “Someone in the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’ But He said to him, ‘Man, who made Me a judge or arbiter over you?’ And He said to them, ‘Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Here, Jesus is confronted by a man who has been (in his opinion) deprived of his fair share of an inheritance. From a “social justice” perspective, the man has been wronged, in that he believes he is owed wealth that has not been forthcoming. The man thus appeals to Jesus as an authority figure to find in his favor and correct the perceived injustice. This is a quintessential “social justice” scenario: resources have been appropriated in an asymmetric (therefore, unfair) manner, and the one deprived thus seeks redress.

But does Jesus give empathy and succor to the plaintiff? Does He commiserate with the aggrieved brother and come to his aid? Quite the opposite. In fact, Jesus gives the man gives a curt rebuke. He begins by asking the man why He should be a judge or arbiter in this situation. This response should arouse our curiosity, because as the Bible makes clear, Jesus knows His Father has handed all judgment over to Him (John 5:22, 27; 9:39). His response to the man is therefore puzzling. After all, with all judgment handed over to Him, why wouldn’t Jesus be the perfect judge in this, as in all, matters?

The answer is twofold. The first has to do with the ordo eschaton, the order of last things. Jesus is here giving a revealing (if indirect) eschatological lesson. Jesus knows full well that His time for judgment is coming, when He will judge the entire world with perfect justice based upon the Word God has given (John 12:48). But He also knows that the time from the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Captivity (605 BC-586 BC) through His time upon the earth and right up to the present is described by God as “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24; Rom. 11:25). During this period of history, Jesus understands that God’s plan is not judgment but salvation. Yes, Jesus is the final Judge of this world, but that comes later. For now, God is still graciously saving sinners through the narrow door of repentance and faith. In His rhetorical query, then, Jesus is deferring present judgment of earthly matters. His desire is that the man might forego the redress of an alleged earthly injustice, and instead prepare his heart through repentance and faith in anticipation of the judgment that is to come.

Many evangelicals who pander to ideas of “social justice” operate from an erroneous postmillennial eschatology. To their way of thinking, the earthly kingdom Jesus is promised to bring (2 Sam. 7:12) has already been inaugurated with His first appearance, and it is thus up to His followers to implement its form. And when one convolutes the Bible’s prophecies regarding the present and future ages in this manner, the fallout is naturally erroneous fixation on the redress and reparation of inequalities in the here and now. But that is not what the Bible says about God’s intent in the present, nor in the future. God will indeed bring to fruition the promised earthly kingdom of Christ (Rev. 20:1-6), but He will do it without need of any human partnership (Acts 17:25), and only when the sum of those who are appointed to eternal life believe (Acts 13:48). For now, Jesus as Judge and Arbiter of the world is on hold, being mercifully delayed, “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25). Jesus’ just judgment of the world is coming, but—in God’s inexplicable and extraordinary love, mercy and grace—He continues to delay that day, such that “now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

The second reason why Jesus defers to judge in this man’s case is found in the continuation of Jesus’ remarks to the crowd (v. 15): “And He said to them, ‘Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'” Here, Jesus unequivocally ties concern over earthly inequalities with the potential for sin—the sin of covetousness. And His implication is blunt: the focus upon earthly inequalities, even with the intent of their amelioration, by its nature introduces the possibility of covetousness. Jesus is saying that those obsessed with rectifying worldly inequalities as they pertain to themselves should first reflect about a possible covetous impulse.

The Holy Spirit (through James) then elaborates on this idea (James 4:1-2, 4-5): “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel . . . You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy with God.”

So, Jesus claims that those obsessing over their unfair or unequal treatment in this world must guard against covetousness, and the Spirit through James says covetousness lies at the core of fights and quarrels as to who has what and who does not. This link is no mere coincidence. The rancor and invective that so often attend plaintiff demands for “social justice” lie in stark contrast to the fruits of the Spirit-led life, as laid out in Galatians 5:22-23, and this passage in James identifies the core reason for this. The Bible is clear: whenever there is a focus upon remediation of earthly inequality, covetousness may very well lie at the source, and when it does, acrimony and outrage often result.

Notice, too, how the Spirit through James goes on to associate covetousness with friendship with the world. This also is no coincidence. Not only do the evangelical champions of “social justice” often carry with them a misguided eschatology, but also quite commonly a penchant for the favor of the world. In fact, when one looks out over the sea of modern evangelicalism to those at the helm of the S.S. Social Justice, one finds a remarkably common deference to culture and desire for its approval. Today’s most prominent evangelical crusaders for “social justice” almost always seem to be those most eager to be received well by the secular docents of modern-day politics, academia, business and social media, and this passage from James helps to explain why.

There is a third reason Jesus opposes “social justice”, and that is its failure to apprehend the Bible’s description of human nature. In Luke 19:10, Jesus declares, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” And who are the lost? Jesus’ answer is clear: they are the spiritually “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd”(Mt. 9:36; Mark 6:34). They are the spiritually poor prisoners, blind and oppressed (Matt. 5:3; Luke 4:18). And from the days of the early Church until recently, it has been understood that the manner by which Jesus saves the spiritually lost is through gospel evangelism by those whom He has already spiritually saved.

But all this is now being challenged on the evangelical “social justice” front. No longer are the “lost” being defined on a spiritual basis, but on economic and/or sociological terms. And no longer is the manner by which Jesus saves the “lost” through a call to “repentance and the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:47), but rather through His purported desire that earthly injustices be remedied, including (and perhaps preferably) through governmental policies and programs. This is exactly how neo-Marxist dogma is now being foisted upon an unsuspecting Church under the guise of “social justice.”

A natural corollary of this development is that those to be involved in “evangelism” no longer must be “born again” in a “saved from sin” sense, but merely must exhibit interest in bettering the material and social conditions of the disadvantaged around them. Whereas in the past, people were required to “believe in order to belong,” it is somehow suggested that they might now “belong” regardless of belief. But Jesus knows that the heart of the unredeemed is “deceitful above all things and desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9), that the mind of the unredeemed is “darkened in [its] understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them” (Eph. 4:18), and that the will of the unredeemed is to “do their father’s [the devil’s] desires” (John 8:44). Given all that, Jesus knows that the real need of the unregenerate sinner—regardless of race, wealth, or any other earthly designation—is heart, mind and will transformation via (Luke 24:47) “repentance and the forgiveness of sins”; in a word—salvation. Not only that, given that salvation only comes from belief, under no circumstances could an unbeliever ever contribute in a positive sense to the saving work God is doing in the world today.

One passage plainly detailing the above is John 7:38-39, where Jesus declares: “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'” Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

Here, “rivers of living water” is participation in God’s work in the world, about which Jesus stipulates the following: penitent belief yields the indwelling Spirit, which in turn yields power for the spiritual work God is doing. Only in that order. As Pastor John MacArthur has phrased it, one’s position in Christ establishes one’s practice for Christ, and never the reverse. Given this, how then could Jesus back a movement that obsesses over the material and/or sociological condition of the sinner but cares little for how that sinner might be forgiven and granted eternal life?

The condition of the unredeemed is described in the Bible (Rom. 8:5-12) as living “in the flesh,” about which it makes the following clear and unmistakable designation (Rom. 8:8): “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Ever. It is a travesty of Christ’s teaching that a church could leads its members in works of “social justice” without telling them of their need to be redeemed, and how this might be accomplished. It is a travesty of Christ’s teaching that a collection of earnest but unredeemed “Jesus-followers” might pursue good works to assist the disadvantaged, while at the same time having no clue as to how both they and those whom they serve might be saved from their sin.

A final and related reason Jesus opposes “social justice” is that it directly undermines the primary task of the Church. To see this, one must understand the primary purpose of the Church is to declare God’s Word, and that the summary purpose of all biblical instruction is the following: to present God’s righteous standard to all sinners (Matt. 5:48), to drive those sinners to despair at their inability to attain the righteousness demanded of them by a holy God (Lev. 11:44-45; Gal. 3:10-11, 19-24), to have those sinners cry out for mercy to that same gracious God for a pardon from their sin (Luke 18:13-14), and to have faith that God will, as promised, apply to them the righteousness of Christ, who lovingly bore their sins upon the cross (Isa. 53:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:21). That is the crux of the gospel, the one and only message of the Church, and notice it hinges upon a requisite contrite spirit (Isa. 57:15).

But when the Church reorients its focus to concerns regarding “social justice,” it short-circuits and inverts this entire process. No longer is the sinner a perpetrator; now he or she is a victim. No longer does the sinner plead for mercy to a gracious and forgiving God; now he or she is owed something from Him, or at least from the world He oversees. No longer are sinners “poor in spirit” and thus eligible for the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:3). Now they are casualties of tyrannical forces that exploit and subjugate them in a bondage of oppression, against which they must rage until scores are settled. The upshot? Instead of sinners acknowledging and repenting of their sinful condition, they are now emboldened to seek recourse against as many injustices as they can identify. Gone is the meek and humble spirit that ultimately inherits the earth (Ps. 37:5; Mt. 5:5). In its place is a spirit of victimization, rebellion and retribution.

It is for this reason that, across the landscape of modern-day evangelicalism, one tends to find an inverse relationship between interest in “social justice” and interest in evangelism in its historic understanding. In a very real sense, the entire mission of the Church is being hijacked. Among those on the evangelical forefront of the “social justice” movement, the talk is no longer about how sinners might avoid eternal damnation in hell, but how they might gain temporal reparation for past and present injustices.

“Social justice” carries with it the implicit idea the sinner in this world is owed something by someone, but that idea is completely foreign to Jesus. Even among His redeemed, Jesus claims they are owed nothing in this world (Luke 17:7-10): “Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'”

Jesus’ point is clear: if even those who are a part of His kingdom are mere “servants,” with no rights nor entitlements other than to consider themselves as ever-unworthy and thus duty-bound to their Master, how much more so would this apply to those on the outside looking in? It has been written elsewhere that if the parable of the Prodigal Son had been set in the age of “social justice,” the son would have never returned home to his father. And why should he have? Once apprised that he was not an ungrateful, impudent, hedonistic fool in need of repentance and humble submission to his Father, but rather a victim of external, impersonal, malevolent forces stemming from unfair societal arrangements, his path would have led not to the true home of his Father’s embrace and promise of eternal life, but rather to the false embrace of “social justice” promising entitlements to dampen his fall. Gone would be any notion of regret or remorse at his sin. In its place, as result of his “social justice” reeducation? Only indignation, resentment, and perpetual rebellion.

With the biblical record so consistently opposed to the zeitgeist of “social justice,” it should appall the Church that it could be so easily and so harmfully beguiled as it has been. Jesus offers the sinner not a list of earthly entitlements to be pursued and defended at all costs, but rather inexplicable love and mercies despite that same sinner’s enmity (Lam. 3:22-23; Rom. 5:8,10; 8:8). Jesus doesn’t offer the sinner the right to claim victimhood and redress against earthly injustices, but only the right to claim eternal unworthiness for His promise of eternal life. The Church is called not to a mission of political and economic lobbying for the betterment of this world, but a mission calling sinners to repentance for their betterment in the next (Luke 5:32). As to worldly arrangements and the goals of “social justice” devotees, Jesus wondered (Matt. 16:26), “What does will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” May God raise up within His Church those who know the answer to this question, and from that answer might clarify the true gospel from its “social justice” corruption.

— Read on teampyro.blogspot.com/2018/10/what-did-jesus-say-about-social-justice.html

Twitter: Comparing Jewish People to Pests We Exterminate Is Fine, but Making Fun Of Leftists Will Get You Banned

Twitter has crossed a very serious line in its bias today, and one that it will have to work very hard to backtrack on.

For setup, on Tuesday, Minister Louis Farrakhan posted a video of himself comparing the Jewish people to termites.

What Farrakhan did was essentially post a video where he thanked the Jewish people for their “stupidity” in elevating him to international fame, then proceeded to compare them to a pest that we exterminate from our homes.

Cries naturally went up as this is a clear violation of Twitter’s ruleswhich include a rule about targeting a religious group for hate:

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Read more about our hateful conduct policy.

According to Joe Bernstein of BuzzFeed News, Twitter has analyzed Farrakhan’s tweet and found no problems with it.

So the rule is that you can attack Jewish people and compare them to pests worth exterminating all you want.

However, Twitter has also recently made it very clear that you are not to insult anyone on the left by comparing them to non-player characters in video games.

As I wrote previously, 4Chan and the gaming community began comparing social justice warriors and identitarians as non-player characters or NPC’s. Essentially, the joke is that SJW’s share a lot of the same pre-programmed characteristics seen in video game characters who, while seeming lifelike, are really just following pre-determined instructions given to them from a programmer.

Apparently, this meme hit a little too close to home for the hard left, and as a result, began to cry out to Twitter for them to stop the circulation of the meme and punish anyone using it. Twitter reacted almost immediately and began banning accounts that utilized the meme. Twitter couldn’t have an effective narrative circulating against it’s favored ideology.

It doesn’t stop there, though. Twitter user Bruce Carrol, also known as “GayPatriot” was banned on Twitter because…well, no one is sure. Even Carrol doesn’t seem to know any specifics. What is apparent is that Carrol was good at making fun of the left and that he had amassed quite a few fans. He didn’t seem to do anything that broke the rules of Twitter, and so his banning is something of a mystery.

A key point to consider about Carrol, however, is that Carrol is gay and saying things that the identitarian left didn’t think he as a gay man should be saying. While Twitter may not offer any real reasoning as to why Carrol was banned, we can surmise he was banned because Carrol isn’t supposed to exist. As far as the social justice left is concerned, if you’re gay then you have to hate Republicans and the right. Carrol obviously didn’t fit in the arranged box.

Just to add to the fact that Twitter has buried itself in a hole of its own bias, you can watch my video on how Twitter dragged its feet on punishing anyone who actually threatened the right with violence, including the children of Dana Loesch, but reacted post-haste when anyone on the right put so much as a toe out of their ever-changing line.

https://youtu.be/X8iulphPuWM

This is a new low for Twitter and one that everyone should be beyond outraged about. Twitter just basically set the precedent that Jewish people are a low member of the social hierarchy and that making fun of them is fine. Let me be clear.

Twitter is fine with anti-Semitism.

They’ve already established that threatening the right with harassment and violence is okay, but making fun of leftists is out of bounds.

This social network is a toilet.
— Read on www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/10/17/twitter-comparing-jewish-people-pests-exterminate-fine-making-fun-leftists-will-get-banned/

Google Confirms Censored Search Engine ‘Dragonfly’ Being Developed for China

 

“For China.”

(From The Washington Free Beacon)

One employee, research scientist Jack Poulson, resigned in public protest.

“Due to my conviction that dissent is fundamental to functioning democracies, I am forced to resign in order to avoid contributing to, or profiting from, the erosion of protection for dissidents,” Poulson wrote to his bosses.

This isn’t staying in China folks. Google is a big government contractor here too.

Click here for the article.

Source: Google Confirms Censored Search Engine ‘Dragonfly’ Being Developed for China

Infographic: How To Tell Nazi From Antifa

This handy infographic from your friends at The Babylon Bee will help you distinguish an Antifa member from a Nazi at your next political rally, protest, or violent riot: The post Infographic: How To Tell Nazi From Antifa appeared first on The Babylon Bee .

Source: Infographic: How To Tell Nazi From Antifa

An ex-Googler went on an epic 5-day tweetstorm that gives a brutal inside look at the backstabbing and politics at the company (GOOG, GOOGL)

  • A former Google web designer recently described his experiences while working briefly at Google+, the company’s recently shuttered social network.
  • Morgan Knutson, who worked at Google for eight months before resigning in May 2012, described a lack of vision for the service and wasted resources while detailing ways Vic Gundotra, the overall leader of Google+, wielded his massive power within the company.
  • Knutson’s narrative, written like a Twitter serial, sheds light on the troubled Google+, one of the company’s most noteworthy and expensive failures.

If you’re interested in technology, then one of the most fascinating longer reads available about Silicon Valley culture is the Twitter serial posted last week by Morgan Knutson, a former Google+ web designer.

Knutson wrote 149 tweets over a period of five days about his brief tenure at Google+, the long-troubled, now-defunct social network.

Knutson began writing a day after The Wall Street Journal revealed that Google had waited seven months before disclosing that a security lapse had enabled third-party developers to see private information belonging to as many as 500,000 Google+ users.

A few hours after the story was published, Google announced it had shuttered Google+, which was created to challenge Facebook but never came close.

Apparently, the situation prompted Knutson to reveal information he had bottled up for six years.

Part of what makes Knutson’s tweets so fascinating is the idea that a former Googler has anything bad to say about the company. Google has a reputation for being one of the most employee-friendly places in tech, chock full of perks and benefits. It’s rare that a former staffer complains publicly.

The other reason Knutson’s story is so compelling is due to the titillating details about the dysfunction he said reigned at the Google+ of 2012.

Knutson, who resigned for a job at Dropbox in 2012 after only eight months at Google, describes a service that lacked an overall vision, often wasted resources, and was propelled and shielded internally by Vic Gundotra, the powerful former Google executive who led the Google+ effort.

He also said, contrary to his prior beliefs or the image that Google sells, he discovered not all employees were at the top of their field.

It’s important to remember, as Knutson acknowledges, that he was one employee working on one project during a brief period.

To say Knutson sounds disgruntled is an understatement. To his credit, he acknowledges that he chaffed at receiving criticism and disliked it when he believed he didn’t get enough credit.

He also had good things to say about some of his managers and about most of the people he came in contact with at Google.

With all of Google’s success and money as well as its sheer size (more than 80,000 employees now), it’s easy to think of the company as something otherworldly.

What Knutson does — with his descriptions of bruised egos, turf wars, and politically minded bosses — is remind us that Google isn’t all that different from anywhere else humans are employed.

Correction: This story incorrectly stated the number of tweets that Knutson posted to tell his story. The correct number is 149.

Source: An ex-Googler went on an epic 5-day tweetstorm that gives a brutal inside look at the backstabbing and politics at the company (GOOG, GOOGL)

Facebook Slams Independent Voices With Latest Political Purge

Facebook is a private company and can do what it wants, but this purge probably has as much to do with outside crony forces as it does with internal anti-anti establishment pressures. It looks like the little guys got hammered again. CNN however, we are sure will continue to have a thriving page on Facebook. As will The New York Times.

(From Reason)

On Thursday, October 11, Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy and Oscar Rodriguez, Product Manager, announcedthe company was shutting down 559 pages and 251 accounts “created to stir up political debate.”

Isn’t political debate a good thing?

The targeted pages and accounts included many pages, and their administrators, who have gained popularity by voicing ideas outside the mainstream—including skepticism of violent and intrusive police tactics and support for libertarian ideas.

Click here for the article.

Source: Facebook Slams Independent Voices With Latest Political Purge

Caroline Glick: Jewish Democrats Increasingly Anti-Israel

Jewish Democratic lawmakers in Congress may serve not as Israel’s defenders in their party, but as fig leaves that hide and whitewash the growing hostility of their party and its voters towards the Jewish state and its supporters in the United States.

Source: Caroline Glick: Jewish Democrats Increasingly Anti-Israel

October 17 Daily Help

He appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” Mark 16:9.

IF we would see much of Christ, let us serve him. Tell me who they are that sit oftenest under the banner of his love, and drink deepest draughts from the cup of communion, and I am sure they will be those who give most, who serve best, and who abide closest to the bleeding heart of their dear Lord. But notice how Christ revealed himself to this sorrowing one—by a word, “Mary.” It needed but one word in his voice, and at once she knew him, and her heart owned allegiance by another word, her heart was too full to say more. That one word most fitting. It implies obedience. She said, “Master.”[1]


[1] Spurgeon, C. H. (1892). Daily Help (p. 294). Baltimore: R. H. Woodward & Company.

The MOST Jewish Thing I Ever Did Was To Believe In Jesus

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

A Jewish follower of Yeshua. His video is found in this article

There is a Rabbi from Israel who believes that he was called by God to bring Jews back to right Jewish thought and teaching.  Who are these “wayward” Jews?

To Rabbi Singer, they are Jews like me who have received the One who was promised to us.  The Rabbi believes that somehow we were brainwashed and snatched away from the “truth” of the Old Testament.

I was approached years ago by an Israeli writer. She said that Rabbi Singer desired to speak with me. She wanted to set up the meeting.  I graciously declined after reading about the work of the Rabbi.

I wonder if Rabbi Singer has read Isaiah 53 from the Old Testament?

The Sin-Bearing Messiah

Isaiah 53    (YES – from the OLD Testament)

 “Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the…

View original post 1,695 more words

HUGE: Supreme Court Will Hear Case to Decide if Far Left Tech Giants Can Censor Users — The Gateway Pundit

For over a year The Gateway Pundit has spoken out about how the tech and social media giants are censoring and eliminating conservative publishers and conservative content.

***  In September The Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft testified to Congress on Facebook targeting of conservative publishers and content.

The Gateway Pundit has repeatedly reported on tech giant censorship of conservative content.

These powerful tech firms act as gatekeepers and prevent conservative content from being shared online.

In 2016 we were one of the few conservative sites that supported candidate Trump – along with Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse.  We are proud of our efforts to report the truth that led to Trump’s historic win.

In 2017 Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review found that The Gateway Pundit was the 4th most influential conservative news source in the 2016 election.

Because of this we were targeted and have seen our numbers related to Facebook and Twitter decline dramatically.

In February Facebook launched another algorithm change to their platform. With the changes we saw our traffic dwindle even further.

The algorithmic change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.

Facebook is doing this to a number of top conservative sites.

A recent Pew Study found that 71% of Americans see how tech giants are censoring political content.

A Gateway Pundit June study of top conservative news outlets found that Facebook  eliminated 93% of traffic to top conservative websites.

Facebook began eliminating conservative content after the 2016 election.

Here are the full results from our study.

We have another study on Facebook censorship coming out in July.

Report: Facebook Eliminates 93% of Traffic to Top Conservative Websites by Jim Hoft on Scribd

But there may be some hope for conservatives and free speech advocates.

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case on whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.

CNBC reported:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.

The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.

The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country’s largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

That could shape the ability of companies like FacebookTwitter and Alphabet’s Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.

The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation earlier this month.

via HUGE: Supreme Court Will Hear Case to Decide if Far Left Tech Giants Can Censor Users — The Gateway Pundit

Democrats Silent As Hate Preacher Louis Farrakhan Gets Standing Ovation For Blistering Attack On The Jews Calling Them ‘Termites’ — Now The End Begins

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan addressed a gathering in Detroit on Sunday to mark the 23rd anniversary of the Million Man March, and used it as a platform to launch yet another attack on Jews, calling them “termites.”

Democrats love to call out Donald Trump and put him under the microscope for each and every remark he makes. They love to hold rallies in Washington to hold people accountable for ‘intolerance’ and ‘hate speech’. 92% of every story done on CNN is a negative story about Donald Trump and his administration, even going so far to report on the dimensions of his penis. But when toxic hater preacher Louis Farrakhan cranks up the anti-Jew filth machine and lets it fly? The sound of the resulting and shameful silence is deafening.

Pictures today have surfaced of Barack Obama getting cozy with Farrakhan dating back to 2005. Pictures that were suppressed by the media in order to protect his chances of getting elected. Earlier this year at Aretha Franklin’s funeral, Bill Clinton had no problem sharing the stage with Farrakhan. Liberal Twitter who loves to shadow ban Conservatives has no problem allowing Farrakhan to post a video calling Jews ‘termites’, and as of this writing that tweet is still up, as you can see below.

barack-obama-louis-farrakhan-photo-suppressed-2005

louis-farrakhan-bill-clinton-jesse-jackson-al-sharpton-aretha-franklin-funeral

I can only think of two reasons why the Democrats remain silent when Louis Farrakhan spews his vile anti-semitic comments. Either they are afraid of him, and stay silent because he has massive amounts of dirt on them. Or just as likely, because they agree with him. As this article shows, only one Democrat has the guts to condemn Farrakhan’s ugly and hateful remarks. Why do you think it is? Comment below.

FROM BREITBART: “To the members of the Jewish community that don’t like me, thank you very much for putting my name all over the planet … I’m not mad at you, ’cause you’re so stupid,” Farrakhan said.

“So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know they do, call me an anti-semite — stop it! I’m anti-termite! I don’t know nothing about hating somebody because of their religious preference.”

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) urged fellow Democrats to condemn Farrakhan’s statements about Jews.

“Farrakhan’s vile statements against Whites and Jews have been ignored by my fellow Democrats,” Hikind said in a press release Wednesday. “There is nothing subtle about this modern-day Goebbels’ hatred. This racist doesn’t even hide behind an anti-Israel statement; he just publicly attacks Jews and the Jewish religion, and works to incite hatred and racism among his followers. Even worse, Democrats continue to give him a pass. Former President Bill Clinton sat next to him at Aretha Franklin’s funeral. It was appalling!”

Earlier this year, photographs of Farrakhan meeting with then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and the Congressional Black Caucus in 2005 were released after being suppressed to prevent any damage to Obama’s presidential ambitions.

Farrakhan’s antisemitic tweet remained up on Twitter Wednesday. Twitter removed his “verified” blue checkmark earlier this year for hate speech. READ MORE

via Democrats Silent As Hate Preacher Louis Farrakhan Gets Standing Ovation For Blistering Attack On The Jews Calling Them ‘Termites’ — Now The End Begins

Alexander: Kanye v Kaepernick — Breaking Ranks

Any break from the Democrat Party orthodoxy poses an existential threat to their electability.

“We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.” —George Washington (1785)

There was a revealing contrast between how the Democrat Party and its mainstream media public relations team handled the activities of two black men in recent days. Kanye West was labeled a “token negro” for visiting the White House, and Colin Kaepernick was hailed as a cultural hero by Harvard. It provided a stark case study in the Left’s politics of division. Any black man who threatens that racial divide becomes an immediate target for scorn and ridicule.

Why? Because any break from this orthodoxy poses an existential threat to the electability of Democrats.

Kaepernick was the celebrated leader of the NFL’s national anthem kneelers while he was still employed. He received Harvard’s “prestigious” W.E.B. Du Bois medal for, well, kneeling. The award was presented by Harvard’s Hutchins Center for African and African American Research, with Afrocentric professor Cornel West presiding. West teaches courses on W.E.B. Du Bois.

Kaepernick is the mediocre former San Francisco 49ers quarterback who was receiving an annual salary of $19,000,000. In 2016, he bought into the faux Black Lives Matter movement and declared, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” He set off a racially charged “protest” across the nation — kneelers of all ages!

For the record, Kaepernick was abandoned by his black biological father before he was born and put up for adoption by his 19-year-old white mother. He was then adopted and raised by a loving white couple in an upper-middle-class suburb.

It is no small irony that he has become a celebrated critic of so-called “white oppression,” especially by “racist” police targeting young black men — but that’s a lie based on a myth.

Kaepernick’s anger is likely rooted in a deep sense of abandonment by his black father, and his protest is wholly misdirected.

Most recently, he was rewarded for his “hate America” crusade with a lucrative contract for a Nike advertising campaign.

According to Harvard, “The Du Bois medal honors those who have made significant contributions to African and African American history and culture, and more broadly, individuals who advocate for intercultural understanding and human rights in an increasingly global and interconnected world.” Right. This from an institution that has most recently been practicing systematic discrimination against students with Asian heritage.

On receipt of the award, Kaepernick said, “I feel like it’s not only my responsibility, but all our responsibilities as people that are in positions of privilege, in positions of power, to continue to fight for them and uplift them, empower [young black people], because if we don’t, we become complicit in the problem.”

Kaepernick is definitely “complicit in the problem.”

It’s a fitting irony that he’d receive an award in the name of an avowed communist sympathizer. At the height of Soviet oppression worldwide, Du Bois wrote, “Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. … The highest proof of his greatness [was that] he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.”

Du Bois, who received a Ph.D. from Harvard and cofounded the NAACP, also said that Adolf Hitler’s socialist Nazi party reign of evil was “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.”

One of Du Bois’s much better known contemporaries, Booker T. Washington, was a critic of Du Bois’s fomenting of racial division — the same division for which Kaepernick has been honored. In his book, My Larger Education, Washington wrote of Du Bois and other racial agitators with words that are even more applicable to present-day race agitators: “There is [a] class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. … Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.”

Washington continued: “Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who do not want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”

That describes most of today’s leftist race hustlers, who have destroyed Martin Luther King’s dream of a unified and color-blind nation.

Years ago, before the current billionaire-backed Democrat Party’s advocacy for socialism emerged, my friend Walter E. Williams, a brilliant black economist who long ago broke with the Left’s divisive orthodoxy, offered this summary of why Democrats are soft on socialism: “The reason leftists give communists, the world’s most horrible murderers, a pass is that they sympathize with the chief goal of communism: restricting personal liberty. In the U.S., the call is for government control over our lives through regulations and taxation.”

And on that note, a few words about Kanye West’s visit with Donald Trump.

When it comes to the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, black voters — 90% of whom have been lulled into political servitude by the Left — there’s little tolerance for those who venture off the urban poverty plantation and dare to challenge the identity groupthink that Demos have crafted for black folks. But that’s exactly what rapper-entrepreneur-promoter Kanye West did when he went to the White House for a meeting with Trump, another master promoter. No mystery why these two relate to each other well — they both speak the same language!

West is a 41-year-old Atlanta native who grew up in Barack Obama’s backyard, Chicago. His father was a Black Panther who later became a Christian counselor, and his mother was chair of the English Department at Chicago State University before retiring to serve as her son’s manager. As a teenager, he was intrigued by the brash style of the leading rap stars and set his sights on becoming one of them. He received college scholarships, but furthering his education became an obstacle to his rapidly developing entertainment career. One of his popular albums was “College Dropout,” which was about embracing who he was rather than adhering to the social and cultural path he was expected to travel.

Ten years into his career, he was touring with the biggest acts and had found his stride as a performer. His popularity soared in the following decade, in part based on his controversial and often obscene remarks. His marriage to reality TV star Kim Kardashian boosted his populist stock, and he’s become one of the most celebrated cultural icons of young black Americans, among other demographics.

If West is anything, he’s a masterful self-promoter — which is good reason to exercise caution with his “endorsements.” But those who know him say he is, in fact, a “freethinker” bent on breaking old black molds.

In 2016, West announced his support for Trump and in December met with the President-elect at Trump Tower in New York. Earlier this year, he was roundly criticized for reaffirming his support for Trump. While it was controversial for Trump to take this most recent Oval Office meeting, it was also a cross-racial promotional coup. West said he wanted “to discuss multicultural issues … included bullying, supporting teachers, modernizing curriculums, and violence in Chicago. I feel it is important to have a direct line of communication with our future President if we truly want change.”

In other words, he recognized that Obama’s “hope and change” agenda was all smoke and mirrors.

In last week’s meeting with Trump, West was accompanied by another breakaway Trump supporter, former Cleveland Browns Hall of Famer Jim Brown, perhaps the greatest football player ever. West said that other celebrities have shunned him. They “tried to scare me to not wear this [Make America Great Again] hat,” he stated, adding, “When I put this hat on, it made me feel like Superman — my favorite superhero.”

He told Trump, “You made a Superman cape for me.”

West recognizes that Trump and Republican policies have resulted in, among other economic results, the lowest unemployment rate for black Americans in history.

You may recall the controversy that erupted when West, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation in 2005, infamously said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” He was asked about that remark in his meeting with Trump, and he said, “I was very emotional, and I was programmed to think from a victimized mentality, a welfare mentality,” adding, “I think that with blacks and African-Americans, we really get caught up in the idea of racism over the idea of industry.”

He explained: “We say if people don’t have land, they settle for brands [like] Polo-sporting Obama. … We want a brand more than we want land, because we haven’t known how it feels to actually have our own land and have ownership of our own blocks. So when you don’t have ownership, then it’s all about how something looks. It’s about the patina. It’s not about the soul. It’s not about the core.”

After they met, Trump noted, “He’s a very different kind of a guy, and I say that in a positive way. Those in the music business say he’s a genius, and that’s okay with me. Kanye West gets it.”

Of course, the meeting was more about show-biz than substance, but when a black rapper with tens of millions of fans steps off of the Demo plantation for a meeting like this, people pay attention.

Democrats couldn’t say much about the meeting without the risk of alienating West’s fans and a core Democrat constituency. So they left the condescendingly racist rants to their black Leftmedia talkingheads — who they figured could get away it.

CNN’s Bakari Sellers declared, “Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read.” CNN’s Tara Setmayer said West was “the token Negro of the Trump administration.” And CNN’s disgraceful Don Lemon summed it up, “What I saw was a minstrel show. … Him in front of all these white people, mostly white people, embarrassing himself and embarrassing Americans, but mostly African-Americans, because every one of them is sitting either at home or with their phones, watching this, cringing.”

But as for getting away with it, they figured wrong.

Conservative columnist and noted black critic of the Left Deroy Murdock immediately called out CNN’s “reprehensible, racist comments,” angrily declaring, “Black Americans who think for ourselves are mocked and degraded with words we last saw under Jim Crow. If President Trump had no black supporters, they would call his circle ‘lily white.’ Now, one of America’s most prominent black entertainers praises and visits the president, and he is trivialized as a ‘token’ who ‘doesn’t read.'”

And NFL legend Herschel Walker went to social media to express that he was “appalled over Don Lemon’s despicable behavior” and questioned “why CNN doesn’t take all three [Lemon, Sellers, Setmayer] off the air?”

What Democrats fear most ahead of this midterm election, especially given their disastrous PR attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS appointment, is an erosion of black voters’ allegiance.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that Trump’s approval rating among black Americans is at 36%, nearly double his support at this time last year. It won’t take many black defectors from those poverty plantations — those who cross party lines or simply don’t show up to vote — to dash the Democrats’ hopes of retaking the House and possibly the Senate next month.

Given the nonstop assault on Donald Trump by the mainstream media and popular culture, it’s hard to imagine the existence of any black Demo dissenters and defectors. But they’re out there — and this is yet another miscalculation of Trump’s grassroots appeal.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

“The Patriot Post ( https://patriotpost.us/subscribe )”

Pastors Are Not Cowboys — The Heidelblog

It is significant that the Holy Spirit chose to use, in Scripture, the metaphors of shepherd and sheep to describe the church and pastoral ministry. The word pastor is simply the Latin word for shepherd. God’s people are often described as sheep and, of course, the sheep need a shepherd. In John 10:1–5 our Lord Jesus casts himself as the Shepherd of the sheep (ποιμήν ἐστιν τῶν προβάτων). Our Lord Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11). In the benediction in Hebrews 13:20, the pastor writing to Jewish Christians blesses the “God of all peace, who raised from the dead, our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the Sheep…”. Read more»

via Pastors Are Not Cowboys — The Heidelblog

If Our Ethics Are Steering the Wheel, We Shouldn’t Be Surprised by the State of Theology

I received a preview of Ligonier Ministries’ State of Theology survey in my inbox last week, revealing what evangelical Americans think about God, Jesus Christ, sin, and eternity, and was afraid to click on it. I can already see the state of theology all around me. It’s easy to blame the secular culture around us or the denominations that don’t take theology seriously. But bad theology is perpetuated in our own circles.
Unfortunately, a trend I have noticed in the evangelical church, particularly in our parachurch groups and popular level so-called Christian books marketed to us, is that we care more about ethics than really knowing these primary doctrines. As long as everyone is on the same page with the sexuality, pro-life, and other social issues the church is up against, Christian authors and readers have been given a lot of leeway.
Brothers and sisters, we have our priorities out of place.  We should care about social issues and sexuality because of what we know about God and salvation.
I have written so much about how our own Christian books are conditioning us to have a low view of God and his word, a high view of man, and a distorted gospel. I’ve mentioned how, for example, no one seemed to be alarmed about a popular women’s author’s troubling views on God’s Word or man’s ability to save himself, until she came out saying that homosexuality can be considered holy. The line was drawn at Christian ethics, not at the Christian message.
And so I asked, why are we surprised by this… Continue reading

Source: If Our Ethics Are Steering the Wheel, We Shouldn’t Be Surprised by the State of Theology

In the Aftermath of Paige Patterson’s Reign, Wade Burleson Asks Some Hard Questions of the SWBTS Board of Trustees — thewartburgwatch

A good, summary post by Wade Burleson asking some unanswered questions.

It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. (Gandalf)- Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien

The Official End of Paige Patterson’s Control and Domination of the Southern Baptist Convention

United States President Donald Trump has sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to ask direct questions about the disappearance and presumed murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.

In the Saudi world, opposition to the absolute power and authority of the royals means imprisonment or death.

In the Southern Baptist world, at least for the past forty years (1978 – 2018), opposition to Paige Patterson meant occupational, personal, and vocational banishment.

The forty years of wandering in a spiritual desert are officially over for the Southern Baptist Convention. The trustees of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will open the doors to their first plenary session since the historic 2018 Southern Baptist Convention.

They will have to answer some questions of their alleged “oversight” of former President Paige Patterson while he served as President of their institution, all the while seeking to control every other institution in the SBC world.

I started this blog in 2005 when I saw for myself how Patterson lackeys fawned over him and did his bidding in banishing opposition from positions of leadership. For nearly 15 years I’ve been writing of the travesty of what our Convention has become.

Finally, people have listened.

I have heard that there is now freedom among entity heads to speak freely. No more intimidation. No more power plays. No more control.

He’s gone.

But now, SWBTS trustees, you must be prepared to answer some tough questions. Rather than comment on the questions that must be answered, I’d encourage readers to peruse the documentation attached to the links and formulate your own opinions.

And listen closely to the answers given by SWBTS trustees.

1. How could you allow your former President to have 18 full-time employees in the “President’s Office” tasked with hospitality, transportation, and assisting the President and ‘First Lady”?

2. How could you approve either directly or indirectly (by your non-action) the astronomical decrease in enrollment and millions of dollars in ‘pet-projects’ and creature comforts for the President and ‘First Lady’ which had no direct bearing on the purpose and mission of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?

3. Where were you when female professors were fired for their gender?

4. Where was your oversight when bylaws were violated and student admissions to SWBTS by Presidential fiat occurred, allowing students to enroll at Southwestern when they couldn’t even give a profession of faith in Jesus Christ?

5. How could you ignore the financial crisis that has been building for at least a decade, approving capital investment in new buildings, while not even able to fund the retirement accounts of current employees?

6. Will you do your due diligence and prevent institutional files from being removed by the Pattersons, or will you fall back to bad habits of either ignoring or allowing harmful actions to occur at the very institution you are tasked to oversee?

7. What are you going to do with the stained glass windows you allowed to be installed at a chapel allegedly devoted to the worship of Christ?

8. What are you going to do with the  “amateurish imitations” (Dr. Arstein Justnes’ phrase) of Dead Sea Scrolls your institution purchased and placed on display?

9. Will the retirement house you were building for the Pattersons on the campus of SWBTS now be used for educational purposes?

10. Will you now hold accountable the gentleman you allowed Dr. Patterson to place in a faculty position of authority and oversight, ensuring all things were done according to his wishes?

These are serious questions.

And thankfully, we live in a country where those who ask them aren’t murdered.

But the era of blackballing opposition to Fundamentalist SBC Leaders is officially over.

via In the Aftermath of Paige Patterson’s Reign, Wade Burleson Asks Some Hard Questions of the SWBTS Board of Trustees —

Confessions Of A Former Charismatic — Christian Research Network

“I can still remember the day it all hit me like a ton of bricks. These elders were saying they had access to insight that I could not have or had not been given. They had a special lens for seeing and I did not. And that I knew was an evil error. Unaccountable knowledge based on special intuition placed my leaders above the Scriptures not under them. They denied it in theory, but it was clearly what they practiced.”

Posted over at R. Scott Clark’s The Heidelblog:

Dr. Clark,

A few weeks ago you posted a warning against the desire for ongoing prophecy. [See also this—Ed.] In it you told a story of what happens when people look to words from God beyond Scripture. I wanted to stand as a witness to the dangers you highlighted.

I am not doing this to call out any group in particular. The idea that we can be Reformed and charismatic is too pervasive to attach it to any one association. So I will speak of the ideas behind it. My particular experience is representative of what it is like to be in that world of doctrine and practice.

Background I came to faith in college. My earliest years as a Christian were in a vibrant and intense campus ministry. Fellowship on the campus was a 24/7 thing. We ate meals, walked to classes, prayed, and roomed together. I cannot begin to count the hours of spiritual conversation we had. Spiritual hunger marked my life.

There was a mix of Christians on campus. CRU was there. Some pretty wild Pentecostals were there. God brought dispensational Calvinists into my life. I got hooked on prophetic charts, Spurgeon, and later on John Piper. I also drank often from the more Reformed well. The authors that drew me had a sense of a great God, the evil of sin, the complete work of Christ, and the call to holiness. I could not get enough of their theology.

Outside of my reading, my Christian life was not remarkable. After the first wave of conversion change, I settled into the routine of battling the flesh. My particular sins were those of a young adult – self-indulgence, laziness, being opinionated, not honoring my parents, and sexual sin. My sins grieved me. I looked for help for this inner war. I wanted to be free from sin. Once again, it was the Reformed tradition that gave me hope and sanity.

My experience of church was a different cat. It seemed limp and without energy. The contrast between the church and my experience of fellowship on campus left me perplexed and critical. I began to read about revivals and to pray with others for the same. All I knew is that church was not what it was supposed to be. View article →

Research:

New Apostolic Reformation

via Confessions Of A Former Charismatic — Christian Research Network