Online Discernmentalist Ministries (ODM) Has Important Information For All Believers!

June 10, 2019

Psa

ODMs having a storehouse of valuable apologetics information states “There is no hint in the New Testament that the Apostles considered themselves agents of change in society.” A bystander who apparently never went to church but who did have some ‘off statements ‘suggested “Wasn’t your apostle Paul and that guy uhhhm James were they not instructed to take care of the poor, widows and orphans? …Didn’t Jesus change society by his healings and so on….I don’t know you guys are supposed to be experts” The Online Discernmentalist expediently moved in to shut this non-sense. An anonymous apologetic researcher noted that none of the Discernmentalists should have to put up with the unbiblical practice of taking care of the poor or even contemplating the fullness of the times. Besides fullness of times strikes us as far too mystical.

We at the Online Discernmentalist Mafia stand for truth, but not questions.

—-This PSA brought to you by Dr. Truthslayer.


Wrath=Love!

April 20, 2019

57447285_2183983761690113_6770910294538452992_n

You dare question our unquestionable Doctrines sinners. We know that Wrath=Love as we’ve already presupposed this to be true (as we got our education from unaccredited colleges unlike you sinners who went to worldly schools; worked hard and actually earned a Real Doctoral Degree*) therefore you too must presuppose it to be true as well. Nevermind the fact that this isn’t found in the New Testament:

“Barth distances himself from classic substitution views, especially those stemming from Anselm. He acknowledges that the concept of punishment is present in Isaiah 53, but denies that it is present in the New Testament (a puzzling assertion, since he has used the term himself just earlier [223]). He then says this:

The decisive thing is not that He has suffered what we ought to have suffered so that we do not have to suffer it, the destruction to which we have fallen victim by our guilt, and therefore the punishment which we deserve. This is true, of course. But it is true only as it derives from the decisive thing that in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ it has come to pass that in His own person He has made an end of us as sinners and therefore of sin itself by going to death as the One who took our place as sinners. In His person He has delivered up us sinners and sin itself to destruction (253).

Earlier on the same page Barth also denies that the concept of satisfying God’s wrath is present in the New Testament. Thus my takeaway is this: Barth affirms a version of PSA, but not propitiation; and for Barth the penal element is peripheral, not central. The main thing for Barth is that Christ deals with our sin itself (and destroys it) by taking our places as the judged. Also, Barth’s version of PSA seems more oriented to Christ’s entire incarnate life, just just his death – this, and his frequent arguments from Christ’s “solidarity” with the world make his version of PSA sounds more compatible with a kind of recapitulation theme, as found in Irenaeus. Thus despite the similarity of language, at a very crucial juncture I think Barth’s doctrine of atonement must be seen as in a quite different category than classic PSA views in the reformed tradition. While I think some of his assertions stand in an ambiguous relationship with Scripture, I do find him an enlivening theological sparring partner, especially on the nature of the incarnation.”

Our Presuppositions are always correct.

*Our official Diploma of Presuppositional Apologetics:

untitled


New antigay PSA from us to you!

June 18, 2010

Trigger warning: A creepy, old, male theologian talks about oral sex while repeatedly using words like “copulation,” “genitals,” and “breasts.”

With all this talk about a gay cartoon rat-agenda I’ve been hearing from Don I needed to bring out this PSA from our past to you from us with new commentaries:

This PSA brought to you by the letters J & P and the #1 as we’re #1 in our Absolute Certainty of our Absolute Biblical Truth ah…  ah… ah…

(John) Piper (just like us) accepts penile penal substitution as gospel and cannot navigate a casual conversation without picking tulips. (Our many enemies) find much of his theology (and ours) to be suspect at best and abominable at worst, but (they are) especially concerned by his (and our) low view of women, whom he thinks should ideally adopt a subservient role in society, not only within their own marriages and churches. He has also stated he thinks wives should endure spousal abuse for a season, for instance, if her husband merely “smacks her around one night.” (By the way, the #MeToo movement came after Paige “Fried Chicken” Patterson recently for similar abhorrent remarks. When is it coming for John Piper?!?) (Anyways) Piper also likes to field questions from his adoring fans, often about sex, which are usually about exciting and fun as listening to your grandfather talking about the subject. If you don’t know anything about John Piper, this video will help. Bring your own vomit bag.

Anyways this is why we must absolutely forbid the appearance of gayness even by straight couples as gayness is an abomination—so remember all we told you…why…because…

I. Todyaso


%d bloggers like this: