November 26, 2019
Name Withheld has openly assaulted Discernmentalists as he has stated: “Instead of fretting over a non-issue how about being concerned with the wrath of God.” Name Withheld should know better than that as a fellow Discernmentalist—he should already know that in order to show God’s wrath and expose our Doctrine to all we must fret over every little thing. Clearly Satan is hiding around the corner and in every minuscule little thing that we personally disapprove of. We must make an issue out of every “non-issue” and make non-essentials essential as that’s the very heart of the Gospel of Discernmentalism.
And making mountains out of molehills is our specialty as Deborah of Discerning The World (DTW) has passed this spiritual gift of worldly attack and circular arguments on to us which we have far since surpassed her in our “special” gifted-ness and
Many well-known and greatly esteemed preachers and teachers have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about their association with some of the weirdest, worst and most dangerous false prophets in these last days’ of exponential apostasy. Here are a few well-documented examples.
STEPHAN JOUBERT: In cahoots with Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, Ron Martoia, Johan Geyser, Trevor Hudson, Nelus Niemandt, Eugene Peterson and Jan van der Watt, to name but a few.
JOHAN GEYSER: In cahoots with Stephan Joubert, Thomas Keating, Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, Ron Martoia, Trevor Hudson, Thomas Merton and other false teachers in the mystically engineered Emergent Church, to name but a few.
TREVOR HUDSON: In cahoots with Stephan Joubert, Johan Geyser, Theo Geyser (who manages to see Jesus in a sangoma/witch doctor without the help of his glasses), Thomas Keating (who in turn is in cahoots with the integral guru, Ken Wilber), Ron Matroia and Rob Bell, to name but a few.
Obviously Name Withheld is lacking a steady diet of good Truth
Warrior Worrier Discernment ministries like ours and Discerning The World (DTW)‘s. One word of warning to Name Withheld: “hell is real; hell is hot”—so either get in line; take a stand and get right with us first or else.
Once again setting our high standard over everyone so get over it,
Update: Name Withheld continues his attack—defends Spurgeon against Deborah and our CLEAR Teachings.
April 20, 2019
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 ). 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: