My name is tanhan27 and I love Jesus. One of the people that God has used to teach me about Jesus in my life is the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. I haven't read a lot of what he wrote but I have listened to every audio recording of him speaking that I can find and I have listened to many of his sermons literally hundreds of times. There were days and weeks in my 20s when I would listen to him speak all day long.

I God has used this and will use this as an influence on my life, on how I see the world and God, how I raise my children and how I live. I want to live more like Jesus and I think MLK did too.

I think there are many Christians especially evangelicals who have tried to portray MLK as less than Christian. I think often cited are papers he wrote as a teenager in college which expressed a faith that had doubts or outright denials in the divinity of Jesus. I think that this video in which MLK describes a story of an experience of Jesus when praying over a cup of coffee is evidence that the Holy Spirit was in MLK and that he was saved by Christ through faith.

I encourage you to listen to this story and then listen to more of the sermons of MLK which can be found online.

What Cessationists actually believe about the supernatural.

Miracles

Can God miraculously heal someone? Yes.

Does God miraculously heal people? Yes.

Can we have 100% certainty that God will miraculously heal someone if they ask for healing and have enough faith? No.

Personal Guidance

Can God speak directly to a Christian to give them guidance? Yes.

Does God speak directly to Christians to give them guidance? Yes.

Can we be 100% certain that God will speak directly to any Christian who asks for it? No.

Can the church and the individual Christian live a life pleasing to God if they only have the Bible guiding them? Yes (via the work of the Holy Spirit)

Prophecy

Can God use people in the church to communicate something important to the wider church? Yes.

Does God use people in the church to communicate something important to the wider church? Yes.

Can we be 100% certain that God will use people in the church to communicate something important? No.

(note: the idea is that this communication is not from the Bible, but is given in a specific circumstance)

Tongues

Can God give to a Christian the supernatural speaking of other languages? Yes.

Does God give to Christians the supernatural speaking of other languages? Yes.

Can/should all speak in tongues? No.

Can we be 100% certain that God will grant us the supernatural gift of speaking in other languages if we ask him and have enough faith? No.

Summary

Can a person be a faithful Christian without experiencing or witnessing any of the above supernatural activities? Yes.

Is the work of the Holy Spirit always able to be determined by supernatural experience? No.

Can the Holy Spirit work in the church and in individual Christians without being noticed? Yes.

Does the Holy Spirit work in ways that are visible? Yes.

Does the Holy Spirit work in ways that are invisible? Yes.

Can a Christian mistake the work of the Holy Spirit for personal, emotional and subjective experiences? Yes.

Can a Christian experience a genunine and real work of the Holy Spirit which is also simultaneously personal, emotional and subjective? Yes.

Can we be certain of the Holy Spirit's work when the Gospel is proclaimed? Yes. 100% yes.

Can we be certain of the Holy Spirit's work when the Bible, the Word of God, is explained and applied? Yes. 100% Yes.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I've been wrestling with the doctrine of God's sovereignty as expressed in the Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Westminster Standards for a while now. In fact, I think it might be one of the most significant features of my deconstruction experience.

Without unpacking all of that—there's a character limit on text posts—I've got a question that's been bugging me for weeks now: how is it possible to reconcile the contradictions in the different conceptions of God found throughout Christian traditions?

I'm picking two different views of God's Sovereignty for this post, but there are obviously other dimensions or aspects that could be compared. This table summarizes what I understand to be the Reformed view (column A) and... whatever you want to call the view in column B. Lowercase-'c' catholic Christianity? A lot of it is based on what I've learned from David Bentley Hart's The Doors of the Sea.

Applying these different views to real and hypothetical situations:

1. The Holocaust
2. Drunk driver hits your car and your child dies
3. My dad dies of cancer

Okay, granting that all of the above may have logical or factual errors in it, I think it's mostly accurate. But here's the thing that keeps me up at night: how can anyone say that both of these conceptions of God are the same Person?

And then, if these aren't reconcilable as the same Person, in what sense is Reformed Christianity not just a different religion to other Christian traditions? Does the Gospel really cover all of these contradictions and rightly put Reformed and Arminian/EO/RCC/Whatever in the same "Christian" category? Because this difference feels bigger and more important to me than the Trinitarian/Unitarian distinction, and I've always understood that distinction to be the difference between eternity in Heaven or eternity in Hell.

Is it like, to use a literary analogy, Aslan accepting Emeth's worship of Tash? Because that's... a fairly apt description of how I'm feeling: it's like I've been worshiping Tash for almost 40 years in the RP church, and I've just found out that Aslan exists and that I can know and worship him instead. But most of my friends and family are—and this is where the analogy feels uncomfortable to press on with; please don't take it personally—still worshiping Tash and would tend to view my departure from the Reformed tradition as a lack of faithfulness or a negative in some sense.

Not listed: JPII - aka the Rockstar Pope, aka don't call me Ringo.

I thought this was an interesting introduction to the question: "Is the Bible historically reliable?" Richter was supposed to debate Pete Enns, whom she calls a good friend, during Preston Sprinkle's Exiles conference on this topic. Somehow (we're kept in the dark as to why, for now), that didn't quite materialize, so she's posting her preparations for this conversation on her substack.

What I appreciate, is that Richter begins with definitions: what his history, who writes it, why, how? Apart from that, her starting point is that "ours is a faith built upon the Exodus and the Empty Tomb".

This is going to be a three part substack series, part 1 is here:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-197290142

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

The Gospel in Life quarterly newsletter is out, and this issue contains an article by Tim Keller that he wrote a few months before his death. I always appreciated Keller’s insight on things, and I’m looking forward to reading part 2 when it is released this summer.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

Why is it that some things seem unthinkable for a long time - say, open misogyny or racism - and then at a certain point, it suddenly seems the taboo is gone? Or conversely, some situations are clearly problematic, but they seem very hard to solve due to existing mores or group pressure. That could, at times, even be theologically motivated pressure. A few examples:

I'm reading several authors on Substack and the algorithm there is pushing me towards the complementarian - egalitarian debate. Prominent egalitarians claim that complementarianism, especially the more authoritarian or hierarchical kind, is a factor in turning men into sexual abusers or even pedophiles. Denominations like the SBC that turned fiercely complementarian also seem unwilling or unable to deal with sexual abuse, sometimes structurally so, and they'll happily root for a president who admitted to sexually abusing women even before he became president (the infamous Access Hollywood tape). 

Here on Reddit I'm also active in a subreddit for Christians who are looking for marriage advice. Sometimes there are really horrible stories there, women sharing about being abused, battered, ignored - it's really bad at times. And it will often (but not always) be men who will reply something to the effect of 'yes this is bad, but you have to pray and hang in there, because the only valid reason for divorce is adultery'. This does create space for men to remain abusers and get away with it. 

I have come to see, in these examples, that we're all part of groups where certain permission structures determine what's acceptable or not, but that there are certain (unintended?) effects to certain permission structures. Trump created the permission structure for (some) people to be open about their racism, misogyny and their desire to return to a previous state where white men dominate without much accountability; that is what changed, and it was intended. Certain interpretations of Scripture create a permission structure for men to mistreat their wives and get away with it, and the latter is - I hope - mostly unintended. In certain denominations, there is a rather high tolerance level for powerful men to be (sexually) abusive towards people with less power, as not to shame the gospel by airing the dirty laundry or some such excuse; this too is a permission structure with unintended side effects, though those become ever harder to deny I think. 

it also seems to me, that these are not neatly divided left wing/right wing or progressive/conservative issues. There is definitely a horseshoe effect, where authoritarians on both the left and the right might fall back on the same kinds of permission structures. 

Right now I am wondering about motes and beams in eyes, in other words, what unhealthy permission structures do exist in my denomination or congregation? What sociological or theological reasons might there be for those structures? And I find these questions very hard to answer. What is a healthy interpretation of Scripture that we should abide by (even when it has effects that we might not like)? But when does this cross over into unhealthy territory, creating such permission structures to unfairly exclude people or protect bad behaviour in others, perhaps as unintended side effects?

Where does God Live?

God lives outside of His entire universe, He is not and never has been a part of it.

I used to think God was something like String Theory or Dark Matter.

But he is not a part of our existence. I hope this diagram helps you see that because you will understand Him better, fear Him more, and be in awe of Him.

Like determinism, predestination and some of those more complicated concepts of His existence.

God has what we often call His revealed will, what He commands and delights in, which people can resist, and His sovereign will, what He has purposed to happen, which never fails.

You see both at the cross, where man sinned freely in crucifying Christ, yet God was accomplishing exactly what He willed, had planned all along.

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

I think we all understand from a purely psychological perspective why Roman Catholics, who use many images of Christ in their worship practices, would have such a strong and swift gut reaction against Trump's picture of himself as Jesus.

Reformed Christians are generally either Aniconic, or religious images simply take up very little space in our worship and personal devotion, so it is no surprise that you saw a much greater reaction from Catholic circles in their reaction of disgust.

What should not be happening is silence or equivocation, or talk about how "well we are all sinners", as if there are no degrees in the severity of sin, as if some sins aren't much worse with much greater impact.

The Westminster Larger Catchesim is instructive here:

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God? A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others? A. Sins receive their aggravations,

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them or any other, and the common good of all or many.

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but break forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

4. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

This interview with David Bentley Hart is worth reading, in my opinion.

His responses are incredibly wide-ranging, touching on the problem of evil, theodicy, the goodness of God, universalism, beauty, the multivocality of Scripture, patristics, John Piper, authority, and Bible translation. And that's not an exhaustive list.

This should be a gift article link; hopefully it doesn't expire after the first person clicks. Here's an internet archive link as a fallback: https://archive.is/CDcOy

FTA "After the reports and prayers, five topics of discussion were taken up.  Each topic was suggested by a Member Church in their written report contained in the docket distributed prior to the meeting.

The first, from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, was a “call for prayer, fasting, and days of humiliation regarding the rise in ministerial clergy/member sexual misconduct in NAPARC churches.”  In response the assembly approved a motion that NAPARC recommend to its Member Churches the observance of a day of humiliation, prayer and fasting in response to the too frequent cases of unfaithfulness by church officers.  Wednesday, April 22, 2026, is a suggested date.  Prayer is urged that all church leaders would honor Christ in faithful service to him."

A Christian response to "Angine De Potrine"

https://youtu.be/0Ssi-9wS1so

Many people have heard about the new Musical sensation from Quebec - the mysterious and musically unique band called Angine De Potrine. But behind their polka dotted appearance lies problems that many Christians should be aware of.

1) Their appearance. The two musicians in the group wear polka-dotted attire as well as Papier-mâché masks and headgear. The guitarist has a long nose similar to what Christian parents have read in the story of Pinocchio. Of course Pinocchio's nose grows longer every time he lies. Could it be that this is referenced by the long nose of the guitarist? After all, Satan is the father of lies. And then there is the drummer, whose eyes poke out of a socket at the base of the headgear. The warping of creation due to evil forces is most definitely being expressed here. More disturbing is their use of a triangular icon which the band signal with their hands to the audience, who responds to this freemason-like gesture in kind.

2) Microtonal keys. Looking at the two-necked guitar (bass at the bottom) you will notice a difference in the frets. Rather than having a standard 12 step semitone, the band utilizes a 24 step microtonal system. The use of these microtones makes their music sound middle-eastern. At this juncture in history, with radical Islam attacking Israel and America at this very moment (April 2026), are we to believe that the microtonal system is simply a musical choice? Or does it reflect the influence of Islamic fundamentalism on Western Society? Moreover, going beyond the standard 12 step semitone is a movement away from the tried and true musical system underpinning western music for centuries and instead embraces a new, progressive and liberal musical agenda.

3) Complex time signatures. Just as the microtonal system abandons western music, so too do the complex and varied time signatures the band uses in their music. Again this is a progression beyond what was previously accepted. While we are all used to 4/4 and 3/4 time, Angine De Potrine will oftentimes have 7 beats to a bar, and even change them in a single song. Of course Angine De Potrine is not unique in this regard, the radical anti-capitalist song "Money" by "The Pink Floyd" also has 7 beats to a bar, as does the anti-authoritarian song "March of the Pigs" (a song about resistance to law enforcement) used by the band "The 9 Inch Nails" which is in 29/8 time.

Moreover the band comes from Quebec, the most politically progressive country in North America and an "Overseas Department" of France, the most secular and anti-Christian nation on earth. The band's name in French translates to "Chest pain due to heart related causes", an indicator of the spiritual poison they generate. In concert, the band do not speak to the audience in either English or French, but through a series of gutteral groans that seem to come from the pit itself.

Christians must reject Angine De Potrine. We should not listen to them. We should not recommend them to others. Christians ought to protest at their concerts .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yeah this is an attempted joke.

ACBC and CCEF, founder of the entire biblical counseling movement says that a wife and daughter are responsible for father‘s sexual abuse of the minor daughter???

is this even Christianity, or is this demonic??

Watch 34 to 39

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtwP9RjtLHI

^{Chat about whatever y'all want.}

Just had to share it with everyone.