Strange Fire & Modern Prophecy - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long article. We do appreciate the thoroughness, and especially, We appreciate that the author considers the claims of charismatics in a serious manner. However, we believe his analysis and conclusions are incorrect for reasons we will explain.

The author assumes his premise of cessationism but never proves it. Read on:
--------------------------

Today’s post is adapted from my Thursday afternoon breakout session at the Strange Fire Conference. The title of my seminar was: A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy.

Introduction

The title for our seminar this afternoon is “A Word from the Lord? Evaluating the Modern Gift of Prophecy.” And that subtitle really defines our goal in this session. We want to look at prophecy in the contemporary charismatic movement and compare it to the Word of God. (The author will never establish his basic premises with Scripture. He will discuss and quote Scripture as he builds his case upon these premises, but the premises themselves are undocumented.)

It is important for me to note, at the beginning of this seminar, that much of what we will talk about today parallels what is found in the Strange Fire book. So, if you want to dig into this topic in more depth, I would recommend that resource as a place to start.

Definition of Terms

Now, before we begin, it is important that we define several terms:

1) Charismatic – The term “charismatic” is very broad, encompassing millions of people and thousands of denominations. Charismatics are known for their belief that the miraculous (All the gifts of the Spirit are miraculous by definition.)

and revelatory gifts (Is teaching revelatory?)

described in the New Testament are still in operation today and therefore should be sought by contemporary Christians. According to the International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, there are more than 20,000 distinct Pentecostal and Charismatic groups in the world. Those groups are generally subdivided into three broad categories or “waves.”

The First Wave refers to the classic Pentecostal Movement which began in the early 1900s under the leadership of men like Charles Parham and William Seymour. The Second Wave is known as the Charismatic Renewal Movement. It began in the 1960s as mainline Protestant denominations were influenced by Pentecostal theology. The Third Wave represents the influence of Pentecostal theology within evangelical denominations. It started under the leadership of C. Peter Wagner and John Wimber, both of whom were teaching at Fuller Theological Seminary at the time. Today, we will be using the term “charismatic” to encompass all three waves, doing so in an admittedly broad fashion.

(2) Continuationist – The term “continuationist” is similar to the term “charismatic” in that it refers to a belief in the continuation of the miraculous and revelatory gifts of the New Testament. Thus, continuationists assert that things like the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and gifts of healing are still functioning in the church today.

However, the term “continuationist” is often used to differentiate theologically conservative charismatics from those in the broader charismatic movement. Well-known evangelical continuationists would include Christian leaders like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Sam Storms. And, it is important to note, that while we do not agree with their position regarding the charismatic gifts, we have much that we appreciate about these men. Thus, the term “continuationist” often helps us differentiate conservative evangelical charismatics from those in the broader movement.

Here is how one continuationist author explained the term:

The term charismatic has sometimes been associated with doctrinal error, unsubstantiated claims of healing, financial impropriety, outlandish and unfulfilled predictions, an overemphasis on the speech gifts, and some regrettable hairstyles. . . . That’s why I’ve started to identify myself more often as a continuationist rather than a charismatic. (Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters, 86)

(3) Cessationist – The term “cessationist” refers to those who believe that the miraculous and revelatory gifts passed away in church history after the apostolic age ended. Cessationists therefore assert that supernatural phenomena like the gift of apostleship, (No, the "office" of apostleship.) 

the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and the gift of healing are no longer functioning in the church today. Rather, they were given as signs to authenticate the ministry of the apostles during the foundational age of the church. (Does the author have a Scripture to back this assertion? He presumes the premise but will never offer a single defense. 

Were the revelatory gifts given only to authenticate the ministry of the apostles? No. A brief review of Scripture demonstrates that prophecy was not restricted to authentication of the Apostles' ministry: 

Ac. 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Ac. 11:27-28: During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world.

Ac. 13:1: In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.

Ac. 15:32: Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.

Unless the author is prepared to agree that men like Stephen, Silas, Agabus, and Lucius were apostles, the author must acknowledge a broader purpose for the operation of the supernatural in the first century church. We discuss the authentication issue here.) 

Once the apostolic age has passed, and the canon of Scripture completed, the primary purpose for those gifts was fulfilled and they ceased. (Again, an assertion without a Scriptural citation. The author has no basis for claiming this. He has not established his premise, so all he builds upon it is suspect.)

What would a communist America look like?

I found this poster from the Oklahoma communist party to be interesting. It says:

1) Everyone would receive free, comprehensive, universal healthcare.
2) Housing would be affordable, safe, and available for everyone.
3) Food would be healthy, fresh, and freely available.
4) Everyone would be entitled to a quality education, without cost.
5) Seniors would retire comfortably in dignity and respect.
6) Veterans would receive the treatment they deserve for the sacrifices they made for this country.
7) Workers Rights would be fully protected, and they would receive the full value of their labor.
8) There would be equal pay and benefits for men and women.
9) There would be no wealth inequality anymore, and the class system would be abolished.
10) Everyone would have equal rights and freedoms regardless of their orientation.
11) Women would have full reproductive rights upheld by law.
12) Everyone would receive equal protection under the law, and an end to racism and racial profiling.

Is there anything in this list that differs in any way from the Democrat viewpoint? None that I can see. But that isn't what I find interesting. What is interesting to me is the full-throated gimmedat attitude on display. It's a tour de force of "what's in it for me."

Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?- by Paul M. Barrett

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is supposedly a news article, but it's filled with glowing, fawning references to former justice John Paul Stevens. The author lays it on heavy, almost to the point of absurdity. Most troubling, he seems to have no skepticism regarding the former justice's desire to amend the Constitution. 

Fundamental to the issue is the basic constitutional misconception common among those who favor more gun control. If they had a simple understanding that the purpose of the Constitution is to create, define, and restrict government, then most, if not all, controversies would disappear. 

Read in that context, we see the second amendment is restricting government, not speaking to what people can or cannot do. Therefore, the operative phrase, "shall not be infringed," tells government its power. In this case, it has no power.
---------------------------------

The liveliest (There are three surviving former Supreme court justices, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter, all of them elderly, and all of them active in various organizations and in giving speeches. For some reason, however, the author of the article finds it necessary to approvingly note the extraordinary liveliness of former justice Stevens, as if it somehow uniquely recommends him.) 

(and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010. Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, ("Brilliant?" "Striking?" Again, a glowing assessment from the author, ostensibly a journalist. 

Had the justice instead converted to conservatism, We're pretty sure we would not be reading about his "brilliant legal mind" or his "striking transformation." He likely would have been deemed an extremist, and the tone of the article would almost certainly be hostile and critical.) 

Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with. (Again, this is ostensibly a news article. But we are continually assaulted by the author with endless approving commentary.)

In his latest book, the forthcoming Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, he offers a half-dozen stimulating ideas ("Stimulating?" Really? Do you see what we mean when I say it gets to the point of absurdity?) 

for altering, and he would say improving, our foundational legal document. Today, let’s consider his most controversial proposal: changing the Second Amendment. Stevens is not going to win any friends at the National Rifle Association, because his undisguised agenda is to make it easier to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.

Letter to the editor: Rep. Daines should follow Jesus' lead

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------
Jerrold Johnson has made frequent appearances in the Chronicle, and because of his persistent logical shortcomings, in the pages of Mountain Man Trails as well.
--------------------------------

I’m told Steve Daines is a caring man, that he taught Bible Study Fellowship here in Bozeman and is a committed Christian. (Dr. Johnson begins by evaluating Daines' faith.) 

This puzzles me because as our congressman he has voted over 40 times to end the Affordable Care Act – ostensibly to “protect Montana families and lower medical costs.” (Daines has been in office for about a year. There is no possible way that he could have participated in all these votes, which stretch back to when ACA was passed. But more to the point, this persistent falsehood has taken on a life of its own by sheer repetition. How many times have we heard that the Republicans have voted to repeal the ACA 33 times, 37 times, 40 times? The fact is, there have been 4 or 5 successful votes in the House to repeal the entire bill. The balance of the votes have been to modify poorly written provisions. Some of these amendments were offered by Democrats. 

Prior to that, during the time leading up to the passage of ACA, every single modification of the bill offered by the Republicans was shot down. The intent by the Democrats was clear: The bill was going to be passed as-is, whether by hook or crook, deception, wee hours of the morning, promise anything to anyone [Bart Stupak, anyone?], whatever it took. Of course the Republicans opposed it, but that is completely irrelevant. The Republicans were [and are] powerless to affect the ACA. They don't have the Senate or the Presidency.)

Chuck Schumer email supporting John Walsh

Just a quick comment: Senator Schumer has been a politician all his adult life, and has never worked in the private sector. After graduating from college, he was elected to the NY state assembly in 1974, the US House of Representatives in 1981, and then to the US Senate in 1998. 

He has been in the majority party for nearly all of his career, with the exception of the Senate from 2000 to 2007. The nation has been governed by leftist principles during his entire tenure, despite a Republican senatorial majority for those few years. Never in modern history have conservative principles been in operation, nor have conservatives controlled the government. His perspective, his ideology, his political worldview has prevailed for 80 years. But for some reason Senator Schumer can only name the Tea Party for the nation's woes, and group that has never held the reins of power. 

He then writes, "The decline of middle-class incomes and the barriers to average people to get good-paying jobs have overtaken the deficit as the number one problem facing our political economy today. We can focus on issues like job creation, minimum wage, and unemployment insurance -- but only so long as good Democrats like John Walsh help us keep the majority." Apparently Senator Schumer is either unwilling or unable to recognize that these problems happened on his watch, and are due to the policies he supports.

Senator Schumer, it's your fault.
---------------------------------------------

From: Chuck Schumer
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:53 AM
Subject: Welcome to the Senate, John Walsh!

Hi, Good news -- John Walsh, the Montana Democrat running to help keep our majority this fall, was just sworn in as the newest United States senator! President Obama nominated Montana's incumbent senator as an ambassador, and that means John now has the opportunity to serve the people of Montana until the election in November. Together, we can help make sure John Walsh wins that election and serves another six years. Welcome John Walsh to the Senate today with a contribution of $5 that will help him win the election in November. As a soldier, John was adjutant general of the Montana National Guard. He courageously led more than 700 Montanans into battle in Iraq And as Montana's lieutenant governor, John helped make historic investments in education, create good jobs and opportunities, and protect a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. We need that courage in Washington. But John's opponent is a real threat. While in the House, he was endorsed by the Tea Party Express, supported the Paul Ryan budget that would have voucherized Medicare, and led the charge to shut down the government. That's why we need to make sure we keep John in the Senate this November. Contribute $5 today to help John Walsh defeat his tea party opponent and preserve our Democratic Senate majority. The decline of middle-class incomes and the barriers to average people to get good-paying jobs have overtaken the deficit as the number one problem facing our political economy today. We can focus on issues like job creation, minimum wage, and unemployment insurance -- but only so long as good Democrats like John Walsh help us keep the majority. Thank you for your support, Chuck Schumer

Annoying Things in Worship Songs - Jeremy Pierce

Article found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

If you're not noting the tongue-in-cheek here, just click on the links. You'll find Scripture references refuting each of the complaints.

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

Here are some of the things I really hate in a worship song.

1) Too simplistic, banal, lacking in depth, shallow, doctrineless: Consider that one that just talks about unity among brothers that only mentions God in passing at the very end. 

2) It’s so repetitive. I mean, come on, how many times can you repeat “His steadfast love endures forever” before you start thinking the song is going to go on forever? 

3) For some songs, the focus is too much on instruments, and the sheer volume leads to its seeming more like a performance than worship and prevents quiet contemplation. 

4) There might be too much emphasis on too intimate a relationship with God, using first-person singular pronouns like “me” and “I” or second-person pronouns like “you” instead of words like “we” and “God.”  

This fosters a spirit of individualism, and it generates an atmosphere of religious euphoria rather than actual worship of God. Worship should be about God, not about us. Or what about the ones that use physical language to describe God and our relationship with him? Can you really stomach the idea of tasting God? 

5) Some songs have way too many words for anyone to learn. 

6) It patterns its worship on experiences that not everyone in the congregation will be able to identify with. If you’re not in the frame of mind or don’t have the emotional state in question (e.g., a desperate longing for God), then what are you doing lying and singing it? Worship leaders who encourage that sort of thing are making their congregations sing falsehoods. 

7) Then there’s that song with the line asking God not to take the Holy Spirit away, as if God would ever do that to a genuine believer. 

8) Then there’s that song that basically says nothing except expressing negative emotions. 

9) Finally, there are those songs that have like four or five lines that people just either have to repeat over and over again or just sing briefly and never get a chance to digest.

At this point I’m so outraged that people would pass this sort of thing off as worship that I’m almost inclined to give in to the people who think we shouldn’t sing anything but the psalms.

Oh, wait. . . .

Writer too quick to pass judgement on Dolan - letter by Rev. Val Zdilla

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

Peter Arnone wrote a letter to the editor, which apparently riled Reverend Zdilla.

First Mr. Arnone's letter: 

Ho-hum. Or, in Hillary Clinton’s arrogant parlance, “What difference does it make?” From one of their own, the leftist media yawned at a most alarming statement yet made by a Democrat leader.

From the Buffalo News (Jan. 17), Gov. Andrew Cuomo stated in a radio interview, “If they are extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York.” Does this not ring of pre-World War II Germany as that government marginalized people as enemies of the state?

Cuomo defined “extreme conservatism” as being anti-gay for opposing same-sex marriage, being pro-life, and favoring legalization of already legal “assault” weapons. Amazing, Cuomo’s own Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage and abortion. Yet New York’s spineless Cardinal Timothy Dolan refuses to rebuke his pal Cuomo as an apostate. Cuomo officials later backtracked, saying the governor’s remarks were aimed at extremist conservative Republican candidates. In other words, tradition loving, Constitution supporting, “tea party” Americans. As a former New Yorker, it is safe to say millions of New Yorkers are insulted as they fall into the very category Cuomo denigrates.

While Cuomo wants those who don’t conform to his own extreme leftist politics out of New York, New York advertises on national TV that “New York is open for business.” Fat chance. The middle class and businesses are fleeing socialist New York. Does this impact Montana? The dictatorial, anti-Christian wave of Obama administration policy is flooding red state America. What Democrat Cuomo said is merely a reflection.

Reported in New Yorker magazine (Jan. 19), Obama now endorses nationwide marijuana legalization. You can talk about the stock bubble or debt bubble bursting. But no one is talking about the puss-pocket of moral bankruptcy burdening the American people, especially the American family. While Democrats think the president walks on water, the American ship of state sinks further.

Peter Arnone
-------------------------------------

Now for the Reverend's letter:

I was deeply troubled reading Mr. Peter Arnone’s ad hominim (sic) attack on New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan (A little hyperbole here. First, the Reverend's incorrect usage of the term "ad hominem." An ad hominem is defined as where "a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person who offered the argument." In other words, Cardinal Dolan would offer an argument, and Mr. Arnone would reject the argument based on some irrelevant personal attribute, i.e., "His argument is faulty because his feet smell."

Second, the use of the word "attack." In these days of political acrimony where the level of debate has descended to schoolyard fighting, the use of the word "spineless" seems very mild, indeed. More relevant is that from Mr. Arnone's perspective, it's probably a pretty accurate assessment of his view of Cardinal Dolan. Many others share this opinion of him. So for me at least, it is hardly an outrageous claim.) 

and by that the American Catholic Church in his Sunday letter of Jan. 27. Not sure of his brand of Christianity, but with so many in the U.S. it is not easy to know what many American denominations believe. As a member of the over 1 billion Catholic Christians in this world an attack on Cardinal Dolan without knowing much of our church or even the teachings of Christ in matters of conflicts among peoples is troubling. While I can agree with his anger toward political figures and their public stances, to somehow think that Cardinal Dolan is “spineless” because he chose to not publicly respond as perhaps you or I would is far from true. It reflects a long held Christian value. As Jesus Christ himself says in scripture, we are to go to our offender first before bringing it to the public. (The reverend states he doesn't know about Mr. Arnone's religious persuasions, but nevertheless feels free to apply his version of proper scriptural behavior upon him. But more importantly, I wonder if the reverend recognizes the irony of informing Mr. Arnone of the proper way of dealing with conflicts, yet writes a letter to the editor, himself criticizing Mr. Arnone, rather than going directly to Mr. Aronone?)

I am confident that Cardinal Dolan has the avenues of communication with all elected officials in the city if not the entire state of New York, governor Cuomo included. And he does not hold back when our values are attacked. He as we all as all Catholic Christians should just follow the Lord’s teachings on these matters. In time, and on his terms I am sure Cardinal Dolan will make public his response. All of us including our leaders are public figures and not above criticism concerning our decisions. Well constructed arguments that are based on facts are even better. However in this particular correct, the author is not correct in his judgment. (Which itself is a judgment.)

Rev. Val Zdilla

Pastor, Resurrection University Catholic Church

Bozeman

Burning Away Misconceptions About “Holy Fire” - by Lyndon Unger

Originally found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

We'll save our analysis until the end because we want to illustrate how the authors strategic use of biblical references clears the way for him to draw his flawed conclusions. 

The author claims, "I guess I do all this work so that you don’t have to." However, you will note that the author rarely quotes actual Scripture. It seems to us that if one is trying to make a case from Scripture, Scripture ought to actually appear in the presentation. Dear reader, if you take the time to examine provided Scripture references for yourself, you will discover that he is not quoting them because they don't support his opinion.   

One might justifiably conclude that the author is looking for support for his preconceived notions. He mission is to prove charismatics wrong about their position on fire, and he will not allow inconvenient Scripture to impede him.
-------------------------------------