Addressing Continuationist Arguments from 1 Corinthians 14 - by Eric Davis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a continuation of the author's previous missive, which we commented upon here.

--------------------
(...)

With that, a few responses to some of the stronger arguments in favor of the continuationist position from 1 Corinthians 14. In each, a continuationist position is given, with a cessationist response.

“The gift of tongues as a prayer language is the act of speaking to God by the Spirit in prayer, just as it says in v. 2.”

“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries” (1 Cor. 14:2).

Continuationists often hold that, as stated in v. 2, those speaking in tongues are speaking to God, not people. (Well, that is what Paul said, isn't it?)

Tongues cannot be the miraculous ability to speak a previously unlearned foreign language to other people (Is this truly an argument made by continuationists? Frankly, we are unaware of any continuationist making such a statement.)

because Paul describes the gift as the act of speaking to God. Therefore, some sort of prayer language from the believer to God is in view.

Response:

This position clashes with the context of Paul’s correction. The discussion is not about a private prayer language, but intelligibility in the worship service. It would not make sense, for example, to say, “One who prays a private prayer language doesn’t speak to men, but to God, for no one understands him.” Why? Paul is not talking about anything private, but everything corporate; about the public gatherings. ("In the context" the author describes, Paul writes:

1Co. 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

So "in the context" we find Paul explaining that people in the worship service were edifying themselves. 

1Co. 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

Again, "in the context" we find Paul advocating for tongues!

In addition, Paul's narratives often inserts ancillary ideas, deviations from the narrative, or brief tangents. 

For example: 

2Co. 11:18 Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast.

Ep. 5:9 for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth

1Th. 4:9 Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

He. 11:32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets...

These parenthetical thoughts are frequently injected into the biblical narrative. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Paul steers briefly from the topic to insert an aside.)

Why There is No Such Thing as the Gift of Tongues - by Eric Davis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Another installment in our quest for the biblical case for the cessation of the supernatural. As a reminder,  any argument presented must

• be biblically based
• not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
• not appeal to silence
• not appeal to events or practices of history

As is typical for cessationists who seem loathe to actually quote Scripture, the author will manage to quote only two Scriptures, neither of which will be proof texts for the author's position.

We discuss Tongues in detail here.

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

‘Goodwill to all men,’ should be more than a saying - By Esther J. Cepeda, National columnist

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
Astonishingly, this person is a syndicated writer. That is, she is (or supposed to be) a wordsmith, in the business of crafting essays that clarify, elucidate, and explain. Or, that's what we would expect.

But in actual fact, the author doesn't explain, she obfuscates in service to her political ideology. She doesn't get a single thing correct. She cannot even connect facts together, let alone put together a logical, coherent procession of ideas.
-----------------------

HOW DOES SEEKING DIRECT REVELATION DESTROY YOUR CURRENT OBEDIENCE? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------------

We continue to seek a biblical case for cessationism. We will not find it here. Once again we find a cessationist who refuses to quote Scripture. It's truly astonishing that a supposed Bible teacher cannot bother to quote a single relevant Scripture.

Ms. Prata's premise is that those who listen to inner promptings risk being disobedient to Scripture or God. We might ask, does she think that do not treat prophecies with contempt (1Th. 5:20) should be obeyed? How about Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy (1Co. 14:1)?
----------------------

Do you believe that the Lord still speaks? That He has a fresh word? That you can receive individual directions for specific circumstances in your life? Get career advice, parenting advice, life advice, by becoming still and waiting for impressions, thoughts, impulses, and urges?

A lot of people believe these things. There's an entire cottage industry within Christian publishing telling us how to hear the whispers, voices, and mental impressions that you, too, can receive from God. There are additional books and guides telling you how to interpret them. Why wouldn't you believe this, if entire publishing houses are promoting it? Why dismiss this idea if local pastors are teaching from these studies and telling you to listen for God? Or telling you they have heard from God themselves, as many claim?

Whoa. Hold on. Take a breath.

If God is still speaking then what He says is authoritative. It's applicable to all of us. We would need to add blank pages to the end of our Bibles to write down these additional words. (This is astoundingly false. There is no Bible verse that says such a thing. There is no doctrine, no precept, no statement by God that such a thing must happen. But she will build her entire case on this non-biblical concept.

We know full well that the entirety of what God has said could not be contained in any book. The Scriptures themselves are quite clear.

Jn. 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

And we note that many other things are not in the Bible. For example, what happened to the annals of Solomon?

1Kg. 11:41 As for the other events of Solomon’s reign — all he did and the wisdom he displayed — are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?

Or the annals of Jehu?

2Ch. 20:34 The other events of Jehoshaphat’s reign, from beginning to end, are written in the annals of Jehu son of Hanani, which are recorded in the book of the kings of Israel.

Why don't we have the letter written to Laodicea? 

Col. 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

We have two letters to the Corinthians. What about this other letter Paul references?

1 Cor 5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.

And we also know that many, many prophecies, which by definition are words from God, are not recorded. King Saul prophesied to the extent that the people wondered if he was included among the prophets. Yet we don't have any of those prophecies:

1Sa. 10:10-11 When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying. 11 When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?”

Agabus was a N.T. prophet of some note in the Church. It is interesting that only two of his prophecies were included in Scripture, while any other prophecies he might have spoken were omitted:

Ac. 21:10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.

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

 Similarly, we don't have any prophecies from Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, or Manaen:

Ac. 13:1-2 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. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Nor do we have any from Judas or Silas:

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

And these twelve men prophesied, but we don't have a record of their prophecies:

Ac. 19:6-7 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Philip's daughters prophesied, but that all we know:

Ac. 21:8-9 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.

It is quite clear that all prophecies, let alone contemporary prophecy, does not have to be included in the Bible. The author's assertion is completely facile and erroneous.)

What Does it Mean to be Led by the Holy Spirit? - by Eric Davis

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The author would have us believe that there is a single manifestation of being led by the Spirit: "The only situation in which an individual can say that they are being led by the Holy Spirit is a regenerate individual actively putting sin to death."

In other words, our personal activities regarding sin in our lives is the only part of being led by the Spirit. It's almost as if Ga. 3:3 is coming to bear here: 

Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

We do agree that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in us does include the putting to death of the sinful nature. But as we will demonstrate, this is not the only way we are being led by the Spirit.

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

Is There More Than One Way to Interpret Scripture? - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------

We know what the author is trying to get at. But her imprecise use of language is troubling, especially since she represents herself as a Bible teacher.

In addition, the author manages to quote only a single Scripture. One would think that a Corrector of Doctrine might find a way to actually provide Bible verses.
--------------------

A few weeks ago, a friend asked me this question: How do I respond to those who say we can interpret scripture however we want? She had been talking with someone and they had claimed that there are many interpretations to scripture and people just interpret the Bible however they want to make it fit with their viewpoint. (Tell her friend to read them a verse, like Jn. 14:6: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Ask the person how they might interpret that. 

The problem isn't about interpreting difficult verses that could mean various things. The problem is the plain sayings of Scripture.)

While the second half of that sentence is true (people try to make the Bible say whatever they want), it is the first part of this sentence that I want to examine today: Is there more than one interpretation? (Well yes, that's very nearly self-evident. There are many interpretations of the Bible. Perhaps her question is really, "is there more than one correct interpretation?")

This is a great battle in Christendom today because almost all false Gospels rely on the answer to this question being yes. (Subject change. Now we are talking about teachers of false doctrine.)

If we desire to stick to the traditional view of the Word, we will often have to deal with people saying to us: Well, that’s your interpretation. (Subject change. Now we are talking about a scoffer.)

So let’s take a look at this so that, hopefully, we will be a little more prepared the next time someone makes a statement like this.

If you write a letter to someone, does it have one meaning? Or are there several? (Term-switching. The number of meanings is not equal to the number of interpretations.)

Flashback Friday: Charismatics Aren’t Like Joseph - DEBBIELYNNE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Originally posted December 23, 2016: (Apparently she is particularly proud of this one, enough so to repost it.)

During my years as a Charismatic, I remember using all sorts of Scriptures as proof-texts to validate whatever spiritual experience I happened to be practicing at the time. Most of the Charismatics I knew did the same thing to greater or lesser degrees. (We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must

• be biblically based
• not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
• not appeal to silence
• not appeal to events or practices of history

The author's appeal to the present-day activities of charismatics is not a biblical argument.)

At Christmas time, Matthew’s nativity narrative gave me and my Charismatic friends excellent proof-texts to substantiate our claims that the Lord spoke to us personally. Three times in Matthew 1 and 2, the Lord sent Joseph dreams, in which He spoke very clearly to instruct Joseph. For example, look at God’s intervention when Joseph learned that his fiancee, Mary, was carrying a Child that he hadn’t fathered.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. ~~Matthew 1:18-25 (ESV)

Naturally, we concluded that, since the Lord spoke to Joseph, we had good reason to expect Him to speak to us in dreams, visions, still small voices or what have you. (No, we do not. This is not a "proof text." We simply acknowledge that God spoke to Joseph. 

If we want "proof texts," we simply turn to Paul's counsel:

1Co. 12:7-10 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy...

1Co. 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.  

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 

1Ti. 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. 

1Th. 5:19-20 Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt.)

Cessationism - Episode 7: There were only limited periods of miracles

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.
-------------------

The Truth About Privatization - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Privatization. Privatization. Privatization. It’s all you hear from Republicans. (All we hear is privatization? I thought Republicans only talked about taking away peoples' rights???)

But what does it actually mean?

Generations ago, America built an entire national highway system, along with the largest and best public colleges and universities in the world. Also public schools and national parks, majestic bridges, dams that generated electricity for entire regions, public libraries and public research.

But around 1980, the moneyed interests began pushing to privatize much of this, giving it over to for-profit corporations. Privatization, the argument went, would boost efficiency and reduce taxes.

The reality has been that privatization too often only boosts corporate bottom lines. (That is, privatization means that a private company operates the asset, and actually intends to MAKE A PROFIT. This, apparently, is bad.)

For example, consider Trump’s proposal for infrastructure. It depends on private developers, who would make money off of both tax subsidies and private tolls. (Hasn't Dr. Reich heard of private contractors? Government contracts are routinely bid out, and have been for decades.)

So the public would get charged twice, without any guarantee that the resulting roads, bridges, or rapid transportation systems would be where they’re most needed. (Waaait. If the government builds a toll road with tax dollars, doesn't it profit twice?)

It’s true that private for-profit corporations can do certain tasks very efficiently. (He now begins to walk it back.)

And some privatization has worked. But the goal of corporations is to maximize profits for shareholders, not to serve the public interest. (The goal of corporations is to make a product that will create a profit. If it's a bad product, it won't make a profit. Corporations serve the public interest by virtue of making a profit.)

Do You Know your Pastor’s Job? - by Greg Peterson

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

This article is troubling for several reasons. First, let's examine the article's premise, that the pastor has a job to do, and that Paul's letters to Timothy explains what that job is.

But Scripture does not tell us that Timothy was a pastor. Timothy was actually a valued associate of Paul, who labored alongside him, went to various churches on assignments, and generally did his bidding.

Paul and Timothy partnered together:

Ac. 17:15: “The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.”

Timothy was sent to various places at Paul’s behest:

1Co. 4:17: “For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

In fact, at one point Paul told him to stay in Ephesus and correct some errant believers:

1Ti. 1:3 “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer…"

Some of Paul’s epistles were co-written with Timothy:

Ph. 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi…”

Paul commends Timothy to the Philippian church:

Ph. 2:22 “But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.”

Paul tells us why he was writing to Timothy:

1Ti. 3:14-15 “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Paul was planning to come himself, and the purpose of his instructions was to help Timothy deal with this particular church until Paul arrived. 

1Ti. 4:13: “ Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.”

And lastly, Paul counsels Timothy that Paul has trusted him with the assignment. Paul wants Timothy to keep the church intact and on the right path.

1 Ti. 6:20 “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.” 

In sum, there isn’t any indication that Timothy was pastor or head of this particular church. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that Timothy was on assignment from Paul as a young church planter charged with setting up elders and correcting doctrine in this church, and Paul was advising him how to do it.
------------------------

Family planning needed to curtail overpopulation - by Norman A. Bishop

Found here. My comments in bold.

The letter is found at the bottom.

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

The author uses the occasion of the holiday season to drop a downer on us. He believes that "we" need to control the size of the population. However, he does not tell us who "we" is, or how "we" should accomplish this. Nor does he tell us who should be controlled. 

In fact, it seems that the author is communicating nothing more than vague platitudes, coupled with moralizing about what he considers "pro-life."

Below is a ranking of birth rates for all the nations. The reader will note that the United States is ranked 157 out of 225. Thus it is approximately in the bottom third of all countries.

The reader will also note that the top 100 nations are largely people of color, specifically, black. Would it be out of bounds to suggest that the population control advocates are specifically interested in reducing the number of those who are people of color?

Five articles of Remonstrance

Found here. I had never heard of these.
--------------------

The Five articles of Remonstrance refers to the document drawn up in 1610 by the followers of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). A "remonstrance" is literally "an expression of opposition or protest," which in this case was a protest against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination contained in the Belgic Confession. Consequently, those followers of Arminius who drafted this protest were given the name "Remonstrants."

This document was condemned as heresy by the reformed churches at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619. [1]

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also. [2]

John Allen Chau - foolish or a martyr?

A lot has been said about Mr. Chau's trip to Sentinel Island. Many have criticized him for being stupid, wrong, or misguided.

An overriding feature of the criticism is that he was reckless and thoughtless in his mission. He has been taken to task for the possibility of bringing disease, disturbing a society, and not respecting the desire of the people to be left alone. He is regarded as foolish for undertaking an ill-advised, dangerous, and illegal mission trip.

I think all these criticisms are invalid.

You do not have a sin Nature! - guest post by Kevin

My comments in bold.

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

My good friend sent me something he wrote, which appears at the end after my commentary. 

His assertion is that we no longer have a sinful nature. I would not disagree with him in the sense that we are new creations in Christ, and our very nature is transformed from death to life. But I wonder if it's more a matter of semantics, since it is clear we yet have a propensity to hearken to the sinful nature. 

By semantics I mean, do we "have" a sinful nature, or do we "hang on" to the sinful nature? Or, does the sinful nature hang around us?

There is the spiritual reality that we are completely new: 

2Co. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Ro. 6:6-8 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

 But we still tend to live in the Old Man:

1Co. 5:7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

 Paul also writes:

Why You Should Not Turn the Lights Dark During Worship - JD Hall

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------

The author is convinced that turning off the lights in the sanctuary during the musical worship is unholy. However, not one Scriptural reference is provided. Not one biblical principle is cited. Therefore, his judgment is not based on a biblical argument.
-----------------

Here’s why you should not turn the lights dark during worship.

1. By default, spotlights are on the stage. The people on the stage then have “the spotlight.” People should never have the spotlight (Jesus should). (The author offers a false choice: Spotlights are either us or Jesus. The author does not explain to us how a darkened room automatically dishonors Jesus.

And we wonder, should Paul not have been in "the spotlight?" 

Ac. 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious."

And how about when Paul appeared before Felix?

Ac. 24:10 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense." 

And what about pastors? They stand center stage behind a podium making solemn statements. Many churches have the elders and other notable people seated on stage. What about the person who reads announcements? The person who sings a solo during the offering? Do these also steal "the spotlight" from Jesus? 

Can you see the arbitrary nature of the author's objections?)

The seven cells of the American church prison system - Jeremiah Johnson

A sobering chart about church involvement and service in ministry.

3 Reasons Charismatics Are Wrong about New Testament Prophecy - by Justin Taylor

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In our quest for the biblical explanation of the ceasing of the "supernatural" gifts, we turn to Justin Taylor. 

By the way, it has become a substantial irritation to us that cessationists will rarely, if ever, quote scripture. Mr. Taylor also fails to do so.

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

Trump’s Assault on the Rule of Law - by Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich is troubled by the supposed lawlessness of President Trump. However, he had no concern about Obama declining to enforce DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Obama famously threatened he would flout congress with a pen and a phone. In addition, "...Obama... has harmed the separation of powers that the Founders so carefully delineated — bydelaying implementation of the Affordable Care Act; refusing to enforce federal drug laws under the guise of prosecutorial discretion; and effectively amending our immigration laws by not only delaying deportations but also granting status and benefits to people who have immigrated to the U.S. illegally. In doing so, he has positioned himself as a super-legislator with the power to override the law."

Indeed, if the Rule of Law is so important, why did the Left tell us that there is no presumption of innocence with Judge Kavanaugh? If the Rule of Law is so important, why does the Left continually trumpet Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016, when the law is the Electoral College?

And why does the Left continually take settled law to the courts to be overturned? Why do they continually delay the vote count until more votes are found? Why do they have sanctuary cities, deliberately designed to negate federal law? 

So Dr. Reich's sudden concern for the Rule of Law rings hollow.

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

ETS II: My Response to Tom Schreiner - By Andrew Wilson

Found here. A continuation of the previous post.

The opening section of my response to Tom Schreiner overlapped with the summary of his argument I posted on Friday, so I won’t rehash that here. Instead I’ll focus on my disagreements with him, which in the end boil down to just three things:

ETS I: My Paper on the Continuation of the Charismata - By Andrew Wilson

Found here. An interesting article.

It is a huge privilege to open this discussion on spiritual gifts, with individuals from whom I have learned so much in so many areas. Thank you, Patrick, for making this possible—and for letting me go first. “The first to present his case seems right … until another comes and examines him.” Because this panel is based on two books, rather than one, and because Tom’s book and mine come to different conclusions on the continuation of the charismata, it would be easy for a discussion like this to become repetitive, with essentially the same material being covered six times over. To try and avoid that, in this presentation I plan to do three things. First, I will try to define the scope of the debate as simply as possible, so we don’t end up talking past each other. Second, I will lay out the Charismatic case in a positive way, with what seem to me the three key arguments for it. Third, I will summarise the strongest argument for Cessationism, and then challenge it, before concluding. I will leave a discussion of the other Cessationist arguments until we engage with Tom’s book later on.

Hyper Grace churches - FB Discussion

I posted this on FB, and a conversation ensued:


Me: Whenever a church only preaches the love and blessings of God in Christ without ever mentioning the need to repent and or the consequences of sin in the life of the believer, there is a good chance that is a hyper-grace church.


Me: We do not have to choose between repentance and grace as concepts. It's not an either/or situation. One does not exclude the other.

The fact that grace abounds does not mean repentance is no longer needed. Repentance represents the total shift of the whole man. God requires this, and it includes small repentances as well as large.


Steve: What's with term "hyper-grace?" Are we labeling people unnecessarily?

You are correct in saying it's not an either/or proposition, but by using the term hyper-grace it seems like you are saying we can have too much grace. That's like saying we can have too much love. Hyper-grace is actually a Biblical term, the Greek "ho charis HYPERperisseuō" literally means hyper-grace. (See the Mounce Interlinear NT)

"The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age." (Titus 2:11-12 NIV)

Grace teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness. Is this not repentance? This passage teaches that it is grace which inspires us to repent and thus helps us to overcome. To say you can have too much grace is tantamount to saying you can have too much overcoming.

How about overcoming the apparent need to label/judge others? 8|

Me: I am happy to judge unrighteousness and false teaching.

Old Saints where are your new songs? - by PBSOMERS

Found here. An incredibly good article.

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

When do you officially become an ‘old’ saint?

Is it when your years as a follower of God are more than double the years you haven’t been? Is it when you’ve trusted God through some of life’s darkest challenges? Through pain, persecution, robbery or death? Is it when you have reached both a physical and spiritual ripe old age and still have a fresh and growing faith?

So what do you get for making it this far?

• Proverbs 16:31 grey hair/no hair and some depth of righteousness
• Job 12:12 wisdom and a greater depth of understanding
• Proverbs 20:29 a degree of splendor (rank, renown, glory)
• Titus 2:2-3 a reputation for faithfulness and opportunities to speak into the lives of others
• Hebrews 11 battle scars of this journey to sanctification
• Joshua 14 a reset vigor for the promises of God
• Leviticus 19:32 respect
• Psalm 90:10  a life time marked by faithful scars and a critical eye from having lived well in a broken world

What else? What’s next?

If you are somewhere on the continuum of older saint, the church needs you. We need your wisdom, your resource of experience, your critical eye. We need to hear your words of caution or your encouragement for prayer, trust and faithfulness.

That’s not all we need from you.

Those things can be done at a distance. We don’t need your distance.

-We need your gospel stories lived in the present Psalm 92:12-14
– We need to see how God gives you strength in some of the most difficult realities you face right now Psalm 40:29
– We need to know how you are hoping now in the goodness of God Isaiah 40:30-35
– We need to see God’s Spirit alive and working through your life Joel 2:28
– We need to see how you flourish and bear fruit in faithful labor with your church Psalm 92:12-14
– We need to learn from your holy boldness in witness and testimony of God’s ability to save, even now Psalm 71:15-18

These things can only be done up close. These are activities whose impact are only transferred through life on life. We need your gospel mentorship and discipleship.  We don’t need your distance, we need you to give away the depth of bold faith you have gained by inviting us, and our kids, into your lives.

One last thing we need from our older saints in the church,

We need your new gospel songs.

An in depth conversation with an atheist about meaning

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Yeah, I'm totally cool with this. In fact, when a declared atheist is elected to office, I hope he/she takes their oath over whatever book brings them the most inner peace and faith in humanity.

America's First Ever Hindu Congresswoman Will Take the Oath of Office Over the Bhagavad Gita jezebel.com

Me: I notice your two provisos for atheists, inner peace and faith in humanity. Why should they value them?

B.R.: Why shouldn't they? Belief in a determined God-figure is not required for inner peace and faith in humanity. I know many atheists who possess both provisos, and a few folks who believe in God but have neither.

Me: You miss my point. On what basis would you suggest that an atheist value the things you value? What other people possess is not relevant.

B.R.: Oh. Well. Then you can consider it wishful thinking. I pray that all human beings find inner peace, but obviously it's not a prerequisite for being an elected official. I would hope that elected officials have faith in humanity, but again it's not for me to say whether they do or not. Basically, I assume that Christians take the oath of office over the Bible because it represents their set of beliefs. Since atheists inherently have different beliefs, I hope they would choose a bound book that represents those beliefs. Inner peace and faith in humanity are just the ones I think are important. They can choose for themselves.

Me: Well said. You should have no expectation that they assent to the same values as you, or any values at all. But even to suggest that there is desirability for an atheist to select a symbol representative of their beliefs is in itself a moral imperative you are imposing. Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptuous. An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist.

D.G.: I disagree, Rich. A candidate's values are significant to me. I don't care what belief system those values arise from, and some values--e.g. prizing knowledge & accuracy--are often unrelated to belief systems that are traditionally considered religious or moral. But a candidate can't specify in advance how they'll respond to every possible policy issue, so their values are quite relevant to their performance in office.

B.R.: Thanks, I agree that it's foolish to expect them to have the same values. However, I'm completely satisfied to imposing an imperative that an elected official should take the oath of office by using a book that means something to them morally.

"Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptious." - Life has led me to understand that everyone has beliefs they adhere to, regardless of their religious commitment or lack thereof. I've never met someone without beliefs.

"An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist." - Why not? Why are they of any less value than a religious person's, especially in the scenario that they're an elected official?

Me: D.G., I quite agree, a candidate's values are significant to me as well. But we are talking specifically about atheists. An atheist's values, if any, are chosen based on whatever criteria he might deem important, and abandoned or modified in the same way. You or anyone else who might place expectations on an atheist to value something or perform or believe in a certain way is an imposition of your values upon the atheist. The atheist as well has no moral imperative to impose his on you. One might justifiably wonder how an atheist can govern without imposing values.

Me: B.R., it is true that everyone seems to have values. This is not being disputed. It is the nature of those values, how they are arrived at, and the obligations we might put on ourselves to act or not act on them that is the issue. If values are personal and individually determined, embraced, modified, and rejected, then they are only relevant for the individual.

Relative and Objective truth - FB comments

In an earlier post I engaged what I must assume was a vegan post-modernist new ager. In that particular thread we had begun by talking about the morality of killing animals, and he believed it to be immoral.

The conversation morphed. The new-ager's comments about truth of his opinions were fascinating, if confounding.

My comments in bold.
---------------------

Comment One:

I’m just stating truth. And no it’s not my personal truth. (So we are clear that our interlocutor views himself as making objective truth claims and not subjective truth.)

It’s actually our creators truth. (Now he invokes an unnamed creator, further solidifying his claim to objective truth.)

The truth is that it is unloving to kill harm or torture any living creature. (He makes an objective moral claim. He does not reference the basis or source of this claim, however.)

(...)

Comment Two: 

There is absolute truth and one must figure that out for themselves. (We've been using the word "objective" truth, but our interlocutor uses the word "absolute." Absolute truth is an unvarying, rigid standard, but there is contained no suggestion that such standards are knowable, or even operate in the real world. However, objective truth is knowable truth that works through our lives in practical ways, and true no matter what one believes.)

One has to have desire to investigate our creators love and truth. We must have a deep emotional longing from within to figure out absolute love and truth from our creators perspective- not ours. Their are billions of personal truths that are out of harmony with Gods love and truth. Don’t believe me. I’m just giving counsel and advice. I encourage you all to grow in love. Keep experimenting with what’s loving and unloving on everything based on how you feel. (Our interlocutor contradicts himself. Having embraced "absolute" truth, he retreats to what feels to be true. No longer an absolutist, he has become a relativist.

Interestingly, despite it being his personal truth, he evangelizes for it. "We must" is a moral imperative, but such imperatives cannot exist in a subjective framework. In other words, if truth is my truth, how can I claim it to be yours as well?)

What does the heart feel. What does the soul feel. Get out of your intellectual mind and start having true real conversations with your feelings. (Now he begins offering prescriptions, with our feelings as the standard.)

Your feelings will set your true freedom. This is not about me or any religion or a book. (How can it not be about him if it invokes his feelings? And of course he is most certainly making religious claims about our "creator." Most likely, he read this stuff in a book somewhere.)

This is about us making personal choices privately to ask long and communicate to our creator for her love (Ah, now we know that this "creator" is not God. We conclude he is talking about some pagan goddess like Gaia. "Many Neopagans worship Gaia. Beliefs regarding Gaia vary, ranging from the belief that Gaia is the Earth to the belief that she is the spiritual embodiment of the earth, or the Goddess of the Earth."

This would certainly make sense given his veganism, for it would certainly be immoral to eat a fellow creature.)

and truth to transform the condition of our soul.

Killing an animal is murder - FB conversation

A FB friend posted this.
______________


Vladka November 5 at 6:25 PM ·

I don’t even know what to say! My little Joshua is growing up!!! Bitter sweet 😊❤️ I am super proud of him🙏❤️🙏




Jason: It’s actually quite sad to see a young boy be taught that it’s ok to take the life of another creature. The truth is all animals have the divine right to live freely without being murdered - kidnapped - live in suffering- torchered or used and abused in anyway. The more you desire to grow in love from within. You will see this and feel this very clearly.

Kenton: It’s sad for those who don’t hunt. Why? Because the bean fields in which the farmer is growing tofu has an abundance of rabbits, turtles, mice, raccoons and so many more little animals that are being murdered without cause, except to grow the beans for vegans. We can definitely dig much deeper on this subject. I don’t know how right it would be to judge anyone but ourselves.

Kip: Awesome job little buddy bringing home the steaks!!

Kip: Jason, its only your truth. Shut up. Keep your hippie loving mushroom eating opinion to yourself. Not needed. That deer is tasty steaks.

Kenton: Jason, step outside of what you’re saying. Do you understand the farmers who raise your tofu burgers and turkeys kill the animals who try to eat the beans? This is your truth, everyone has their own truth. What has a vegan done for wildlife?! Seriously! People who think like this do not understand the balance that is required. The wolves which were released into Yellowstone, they kill elk, deer and moose for fun. This is not what we do, we carefully prepare these delicious burgers, steaks, breakfast sausages, jerky, salami so we can invite you and your family over to enjoy organic food. You’re barking up the wrong tree my friend. You ask us to dig deep, I ask you to dig even deeper to see the animals killed to protect your lifestyle too.

Jason: Thanks for your feedback brother. Keep progressing in love bro. We’re all learning and growing. Thanks for the conversation.

Stepanka: Do you feel proud because your son kills an animal? Incomprehensible

Kip: Stepanka, VERY PROUD!! That boy is learning how to provide good healthy organic food for himself and his family in the future. Don’t like the post? Roll on by. We do not need your opinions. I see on your page your eating innocent oysters. Poor things. If you preach it. Live it.

Vladka: I am proud of him that he gets out there,have fun and provides organic meat for us. This is not easy to do, it takes hard work and courage. You are seeing from completely different side and I understand it as well. Hugs 🤗

Kenton: Why yes, yes we do😊

Me:

ACLU email: Sessions' replacement even more evil

I receive emails from the ACLU quite frequently. Here they make the astounding claim that the new attorney general suddenly has the power to fire Mueller. In actual fact, the attorney general has always had the power to hire and fire his staff. 

In addition, the AG is part of the executive branch. Trump has the constitutional power to pick his own staff, regardless of the potential for it benefiting Trump in some way.
------------------

PROPHETIC WORD: THE NEW WINESKIN IS FORMING - By Jeremiah Johnson

Found here. A very true word.

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

I'm convinced that church leaders who refuse to drop the mic and get off a stage to learn how to actively mother and father the generations will become obsolete in the days ahead. Obsolete meaning: Out of date. Churches shutting down. No longer effective and bearing fruit type obsolete.

The "old wineskin" in the Church is currently trembling because the saints are over the one man ministry does all model. They are looking for fathers and mothers who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do life with them. They don't care much about the sermons anymore. They are actually looking for church leaders to model a healthy marriage and what it looks like for your kids to serve the Lord with everything in them.

The Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case that could nuke the separation of church and state - by IAN MILLHISER

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

Get ready for a whole lot more religious icons in government buildings.

In what will almost certainly be a victory for the religious right, (Actually, a win for religious liberty.)

the Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will decide whether the Constitution permits a local government to display “on public property a 40-foot tall Latin cross, (The cross was erected in 1925. I wonder when it changed from constitutional to unconstitutional?

The memorial's base is "...inscribed with the words 'valor,' 'endurance,' 'courage' and 'devotion.'” Are those religious words? 

The memorial happens to be in the shape of a cross. Perhaps it's shapes that offend the haters and humanists? The mere fact of the shape is offensive? Shapes can be unconstitutional?)

established in memory of soldiers who died in World War I.” Although a federal appeals court held that this cross violates the Constitution’s ban on laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” (This cross is a law? I thought it was a monument?

Let's quote the First Amendment: 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So we ask the author, what law did Congress make regarding this monument?)

How do I evaluate claims of supernatural experiences? - by Clint Archer

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Once again we find a Bible teacher not providing any Bible references, or any references of any sort.

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

Whose job is it to keep mama happy? - by Dalrock

Found here. A Very good article.

We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’

–Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique

Women are especially prone to falling into discontentment and disrupting the lives of everyone around them when they do.  The Book of Proverbs warns repeatedly of this tendency:

• Proverbs 21-9 (ISV):  It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than to share a house with a contentious woman.
• Proverbs 21-19 (KJV):  It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
• Proverbs 25-24 (ISV):  It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than in a house with a contentious woman.
• Proverbs 27-15 (NKJV):  A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike;
• Proverbs 14:1 (NIV):  The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.

Betty Friedan called this tendency of women toward discontentment “the problem that has no name” in her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique.  The book is commonly credited with identifying the problem (the mysterious discontentment of women) and thereby kicking off second wave feminism.

Is Jesus currently limited by his incarnation? - by Clint Archer

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------------------
Here is one of those arcane theological arguments that is a lot of heat and no light. For those who must have all their theological ducks perfectly in a row, we suppose it's important. 

As is too typical for these types of people, the author will not quote any verses at all. We are left to do that for him, to see if his assertions are backed up by the references he gives.

As an aside, it is terribly dangerous to discuss the nature of God as if He is a Being operating in the space-time continuum. His eternal nature means we cannot demand that He conform to a time point.

And we note that this Bible teacher will never quote the Bible.
---------------------------

Living the Cessationist Life - by JOHN DIVITO

Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------

The author offers nothing more than a vague opinion. No references, no Scripture, no documentation of any kind.
----------------

Will the debate over the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit ever cease? Maybe not, with many books coming out, debates being held, and conferences taking place on this controversial subject. One of the primary reasons for the intensity of this issue is that it directly relates to how we should live the Christian life. For those who hold that the charismatic gifts continue, we should seek these gifts in our lives so that we will live our lives in the fullness of God’s blessing. But what about those of us who believe these gifts were given during the apostolic age and have ceased with the completion of apostolic doctrine recorded in Scripture? How do we live our lives? What does the life of a cessationist look like? Here are three aspects of our life in Christ.

#IAmSexist It’s time that we men take responsibility for our role in the problem of violence against women. By George Yancy

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------

Being a good little leftist, this guy is desperately virtue-signaling as he tries to insulate himself from the backlash of hysterical feminists who are coming for him. 

But it won't be enough, because it's never enough. He's guilty simply by being a white male, and nothing, literally nothing, can atone for that sin. 

His apology is simply blood in the water, furthering the white hot rage.)
---------------------

Men, listen up.

In light of a year of disturbing revelations from the #MeToo movement and from last month’s profoundly troubling Brett Kavanaugh hearings and his eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court, it is time that we, men, act. (Apparently, women are not strong, they are helpless. And it's men's job to rescue them.)

Certainly, some of us men have spoken out on behalf of women. But many more of us have remained silent. Some have kept silent out of fear of being judged, (Fear.) 

fear of criticism or censure, (Fear.)

others out of genuine respect. (Fear.)

In fact, silence (Actually, fear.)

has become the default stance of many men who consider themselves “allies” of women. But given all that has transpired, staying out of it is no longer enough. (It never has been enough. All the supplication in the world isn't enough. He's just making them even madder.

The issue has evolved to the point that anything other than full-throated support of the leftist agenda is deemed to be opposition.)

I’ve decided not to cut corners. So, join me, with due diligence and civic duty, (And fear.)

and publicly claim: I am sexist! (But I am afraid.)

In fact, perhaps it is time that we lay claim to a movement — #IamSexist. (A movement? A movement of corporate guilt, designed to kowtow to hysterical people who are insatiable in their lust for power? That's going to be a real seller.)

Think about its national and international implications as we take responsibility for our sexism, our misogyny, our patriarchy. (Corporate guilt where none exists. The author is mistaken if the symbolism is going to be accepted as substantive.)

It is hard to admit we are sexist. I, for instance, would like to think that I possess genuine feminist bona fides, but who am I kidding? (Exactly. His feminist credentials are insufficient to insulate him from the coming wrath. It's only a matter of time before he makes some innocent comment or gesture that triggers an emotionally weaponized woman. 

It won't matter that he did nothing wrong then, because it doesn't matter right now. When an individual is vested with the power to decide on a per-case basis who is an offender and who is making an acceptable gesture, one is at the mercy of the whims of someone else's feelings. There is no possibility of avoiding violation.)

I am a failed and broken feminist. (He already knows it. The problem is, it will never change. No matter how he signals his virtues, no matter how impressive his feminist credentials, there will come a day when none of it matters. He's living in fear right now, because he knows the unilateral power these women wield.)

WHEN THE DOWNCAST CAN’T REACH OUR HYMNS - By Keith Getty

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

I certainly respect the desire of the author to go beyond surface musical expressions, but I'm not sure he connects the needed dots here.
------------------

WHY SONGS OF LAMENT ARE IMPORTANT TO CULTIVATING SPIRITUAL DEPTH

“Hello, how are you?”

“Great!”

We all are familiar with this everyday occurrence. In fact, odds are that the majority of our interactions throughout a normal day fall into this kind of category—into courtesy, niceties, and the like.

There is nothing wrong with this kind of conversation, especially when you are picking up food at a drive-through window or are dropping off a deposit at the bank.

But when the question is asked within real relationships, the truth is, we are not always “great.” Not in the slightest. Life is not simply a joyride through pleasant scenery.

Some moments in life are extremely dark. Dangerous. Painful. Full of unknowns and empty of any visible hope. In these moments, when we are asked this same question by someone other than a stranger, our response should go well beyond the shallow, superficial plane of nicety and into the very real plane of reality.

“My heart is broken.”

When the courage is present for these words to be honestly expressed, a different kind of conversation ensues … one that you probably won’t have in passing with a stranger at the grocery store. These words can’t be quickly passed by or easily resolved.

They require someone who deeply cares for the person whose heart is shattered to pull up a chair and sit with them in their anguish. To take time to listen. These moments move far past shallowness, bringing conversations and relationships into places of depth that often surpass anything experienced in either before.

Life is not always about rejoicing … it is often about lamenting as well. (We certainly agree with the author about the nature of life, and the expressions of lament. I'm not entirely convinced, however, that laments are necessarily godly or desirable, even when found in Scripture. 

So the author goes on to make a leap of logic from needing to lament and...)

And yet, when we come together to sing songs about the greatness of our God and His role in our everyday lives, we rarely sing songs of lament. (... engaging lament in corporate worship. According to the author. because life isn't good at the moment for some, our congregational musical worship ought to reflect that. 

But this must open the door to a discussion about the nature of congregational worship, what we should sing, and why we sing. Unfortunately, the author doesn't address this.)

We lift up lyrics and melodies that soar to the steepest heights of joy and heavenly elation … and unfortunately, our lyrics often soar so high that someone who is drowning on the ocean floor of their personal despair can’t reach them. (Does the author have some evidence this is true? Do we really know that songs of hope have no effect on the hopeless? That songs of encouragement don't encourage? That songs of exaltation don't cause the heart to rise? That songs of exaltation don't give cause to exult?

What do we find in Scripture regarding the edifying nature of musical worship:

Ep. 5:19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord...

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

Ja. 5:13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.

Ps. 28:7 The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.

Ps. 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.

Ps. 69:30 I will praise God’s name in song and glorify him with thanksgiving.

Ps. 100:2 Worship the LORD with gladness; come before him with joyful songs.

This is all uplifting stuff. Notice in particular James 5:13. Those with troubles are commanded to pray, not expect their low emotional state be reinforced by what the congregation sings.

Contrast that with  

Pr. 25:20 Like one who takes away a garment on a cold day, or like vinegar poured on soda, is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.

I think the writer of Proverbs is onto something. Laments pull down, and that is not worship. Laments are downers that can drag people into despair unless a remedy is given. Worship is the remedy to being downcast:

Ps. 42:5-6 Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and 6 my God.

Responding to the False Teaching of Bethel Church, Jesus Culture, and Todd White - by Gabe Hughes

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

I am publishing an excerpt of a Q and A regarding a criticism of Bethel Church. My intent is not to defend Bethel, but rather to examine some of the answerer's statements.

First, the question:

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

You still don't have proof. God manifest His glory in myriads of ways. What Moses experienced was unique and only occurred one time in the Bible. What about the cloud that was present in the camp? God was present in the cloud by day and the fire by night. God was present in the cloud that covered the tabernacle in the midst of over 2 million people. "Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle" (Exodus 40:34). I'm not defending Bethel but you have made baseless accusations that you simply cannot verify. You do not know with absolutely certainly whether or not your accusations are true. Why not send someone to collect some of the dust and have it analyzed?

Ben
Overland Park, KS

Now the answer:

Understand something: It is Bethel Church that calls this glitter-and-fog-machine manifestation a "glory cloud." That's their name for it, not mine. If it was the glory of God, it would kill everyone in that room. (This is simply false. The author informs us of a "fact," but does not document it. No reference is supplied.

Contrary to the author's undocumented, false assertion, the glory of the LORD does not automatically kill people:

Le. 9:23 Moses and Aaron then went into the Tent of Meeting. When they came out, they blessed the people; and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

2Ch. 5:13-14 The trumpeters and singers joined in unison, as with one voice, to give praise and thanks to the LORD. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the LORD and sang: “He is good; his love endures for ever.” Then the temple of the LORD was filled with a cloud, 14 and the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the temple of God.

2Ch. 7:1-3 When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. 2 The priests could not enter the temple of the LORD because the glory of the LORD filled it. 3 When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the LORD above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshipped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “He is good; his love endures for ever.”

Lk. 2:8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields near by, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 

Ac. 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 

Three Easy Fixes to Social Security and Medicare that Republicans Don’t Want You to Know About. - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold.

--------------
Again we comment on Dr. Reich's missive, noting his continuing doctrinaire leftism.
---------------

Republicans would love to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. But they can’t, because Social Security and Medicare are among the most popular of all federal programs. (Popular doesn't equal good or solvent or constitutional.)

Besides, most Americans have been paying into them their whole working lives, and depend on them. (Who makes them pay? Hmm? Doesn't government extract this money from peoples' pay check whether or not there is consent?)

So how will Republicans attempt to end these programs? By doing nothing to save Medicare and Social Security. (Why does it need saving? How many times has it been saved before? How much more will people have to give up in increased taxes and reduced or delayed benefits?)

The trustees for Medicare and Social Security – of which I used to be one – say Medicare will run out of money by 2026, three years sooner than last projected, and Social Security will run out in 2034. (No, it's out of money now. The entire assets of the SS Trust Fund are non-marketable bonds. Those are IOUs you and I will have to pay back.)

How Hillsong Church conquered the music industry in God’s name - By Kelsey McKinney

Found here. On the whole, a balanced and well done article by what looks like a secular site.
-------------------

Known for its celebrity members and chart-topping worship songs, this Australian church’s secret weapon is its army of talented volunteers.

Inside the Hammerstein Ballroom's great double doors, beyond the metal gates and metal detectors, the three-story music venue's lights are turned down, the stage empty. A few people mill about, and to their left is a merchandise table branded as a “welcome lounge” selling T-shirts and CDs and soft-covered books. The sound booth has four technicians and two big cameras for the ground floor alone. Ten hours earlier, the stage was occupied by holographic Japanese pop star Hatsune Miku, the three balconies and large pit filled with her fans. But it's morning now, the floor's no longer sticky, and the event taking place isn’t a concert — it’s church.

Hillsong is one of the largest evangelical Christian churches in the world. What began as a small pentecostal church in a suburb of Sydney now holds services on all six habitable continents, with 30 locations and more than 80 affiliated campuses. More than 100,000 people are estimated to attend Hillsong church services every week, including Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Nick Jonas, and the Jenner sisters. According to the church, for every person attending in person three more watch online.

The worship band at the Hammerstein — Hillsong’s Manhattan campus — isn’t huge. A man plays a guitar and a woman sings lead, along with a bassist, a drummer, four backing vocalists, and a choir of about 15 people at the back of the stage. They play four songs before a local pastor appears with long curly hair, a sleeve of tattoos, and a Hawaiian shirt. “This is not Christian karaoke,” he jokes. “I know the words are on the screen, but that’s not what we’re doing here.” This is a time of worship, a church service — not, I repeat, a concert.

I grew up in a Texas megachurch that played songs written by Hillsong members every Sunday. I didn’t know they were written in Australia. I don’t think I even realized they had been written in my lifetime. Hillsong songs like “Shout to the Lord” and “Everyday” were my hymns, as fundamental to my understanding of music as “Mary Had a Little Lamb” and “The Star-Spangled Banner.” These are not just Christian rock songs — they are worship, and for millions of people around the globe, they are an inseparable piece of Christian life.

But I don’t know any of the songs we sing at Hammerstein. More than half the time I spent in Hillsong’s Sunday service in July was spent singing, but each song was no more than two years old, the product of a constantly producing musical focus — no hymnal or gentle playing of “Come Thou Fount.” Every Hillsong service plays songs produced in-house by one of the church’s three different musical entities: Hillsong Worship, for church services; the touring act Hillsong United; and the youth-focused Young & Free. All three are nestled under the church’s Hillsong Music label.

Holy Sprit: Not Welcome Here - BY SETH DUNN

Found here.  My comments in bold.
----------------

The author's complaint seems to be pretty prevalent among the more conservative parts of the church. However, because him of being unacquainted with some of the Scriptures that come to bear, his conclusions are errant.

My purpose is not to defend the song or Bethel church, it is to examine the author's claims.
-------------

Holy Spirit is a popular and powerful (Hmm. Powerful? In the very next paragraph he will deem it heretical.)

worship song currenty (sic) played on Christian radio stations and sung in Sunday Services all across America. The song was first released in 2012 by the band Jesus Culture and has since made its way westward from Redding, California, the band’s home. It’s lyrics are as follows:

There’s nothing worth more
That could ever come close
No thing can compare
You’re our living hope
Your presence, Lord
I’ve tasted and seen
Of the sweetest of loves
Where my heart becomes free
And my shame is undone
Your presence, Lord

Holy Spirit, You are welcome here
Come flood this place and fill the atmosphere
Your glory, God, is what our hearts long for
To be overcome by Your presence, Lord
Your presence, Lord

(...)

Let us become more aware of Your presence
Let us experience the glory of Your goodness

(...)

If this song is being sung in your local church, you should be very alarmed.

First and foremost, it presents a heretical view of God. (I thought it was powerful?)

The singers of this song “welcome” the Holy Spirit to “fill the atmosphere” of the room. God the Holy Sprit (sic) is not some element in gaseous form who can be expected to fill the room like oxygen, nitrogen, or helium. He is not to be breathed in to an intoxicating effect. The Holy Spirit is just that, spirit. He is immaterial. (The author is offended by the literary license taken by the song's writer. 

However, figures of speech are not blasphemy. 

Or is it blasphemy to describe God as a mighty fortress? Is it wrong to "bring forth the royal diadem?" How about "at the cross where I first saw the light?" These metaphors are intended to use somewhat loose word pictures in an artistic way. It's very common in hymns as well as many other songs.

Further, is the Psalm writer being blasphemous by giving God wings? 

Ps. 17:8 Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings...

Or what about Isaiah referring to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit? 

Is. 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

The author objects to the common [and biblical] practice of allegory and simile.)

He is also the sovereign God of the cosmos. He requires no invitation. (This is incorrect. The Scriptures clearly teach that the Holy Spirit manifests in varying degree.