The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 3, prophecy)

Part one here. Part two here. Part four here. Our comments in bold.

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

Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. He barely quotes the Bible. 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

We shall summarily reject any such arguments, since they are irrelevant to the biblical case. We shall note any part of the author's presentation that violates these criteria by highlighting them in red.
----------------------

The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 2, tongues)

Part one is here. Part three here. Part four here. Our comments in bold. 

Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. 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

We shall summarily reject any such arguments, since they are irrelevant to the biblical case. We shall note any part of the author's presentation that violates these criteria by highlighting them in red.

We fully discuss Tongues here.
-------------------------------

Tongues

One practice that all Pentecostals and Charismatics hold in common is the practice of speaking with tongues. Since there are differences of opinions regarding what tongues are and how they should be used in public worship and private devotions, we will deal only with views which are common within the Charismatic movement.

Charismatics generally hold to three different uses of tongues. First, most Charismatics argue that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. [15] They regard the historical occurrences in the book of Acts (ch. 2, 10, 19) as normative for the church for all ages. Second, tongues are to be used in public worship for the edification of the body. These public tongues must be interpreted or translated, so that the edifying message can be understood by all. (In many Charismatic churches, people blurt out “tongues” which are never interpreted.) Charismatics differ over whether or not “tongues” in the assembly are a form of direct revelation from God. The third use of tongues is speaking in tongues for private edification. This is based on a false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:1-4. This form of tongues is considered a private prayer language to God.

There are a number of questions relating to tongues that we want to answer. What are biblical tongues? Are tongues real human languages or unintelligible, ecstatic gibberish? Are there two types of tongues in the Bible: one for the church and one for private prayer? Are tongues revelational in nature, like prophecy, or just another method of uninspired exhortation? (Several false binary choices are offered to us. We shall reject the author's attempts to prejudice the issue by reducing our choices.

"Uninspired exhortation?" What in the world is this?)

The only way to define tongues biblically is to study the usage of the term by biblical writers. The Greek word glossa, translated “tongue” (pl. glossais), when not referring to the actual bodily organ called the tongue, refers either to an ethnic group (that is, a group separated by language) or to actual human languages. “The word glossa is used some thirty times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and always its meaning is normal human language” [16] (This footnote is identified as Gromacki. We don't know who Gromacki is, since there are two footnotes that both mention only this name.

We would take issue with Gromacki's definition. Strong's does not define tongues this way, that is, to limit them only to known human languages.)

Our primary concern is what the term refers to when speaking of the New Testament spiritual gift of tongues. The Bible clearly teaches that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues always refers to real, known human languages. (Does it? We shall see...)

On the day of Pentecost, the disciples “began to speak in other tongues” (glossais, Ac. 2:4). Were they babbling unintelligible nonsense or speaking in real human languages? (The Scriptures answer this quite clearly. The author again supplies us with a false binary choice. So the question is puerile.)

Because this first instance serves as a paradigm or pattern for all subsequent tongue speaking, (Undocumented claim. In fact, we reject it as we shall demonstrate below.)

the Holy Spirit carefully defined the nature of tongues, It is clear that the disciples were speaking real, known languages. They even spoke different dialects of the same language (e.g., the Phrygians and Pamphylians spoke different dialects of Greek).

There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language (dialektos). Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language (dialektos) in which we were born?” (Acts 2:5-8).

As if to emphasize that the disciples were speaking real languages and not gibberish, Luke even lists the peoples which heard their native tongues: “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues (glossais) the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:9-11). In Acts 2, glossais is used by Luke interchangeably with dialektos (“the tongue or language peculiar to any people,” J. H. Thayer). The biblical account records that on three occasions the multitude said that they heard their own language being spoken. Luke even records the different national languages and regional dialects which were spoken by the disciples.

In Acts, tongues are always real, human languages. (Yes, indeed. Because that's what Acts says happened. However, that fact does not speak to any requirement that there can be no other manifestations of tongues.)

This fact is confirmed when we examine the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48. Peter says that the Gentiles “received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (v. 47). He tells the Jerusalem church that “the Holy Spirit fell on them [the Gentiles], as upon us at the beginning” (Ac. 11:15). Peter says that God gave the Gentiles “the same gift as He did unto us” (v. 17). Peter is saying that the gentiles experienced the same thing as the Jewish disciples did at Pentecost, “This likeness of experience extends not only to the fact of receiving the Spirit but to the nature of tongue-speaking in foreign languages” [17] Thus, there is not a shred of evidence within the book of Acts that tongues-speaking is anything but real foreign languages. But what about 1 Corinthians? (We agree up to this point. It is quite true that tongues in Acts were real languages. But the tongues speaking in 1 Corinthians is not a manifestation of being filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time, or to demonstrate to the apostles that salvation has come to the gentiles.)

In 1 Corinthians, tongues are also real foreign languages. (We don't believe this is true. 

First, as we have noted, the tongues in Acts served a quite different purpose than the tongues in 1 Corinthians. The tongues in Acts were signs for the apostles, to serve as one of the identifiers that the gentiles received the promise of salvation too. However, tongues in 1 Corinthians was inside the body of believers as part of the gatherings.

Second, tongues in 1 Corinthians required interpretation, Acts did not.

Third, interpretation is different than translation. And interpretation requires a person with the supernatural gift of interpretation, not a natural understanding of the language. That makes the 1 Corinthians gift of tongues different than the Acts tongues. It is a supernatural, prophetic language in operation in the meetings of the saints.)

The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 1 Baptism of the Holy Spirit)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long article, so we will split it into sections for easier digestion. Part two here. Part three here. Part four here. 

Even though we have covered many of the below arguments elsewhere in this blog, there is some new material contained in the author's presentation. 

Before we start we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to a biblical argument. In fact, he barely manages to quote more than snippets of Scripture.

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

We shall summarily reject any such arguments, since they are irrelevant to the biblical case. We shall note any part of the author's presentation that violates these criteria by highlighting them in red.

It is with a certain irony the we embrace the reformationist cry, "Sola Scriptura!" Let the cessationist make his case only from Scripture.
-----------------------

Introduction

The Charismatic movement is one of the most popular and growing forces within Christendom today. The major doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing and the emphasis on having a personal experience—are primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth-claims, because various cults (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g., Islam, Eastern mysticism) have also witnessed great popularity and growth. (The author attempts to insinuate that Charismatics are like cultists.)

The Charismatic movement is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Since the teachings and practices of the Charismatic movement are different than what orthodox Christians (That is, "Theologians with whom I agree.")

have taught for 19 centuries, (This is an appeal to history, not the Bible. 

We would venture to guess the author is a premillenial dispensationalist, a doctrine which John Nelson Darby invented in the mid 1800s. We wonder if the eschatology of the 1800 years prior to Darby is similarly important to the author.)

we believe it is wise to examine these teachings under the light of Scripture. (His promise is restated. Let's see if he sticks with it.)

We are not saying that Charismatics are not Christians. And we are not examining their distinctives because we dislike Charismatics personally (the author was a Charismatic for over three years, and many of his friends are still Charismatic). God commands us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Th. 5:21 [1]). We are commanded to “hold fast the faithful word” and “refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9 NASB). Thus, we offer this booklet in the spirit of Christian love—love for our brethren, and above all, love for God’s truth. In examining any issue, the most important question is, “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30 KJV). (Indeed, we await the biblical case with bated breath.)

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

One of the hallmarks of the Charismatic movement is what is called Spirit-baptism or the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” The baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens after conversion. Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy Spirit. But only at the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit does the Christian receive the fullness of the Spirit, the full empowerment for Christian service. Many but not all Charismatics believe that Spirit-baptism is always accompanied with the gift of speaking in tongues as evidence for the baptism. Spirit-baptism is considered a second work of grace; that is, one can be a genuine Christian yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion is the cornerstone of Pentecostal theology. (Hmm. a different word. "Pentecostal" does not mean the same thing as "charismatic.")

If this doctrine is unbiblical, we should regard the Charismatic movement as unbiblical. (Well, no. This is tantamount to suggesting that any error in any belief by any Christians means all of their beliefs are in error. This of course is preposterous.)

The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Thus, our experiences, impressions and feelings must be subordinated to what the Bible teaches. (Which, ironically is a position held by charismatics as well. 

But let's see how well the author's positions are subordinated to the Bible.)

Does the Bible teach that every Christian should seek the baptism in the Spirit? (The charismatic use of this language to describe their beliefs is impeding understanding. We shall refer to the event of receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit." We shall further refer to the need to have fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit as being "filled with the Holy Spirit."

Charismatics talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit are in fact really referring to being filled/refilled.)

Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a unique historical event related to Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God the Father? (The author offers us a false binary choice. Pentecost and being filled with the Spirit sometime after salvation are separate things.)

If the outpouring was a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the resurrection and ascension), then we must regard it as a non-repeatable, once-for-all event. (We should again like to offer that Pentecost is not the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. One is an event of history, the other is an individual continual occurrence.)

Pentecost marked “the final transition from the old era of shadows and types to the new era of fulfillment. Pentecost was the birthday of the Christian church, the beginning of the age of the Spirit. In this sense, therefore, Pentecost can never be repeated, and does not need to be repeated.” [2] (Agreed.)

The first reason that Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event in salvation history is the fact that the outpouring of the Spirit was a prophesied event. Peter specifically says that Pentecost is the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (Let's quote the entire passage. Ac. 2:17: 

“In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

The author will later attempt to debunk prophecy and miracles. Can we suppose his omission of the balance of this passage is so he doesn't have to explain it? 

Aren't we still in the Last Days? Do we not yet await wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below at the end of the age? Doesn't all people mean all people, both at the moment of Pentecost as well as every succeeding generation of Christians? Shouldn't we also be expecting dreams and visions as a result of the poured out Spirit?

Therefore, how is it possible that the event of Pentecost restricts the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit in these last days?)

John the Baptist said of Christ, “This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; cf. Mk. 1:7-8, Lk. 3:16). Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would be poured out after His ascension: “It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (Jn. 16:7; cf. Ac. 1:5).

The second reason Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event is the way Scripture connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. Jesus Christ, as the divine-human mediator, humbled Himself, obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, and suffered and died as a vicarious atonement for the sins of His people. After His resurrection, God exalted Christ and glorified Him as the divine-human mediator (in His divine nature, Christ could not receive any more glory or exaltation, because He was God). An aspect of Christ’s glorification is His baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39). In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). The participles “being exalted” and “having received” are both aorist [3]; the verb “poured out” is also aorist. Thus it is evident that Peter was talking about a historical fact not an ongoing process. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the church are all treated in Scripture as historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated. (We of course agree that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God only once. We also agree that "having received" happened only once. But the quoted passage then proceeds further in sequence. That is, the two previous events are used to establish the reason for the what was currently happening: He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear. 

"Now." Not in the past. This "pouring out" is brand new, something that hadn't happened before. It was happening right before their eyes.

Peter then tells us it was happening to fulfill Joel's prophecy. And as we have noted, it was for all people. Each generation, each born again believer, will personally experience Pentecost.)

The third reason Pentecost must be regarded as a unique historical event is the fact that after Pentecost (with the exception of Ac. 8:14-17, which will be discussed later) believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-48 reveals that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed. At the climax of Peter’s sermon, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That Peter equated their baptism in the Spirit with their salvation is clear from the fact that Peter immediately “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac. 10:48). “The norm is salvation and the Spirit at the same time. The Apostle Peter was present and therefore he could report to the church council (made up of Jews) that the Gentiles were true believers. At the same time, the Gentiles would recognize apostolic authority because Peter had been with them and indeed [was] the one who led them to Christ. And both groups knew they had the same Holy Spirit.” [4] Note that the focus of Acts 10 and 11 is not how to receive the Holy Spirit or how to receive a second blessing, for the Gentiles did not ask for or seek Spirit-baptism. The point of both chapters is to show that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Ac. 11:18). (The author never explains why Pentecost is the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit. It's puzzling indeed that the author insists that the historical Pentecost happened once [which we agree], but then proceeds to list various events when subsequent believers received the Holy Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit was indeed poured out at Pentecost. But that does not mean the fullness of the Holy Spirit is received, or even retained, at salvation. The Holy Spirit is not a historical event, He's a indwelling presence. 

We believe Scripture is clear in that each Christian can appropriate an increasing measure of the Holy Spirit, and that Scripture clearly commands us to seek more of Him. 

Let's start with the testimony of Jesus. Lk. 11:13: 

If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

Therefore, we are to ask the Father for more of the good gift of the Holy Spirit. Now Ac. 4:31: 

After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Did they not have the Holy Spirit before? This sounds to me like a subsequent filling! Ac. 6:3: 

Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.

It is interesting that the Twelve had a requirement that the specific brothers to be chosen should be full of the Holy Spirit, which implies that others among them might not be. Ac. 13:9: 

Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said... 

So there were times when even Paul was not filled with the Holy Spirit, since the verse tells us he was in a different state, that is, filled with the Holy Spirit. Ac. 13:52:

And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Same thing with the disciples. There apparently were times when the Holy Spirit filled them more than other times. Ep. 1:17: 

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

Did these believers for whom Paul was praying not have the Holy Spirit? Of course they did! Paul wants them to have more! Ep. 4:30:

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

So there are things we do that grieve the Holy Spirit, which suggests that His influence and power in us can be diminished. Ep. 5:18:

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Here's a plain statement from Paul. How can this be interpreted any other way than a command to have more of the Holy Spirit? 1Th. 5:19:

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire...

Yes, the Holy Spirit can be quenched in our lives. He is likened to a fire, the embers of which can be fanned into flame in our lives. And finally, this sobering passage from He. 6:4-6: 

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance...

What this passage means has been debated by better men than us. But can we imagine that having shared in the Holy Spirit that it is possible for us to fall away? 

This collection of passages should be sufficient to refute the author's contention that the Holy Spirit is given once and there is nothing more to be had.)

Only for a Time - by NICK BATZIG

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

My quest for a biblical argument on the cessation of the supernatural gifts continues. Mr. Batzig tries and fails. I should mention that this is not a defense of Matt Chandler. I know very little of him, and in fact heard him preach for the first time in the linked video.
-------------------

I was interested to see that the cessationism/continuitionism issue is surfacing again--due to Matt Chandler's recent sermon, "A Supernatural Community and a Personal Word." Matt's introductory argument is as follows: Many Christians do not experience the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (i.e. tongues, prophecy, knowledge, healings, etc.); therefore, they have wrongly concluded that the extraordinary gifts have ceased and that everything in the book of Acts is merely history. Without wanting to analyze and critique Matt's arguments here in any sort of detailed way, I do want to make a few important observations about the fallacy of that argument in particular, based on the biblical rationale for cessationism.

First, it is unfair and uncharitable for someone to insist that brothers and sisters in Christ have adopted a cessationist understanding of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit simply because they have not experienced them in their lives. (The author begins by putting a twist on Chandler's presentation. Chandler simply offers it as a possibility, and not that it's every cessationist's sole reason.)

In fact, all the cessationists I personally know are convinced by the teaching of Scripture that tongues, prophecy and mediated extraordinary healings have ceased. (First, "all the cessationists I personally know" is a subset of all cessationists, which is a subset of all Christians. Thus the author's personal experience is not representative of all cessationists or all Christians.

Second, the author's statement is an evasion. The author's rejoinder is not relevant to Chandler's statement.

Third, the author is himself "unfair and uncharitable" by implying that his side has done the studying of Scripture, while the likes of Chandler has not.) 

WHY DIDN’T PAUL SHARE HIS ‘TRIP TO HEAVEN’ STORY? - by MIKE LEAKE

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

This article contains almost no accurate information. It's astonishing to us that this supposed Bible teacher can wander so far away from what is actually taught in the Bible. And he represents himself as a truth teller who is explaining the real meaning of these things.)
---------------

I suppose you could quibble with my title a bit, because Paul did technically share his story about being caught up into the third heaven. But it took him fourteen years and he only told it when he was “acting the fool” in order to rattle the Corinthians back into a Christ focus. So why? (Indeed, why? We will discover that the author doesn't actually know.)

Consider the situation that Paul faced. At Corinth a group of false teachers were winning the affections of the Corinthians, and they were doing it through bragging about ecstatic experiences and visions and such. (The author provides no scriptural references for this assertion, because there isn't one. There is no verse in either Corinthians one or two that says such a thing.

There were false teachers, but they weren't bragging about their ecstatic experiences, they were preaching another Jesus. 2Co. 11:4:

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

The author is not off to a good start. Hopefully he will improve.) 

It was important for their faith that they adhere to Paul’s gospel (the biblical gospel) instead of this false gospel being pimped by the prosperity goons. (Another undocumented claim. In fact, there is no mention of prosperity in either letter to the Corinthians.)

And Paul had a story which could trump everyone of their stories. So what does he do? He tells his story (2 Corinthians 12:1-10) (But... Paul had been already boasting about his many afflictions. starting at 2Co. 11:22. His story about the third heaven isn't a particular focus. It is merely part of a long explanation to show that he is not inferior to the "super apostles" [2 Cor. 11:5]) 

but prefaces his story by saying, “there is nothing to be gained by it”. And then he shares it as if the thing didn’t even happen to him.

To Paul “visions and revelations” were not beneficial for either establishing or edifying the local church. (Yet another undocumented claim. Rather, Paul went to great lengths to explain the benefits of the operation of the supernatural in 1 Cor. 14.

But more to the point, Paul isn't even discussing the supernatural. He isn't talking about edifying the local church. Paul is setting forth his credentials as an apostle.)

He had this amazing story about going to heaven and being in the very presence of God, and he did not share it.  I suppose he could have shared it in a few local church contexts. (Sigh. The author makes an assertion then immediately backtracks.)

But this is the only place where Paul speaks of his visions and revelations and this trip to heaven. (Note the use of the plural, which is found in the text at 2 Cor. 12:1. The author is trying to minimize Paul's supernatural experiences as not only rare, but unimportant.)

This is certainly the first time that the Corinthians had heard the story. I’ll be as generous as I can here. Though it’s possible that this heavenly trip had zero impact on his ministry, we have to at least say that it had a minimal impact on his ministry. (A totally unjustified conclusion. Paul told us he was boasting! He was reluctant to boast, of course, but did so for a very important reason. He was answering their criticism that he wasn't an apostle!

2Co. 12:11-12 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles”, even though I am nothing. 12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance. 

What Paul was talking about had nothing at all to do with the author's stated premise.)

The Dangers of Emotionalism - by kelly Smith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We don't think the author is clear on what is the difference between "emotionalism" and "emotion." Emotionalism is the tendency to display emotion freely or to rely on or place too much value on emotion. Emotion is a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes...

We are all emotional. Emotion is a natural expression of our psyches. We would suggest that suppressing emotion, including in the corporate worship setting, is not healthy, and in fact against God's specific scriptural commands.

Ps. 68:3 But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God; may they be happy and joyful. 4 Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds — his name is the LORD — and rejoice before him.

Ps. 71:23 My lips will shout for joy when I sing praise to you — I, whom you have redeemed.

There are many other examples. It appears the author's disdain for emotional expression is based on cultural preference, not the Bible.
------------------

Why Study Eschatology? - by Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Years ago we were ardent students of end-times speculation. Hal Lindsey was all the rage, and he had us Scripture-jumping through Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, and of course, Revelation. 

It seemed to make sense. The 70 weeks, the rapture, the tribulation; Hal and people like him had it all lined out. We used to talk about current events as if every piece of news was tied in to Bible prophecy. We would wonder if the Pope was the ant-christ. We devoured the "Left Behind" series of books.

But we never sat down with our open Bibles and read the actual Scriptures in their context. We relied on "experts" to tell us what these disparate Scriptures meant and how they fit together. 

The twists and turns of premillenial dispensationalism ultimately became too convoluted for us. We eventually came to two conclusions:

1. What these end-times preachers were saying made no sense, and
2. There is little benefit or edification in knowing these things

Frankly, we don't know whether the correct position is pre-trib or post-trib. We don't know if preterism is correct. We don't know if the thousand year reign is to come, has already happened, or if we are in it right now. And, we don't really care. 

We don't care because it makes no difference in the way we live our Christian lives. It changes no scriptural obligation we have. It influences no crucial doctrine. It does not impact the need to share the Gospel, live a holy life, minister to the hurting, or worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth.

It doesn't change our identity as a saint; justified and righteous because of the blood of Jesus. It doesn't change our obligation to fellowship, give, sing, pray, or study the Word. In other words, eschatology is very nearly irrelevant to our day-to-day lives as Christians.

But here we have a person who is convinced that studying eschatology is a crucial endeavor. Let's see if Ms. Prata makes a persuasive case. She has been less than rigorous in her logic in the past.

Happily she will actually quote a number of Scriptures. This is a marked change from her usual practice.

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

Equality according to the Bible

There is movement in the contemporary Church which is seeming to align itself with racialism, gay rights, and feminism, and their peculiar views regarding what constitutes equality. There is increasing evidence that churches and denominations are accepting leftist cultural viewpoints and rejecting traditional Bible doctrines because those doctrines are "hateful" and "oppressive."

Cries of "check your privilege" and "all whites are racist" and "men are oppressors of women" and "why are you against two people loving each other" are beginning to be expressed in churches previously committed to biblical teaching. The echos of the shouting of radicals in the street have made there way to church elder boards and denominational leaders. Contemporary culture is gaining a greater foothold in congregations and faith organizations.

In political terms, the root of many of these kinds of statements is a stated or tacit assumption that our culture is flawed and evil and needs to be modified, supplanted, or overthrown. The rhetoric is different, the methods are varied, but the goal is the same as it has always been: Socialist revolution.

Christianity has always been a target for those who wish to throw off any and all restraint in the name of freedom. Christianity speaks of a holy God who looks at the hearts of men. All men are sinful, all men need a savior, and all men fall completely short of the righteous standards of God. These sort of things grate on the darkened mind.

And those who carry the message of righteousness, repentance, and forgiveness from sin in Christ Jesus become targets. The bearers of the Good News are the enemy, a constant reminder of the iniquity of those who are not saved. Thus it becomes easy and necessary for those who dwell in darkness to cast their opponents as being against equality, or unloving, or judgmental, which in turn justifies any sort of sanction.

The Church from its earliest days has always been prone to compromise. But it seems worse now. Contemporary culture is viewed, if not a model for church ministry and doctrine, at least something to be accommodated. Truth is either malleable or reinterpretable as culture changes. Over the course of time compromised positions become inerrant doctrine. At some point the church or denomination becomes indistinguishable from the culture that surrounds it.

A famous person once said, "if you and me always agree, then one of us is unnecessary." Indeed, if the Church looks exactly like the world, the church is redundant. And that's why many mainline denominations are experiencing declines in attendance while others are dying out completely. They simply don't have anything to offer that is different from the culture.

10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT QUENCHING THE HOLY SPIRIT - By: Sam Storms

Found here. Some very good material.
-------------------------

Were it not for the fact that no less than the Apostle Paul himself commanded us not to quench the Spirit, who among us would ever have suggested that this is even within the realm of possibility? To suggest that the omnipotent Spirit of God, the third person of the Godhead, could ever be quenched and thus limited or hindered or in some manner restricted in what he might do in our lives and in the life of the local church is to tread on thin theological ice.

Yet in 1 Thessalonians 5 we are told that the Spirit has, in some sense, granted to the Christian the power and authority either to restrict or release what he does in the life of the local church. What are we to do with this? Certainly the Holy Spirit can accomplish all that he wills to accomplish. But it is no less true that in certain instances, especially when it comes to spiritual gifts, he will rarely, if ever, force himself upon us against our will or judgment.

To use Paul’s metaphor or analogy, the Spirit is like a fire whose flame we must be careful not to quench or extinguish. He is not literally or metaphysically a fire, but what he does in us and through us, says Paul, is analogous to the effect fire has on dry wood or hay or dead grass. The Holy Spirit wants to intensify the heat of his presence among us, to inflame our hearts and fill us with the warmth of his indwelling power. And Paul’s exhortation is a warning to all of us lest we be part of the contemporary bucket brigade that stands ready to douse his activity with the water of legalism and fear and extra-biblical rules and a flawed theology that without biblical warrant claims that his gifts have ceased and been withdrawn.

Sadly, there are people who, as soon as they feel the slightest tinge of warmth from the Spirit’s supernatural work, quickly grab their theological, confessional, and denominational fire hose and douse his flame! So let’s turn our attention to some ten ways this is done.

Not Tired of Winning Yet XLVII (the illogic of the Left) - by John C. Wright

Found here. I love this guy's writing.
-----------------------

I have heard Democrat talking heads solemnly repeating the talking point that Donald Trump, by trying to get NATO to strengthen its military spending, and trying to get Germany to stop giving money to Russia, is acting as a Russian agent, because maneuvering to impoverish Russia and cordon it about with a strong military is obviously in Russia’s best interest.

The phrase used was that Donald Trump is destroying the international architecture of the postwar world, or something to that effect. Meanwhile, when I listen to what world leaders actually say, the exact opposite is happening. Teresa May, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s government of the United Kingdom, just announced her support for Trump’s meetings with Russia, with North Korea, and said the UK and the US were pursuing a wide-ranging free trade agreement.

Meanwhile, with their typical calm and even-toned understatement, the Dems have announced that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh means the end of the Republic, if not the end of all life on earth, as well as the destruction of ten thousand advanced civilizations throughout the Orion Arm of the galaxy.

Some of my conservative friends have expressed mild disappointment with this pick, since they would have preferred Ted Cruz or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI instead, someone who might have more clearly been ready and willing to overturn Roe v Wade. Both good choices, but I am willing to speculate on the logic behind Trump’s pick.

Now, my belief is not that Donald Trump is a genius who plays four-dimensional chess, nor a blundering fool whom kindly fate has merely by accident delivered to him one victory after another. I believe he is a businessman who thinks in the straightforward way of a businessman, and therefore the point of his moves is and will always remain invisible and incomprehensible to pundits and politicians who think in the elliptical way their professions require.

Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

The Dignity of Being a Sinner - by Eric Davis

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

This is the "I'm a sinner saved by grace" taken to the next step. Somehow we are supposed to believe that there is dignity in being labeled a sinner. Apparently we're supposed to grovel before God because of how evil we are, and celebrate the dignity of being this way. 

But there is no dignity in being a sinner, contrary to the author's assertion. 

It seems to be a stubbornly prevalent idea that we are lowly worms, not even deserving to be in the presence of God. Where does this idea come from? Well, one of Job's "friends," continually administering bad advice to Job. But these men are not to be trusted as purveyors of godly truth. Here's the passage, Job 25:1-5:

Then Bildad the Shuhite replied: 2 “Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. 3 Can his forces be numbered? Upon whom does his light not rise? 4 How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? 5 If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, 6 how much less man, who is but a maggot — a son of man, who is only a worm!”

So, what is the truth about our status as Christians? Are we really dirty sinners? Is what Jeremiah says true about us as Christians? Je. 17:9:

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 

"Beyond cure." What does this mean? Is the condition of man's heart really beyond God's abilities? Of course not! We read in Ezekiel, 

I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Ez. 11:19 

God has indeed done this thing. Ezekiel's word has come to pass. Something new has happened in our hearts. Ro. 5:5: 

And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

God did something about our hearts of stone. When we believed, we became new. 2Co. 5:17:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

This is the status of those who have believed and received salvation. That's us. That's the new creation. We are no longer who we were. We are now simultaneously righteous and also in the process of transformation. He. 10:14:

...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.

We should not regard ourselves as dirty sinners anymore. Yes, we still sin. That is why John says, 

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1Jn. 1:8

This is true. We are not without sin. But we must regard ourselves according to the truth of the Gospel. So yes, we sin; and, we are not sinners. Both are true.

Otherwise, how could John tell us, 

No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 1Jn. 3:9 

Persisting in sin, that is, continuing to sin as though we were not saved, calls into question our status as new creations. New creations do not continue in their sin. It's a crucial distinction.
------------------

Confirmation Bias: Why You Are Protecting Your False Beliefs - by Steven Kozar

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

This article is found at the bottom of many Pirate Christian posts. It is a pre-emptive dismissal of any and all responses anyone might make in refutation of the author's perspective. That is, to disagree with the author is to engage in "confirmation bias." 
-----------------------

The Pastor Is the Primary Worship Leader.- Geoffrey R. Kirkland

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The author makes a statement about pastors that is completely lacking in biblical support, probably because he accepts the traditional role of pastors as the leader of the church. However the traditional role is not the same as the biblical role. I dicusse the roots of this understanding here.

Today's Church is built on a faulty model, a pyramidal hierarchy. The Bible teaches a different model, a plurality of leadership. 

1Pe. 5:1-2: 

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care...

1Ti. 5:17: 

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

There is only a single mention of a pastor, in Ep. 4:11-13: 

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fu'lness of Christ.

The leadership of the church should be a team, each ministering in the role and according to the grace the Holy Spirit has apportioned. 

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

The ad hominem fallacy is a sin - Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.
----------------------

An argumentum ad hominem (or “argument to the man”) is the fallacy committed when, instead of addressing the merits of an argument someone presents you with, you attack the person himself – his motives, some purported character defect, or the like. This disreputable tactic has, of course, always been common in public controversies, but resort to the fallacy seems these days nearly to have eclipsed rational public discourse. A large segment of the country has made it a matter of policy never to engage its political opponents at the level of reason, but only ever to demonize them and shout them down. Even in the Church, recent years have seen the ad hominem routinely deployed against even the most respectful and scholarly critics of Pope Francis’s doctrinally problematic statements concerning divorce and remarriage, capital punishment, and other matters.

This is not a mere foible in those prone to it, or merely a regrettable aesthetic defect in a polity. It is sinful, sometimes gravely so.

What the ad hominem fallacy is (and is not)

To see why, it is important first to understand what an ad hominemfallacy is – and what it is not. As all logicians know, and as I explained at length in a post several years ago, merely calling someone a name, or calling attention to his character defects, is not an ad hominemfallacy and it is not necessarily morally objectionable. Sometimes a person merits a nasty description, and sometimes what is at issue is precisely his moral character. There is no ad hominem fallacy in judging someone to be dishonest, or feckless, or incompetent, or simply a scumbag, and then going on to say so. Those may just be the facts, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with calling attention to such facts.

An ad hominem fallacy is committed when what is at issue is not a person or his character, but rather the truth or falsity of something he said or the cogency of some argument he gave, and instead of addressing that, you attack him or his character. If I call Charles Manson a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, I have not committed an ad hominem fallacy, but simply stated the facts. If Charles Manson gives me an argument purporting to show (for example) that Amoris Laetitia is hard to reconcile with Christ’s teaching on marriage or that immigration laws need to be enforced, and in response to that argument all I do is call him a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, then I have committed an ad hominem fallacy.

What? No Way! - Part 2 (Women speaking in church) - by The Pepper Ginder

Found here. Some very good information here about the role of women in the church. While I may not entirely agree, I appreciate the author's approach.
-----------------------

It's usually much easier to knock something down than to build it up. In my last post I laid out the reasons why I strongly disagree with Kris Vallotton's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don't want to be guilty of just tearing Kris's argument apart without presenting my own interpretation. Let's start with my translation, not just of the two "silence" verses, but the larger section of which they're part.

For you can all prophesy, one at a time, so that everybody can learn and be encouraged. The spirits of prophets are under the control of the prophets. For God doesn't bring confusion, but peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in church, for they aren't permitted to speak, but they should be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to ask something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it's disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

Has the word of God only come from you? Are you the only ones to receive it? If anyone thinks he's a prophet or spiritual, he should recognize that what I'm writing is the Lord's command. If anyone ignores this, he will be ignored.

So, brothers, eagerly desire to prophesy, and don't stop anyone from speaking in tongues, but let everything be done properly and in good order. (1 Corinthians 14:31-40)

I think the most important key to understanding these verses is to see what Paul's primary concern is in chapter 14. Let's follow the argument of the chapter. Paul spends the first 25 verses talking about messages in tongues versus prophecies. His point is that if people give messages in tongues but no interpretation is given, it won't help people in the church. Even though he thinks there is definitely a place for praying in tongues without an interpretation, he doesn't think that place is in church. One thing that seems pretty clear from this is that there must have been times in the church at Corinth when people were giving messages in tongues without any interpretation being provided. As you can imagine, this was causing confusion, especially to anyone present who wasn't a believer. Paul wants this confusion to stop.

Paul continues this line of reasoning by laying down some ground rules for Spirit-inspired messages in church.

No more than two or three messages in tongues should be given, and none at all should be given unless there is someone present with the gift of interpreting tongues.

Prophecies should be limited to two or three as well, with people considering carefully what is said.

If one prophet is speaking, and someone else receives a prophetic message, the first speaker should stop talking and sit down.

What picture does this give you of the Corinthian church? I picture a place where there were many messages in tongues, with the congregation having no clue what was being said. I picture lots of prophecies, with times when more than one person was speaking at once. In general, it sounds to me as though the Corinthians were very excited about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul is not at all trying to discourage them, but he wants the people to use their gifts in a way that will do the most to build other people up. He wants order.

Hillsongs' "So WIll I" and evolution

"So Will I" is all over Christian radio, and we think deservedly so to a large degree. It is a beautiful expression of the Creator, well written and excellently performed.

Except for verse 2. Some people are in a lather over the word "evolving." Here it is:

All nature and science
Follow the sound of Your voice

And as You speak

A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath

Evolving in pursuit of what You said

If it all reveals Your nature so will I

Let's let Joel Houston, worship leader for Hillsongs NYC, explain via his tweets:

What is the gift of discernment & how it is supposed to work in the church? Part 2 - Elizabeth Prata

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

In part 1 of this two-part series, yesterday I’d written about what discernment is, and that there is discernment as a skill that all Christians are to train themselves in (Hebrews 5:14), and discernment as a gift of the Spirit given to some. (1 Corinthians 12:10). (Let's quote the passage. 1Co. 12:7-11:

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, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

The author is a cessationist, yet appeals to a passage in support of her gift, which also contains gifts she doesn't believe in. Notice that Paul begins this with "Now to each one..." That is, each person has some sort of spiritual gift, and that all these mentioned are in operation in someone in the Body. So how is it the author can find scriptural support for her gift of discernment, but dismiss the balance of the passage?)