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: