Discernment: resources, a great conference, and some appreciation - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Some more misinformation on the gift of discernment, and "discernment ministries."

The author wrote a much better article on the same topic a couple of years ago.
--------------------

CAN YOU SING AN AI GENERATED SONG IN WORSHIP? - by Stephen Kneale

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

**Update**

The venerable Babylon Bee helps us out with their worship song generator.

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

The author never really gets to the basis of worship and what it means. He stands on one side only, the side of the receiver. The producer side is not important to him.

Worship is προσκυνέω (proskuneó), I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship. Worship is not words. Worship is not things properly articulated. Worship is not correct theology. 

Truth is not simply the right words with the right meaning. Truth is Jesus, the Word. Truth is expressed according to the Holy Spirit. It is revelatory of God's character and glory. Paul characterizes it this way. 1Co. 2:13: 

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

The source of truth is not random word generation, no matter if the random words make sense to us. AI cannot be informed by the Spirit, and we worship in Spirit and in truth.

We would suggest that intent, both on the part of the songwriter as well as the singer, is a crucial component of worship. Both the songwriter and the singer set out purposefully to express the glories of God. AI cannot express intent.

Further, there are thousands of songwriters writing tens of thousands of worship songs, many of them excellent, and some of them are even profound. Plus we have hundreds of years of wonderful hymns in our repertoires. Why do we even need to consider a soulless AI writing worship songs?
------------------

There Is No Command in the Bible to Seek to "Speak in Tongues" - by Evangelist John R. Rice

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

We realize that our blog has addressed tongues before, but whenever we find a novel interpretation we feel compelled to examine it.

Below is an excerpt taken from longer presentation. 

We note that in the below excerpt the author does not quote a Scripture in defense of his position. In fact, in reviewing the entire article, he never does quote a relevant Scripture that speaks to his point.

We deal extensively with tongues here.
----------------

THE GREAT MYTHS 8: THE LOSS OF ANCIENT LEARNING - by Tim O'Neill

Found here. A very long article, but well worth the read.

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

The idea that we only have a fraction of Greek and Roman learning and literature because most of it was destroyed by Christians is a common assumed truism in much New Atheist discourse. But this is substantially a simplistic myth based on a number of misconceptions and errors of fact. If anything, we have a succession of Christian scholars to thank for all of the ancient learning that survives.

The wicked destruction of the wondrous learning of the ancients by ignorant Christians is a key trope in New Atheist historiography and one regularly repeated without question by anti-theistic polemicists. It is the nexus of a cluster of related historical myths, including the supposed Christian burning of the Great Library of Alexandria, the alleged murder of Hypatia as a martyr for science, the Archimedes Palimpsest as evidence of Christians literally erasing technical learning and many more.

In the fairy tale version of history used by these polemicists, the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational and scientific and on the brink of a scientific and industrial revolution until the evil Christians came along, destroyed almost all of their learning and plunged us into a dark age. What little we have of Greco-Roman learning survived this holocaust of ignorance by chance, largely thanks to Arabic scholars who preserved these fragments until they could be rescued from medieval ignorance by the marvellous rationalists of the Renaissance. As usual, this simple and pretty picture is almost entirely nonsense.

There are thousands of examples of this cluster of myths being articulated by New Atheists of all levels of prominence. But, as I noted in my recent review of Tom Holland’s Dominion, it has recently been given a vocal and vehement expression by A.C. Grayling in a testy exchange with Holland on Justin Brierley’s Christian radio show/podcast Unbelievable in December 2019. Grayling is a former Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, and the current master of the New College of the Humanities. And he also has a book of history on the bookshop shelves – his recent A History of Philosophy (Penguin, 2019). So it is quite startling to find that this supposedly learned gentleman accepts a bizarre grab-bag of pseudo historical myths and patent errors of fact on the subject of Christianity and the transmission of ancient learning.

The Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation)

In our continuing process of doctrinal rethink, we now consider the Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation).

Introduction

The Ordo Salutis is the presumed order of events that constitute salvation. We were surprised that someone would take the time to actually delineate how salvation happens and in what order. Indeed, what would be the purpose of such an endeavor?

Frankly, we find that the Ordo Salutis to be little more than an intellectual exercise. We think it is unfortunate that a large part of Christianity is dedicated to the pursuit of various intellectual exercises, things like the eternal Sonship of Christ, the hypostatic union, impassibility, and eschatology.

Franklin Graham, Evangelicals Join Pro-LGBTQ Activist, Anti-Trinitarian for “Christian Concert” - by Jeff Maples

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

We have dealt with the author's incendiary rhetoric before.

It seems the lesson for today is the author wants to teach us to never be a part of an event where someone might believe something different than you. 

It's not that we specifically disagree that there might be perils in unexamined unity, but the author never develops a case. Instead he skips most of the steps and jumps to a conclusion without showing his work.

The author complains about a show of unity. But were these people engaging in "unity" for the affirmation of teaching false doctrines? Nope. Were they unifying to promote these artists and teachers? Nope. Did the event promulgate anything false or heretical? Nope. 

A quick check tell us that the purpose of the event was to raise funds for Samaritan's Purse. Apparently the author is opposed to helping the poor and the hungry, if those who are helping don't pass doctrinal muster.

The author closes by appealing to 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 5:13, but apparently he has never read them. Let's quote the passages:

2Co. 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 

1Co. 5:9-13 I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

In the Corinthian church there were those who were living in openly sinful lives. They pretended to be brothers. The leaders of this church were not only tolerating it, they were celebrating it. Paul is correcting this church: Stay away from those who call themselves brothers but openly practice sin. 

Now, it falls to the author to demonstrate that any of the people participating in this event are practicing open and blatant immorality. Are any of them flaunting behavior that is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler? 

More crucially, are any of these people part of the church Franklin Graham attends? Does Franklin Graham have authority in this church to expel these folks from that congregation? Does the fact that the author questions Graham's salvation have any relevance here?

The author completely fails here. Paul is correcting a local church for tolerating and even celebrating open sin in their midst. He tells their leaders to expel such people. This has nothing at all to do with how a fundraising event might involve people of differing doctrines.

Even the title of the article is deceptive. Was this really a "Christian Concert" (in quotes)? Did someone involved say it was a "Christian concert?" Or rather, maybe they are scare quotes, designed to imply to us that there was something untoward going on here.

If there was, we wouldn't know it from what the author has told us.
-----------------

Who’s Being Divisive? A Lesson On Scripture Twisting To Silence Those Who Call Out Error - by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We would certainly concede the author's premise that she is not being divisive by defending correct doctrine. Our question is, can a person have the truth and correct doctrine and still be divisive? The answer to this question, which the author does not consider, is yes.
-------------------

Face To Face With Tongues (part 4) - A Verse by Verse Examination and Exposition On the Subject of Tongues - by Dr. Max D. Younce - Part Four

Part 1 here.
Part 3 here.

Our comments in bold.
-----------------

The author rehashes many of his previous points, but adds some rather odd interpretations of other passages. We have reached the limits of our patience, and are glad to be done with this.

Therefore, shall make only a few comments.
------------------

Face To Face With Tongues (part 3) - A Verse by Verse Examination and Exposition On the Subject of Tongues - by Dr. Max D. Younce

Part 3 continues here. Our comments in bold.

Part 1 is here.
Part 4 is here.
-------------------------

III. THE CONTROL OF THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT

1st Corinthians 14

INTRODUCTION: In Chapter 14 the italicized word "unknown" does not appear in the Greek text, as with all italicized words found in the King James Translation. These were supplied by the translators to help clarify the meaning and, in most cases, it does. Tongues in Corinthians were in one sense "known," and in another sense "unknown."

Now to clarify what we mean. The one speaking in tongues did not know what was said unless God also gave the gift of interpretation. Those listening did not understand until the interpreter told them what was said in their own language. Yet, what is unknown in one place has a meaning somewhere else in the world without being interpreted.

"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification."

The Church is to be Controlled by Edification (1-6).

(Verse 1). At Corinth, tongues were passionately sought above the rest of the gifts. "Follow after charity" literally means to pursue after love. It is good to desire spiritual gifts, but more important than having all the gifts is the giving forth of the Word of God. The true love of God separates the person who talks of God from the person who walks with God. If a person truly loves the Lord, they would desire to pursue God's priorities. Now we can see why the Lord begins Chapter 14 with "Follow after love" (charity). All of Chapter 14 is God's correction concerning tongues. It all begins with ... are we willing to follow and obey God's Word? First, we should desire to give the Word of God to others; second, have a desire for spiritual gifts; third, accept the gift or gifts God wills for us to have; fourth, covet earnestly, that is ... pursue to the best of our ability with God's grace, those gifts for His excellence. (Hmm. Let's actually quote the verse. 1Co. 14:1:

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

We don't wish to pick nits, but we see only two things listed, not four:

• follow the way of love 
• eagerly desire spiritual gifts 

The author's list of four includes three things not found in the verse:

• desire to give the Word of God to others
• accept the gift or gifts God wills for us to have
• pursue those gifts for His excellence

We have come to expect this errant behavior from the author.)

Face To Face With Tongues (part 1) - A Verse by Verse Examination and Exposition On the Subject of Tongues - by Dr. Max D. Younce

Found here. Our comments in bold.

Part 3 is here.
Part 4 is here.
----------------

It took us a long time, but we finally found a cessationist who was willing to go verse-by-verse to make his defense of cessationism, in this case, tongues. Unfortunately, the author has some truly novel and unbiblical theories as to what certain verses mean. 

We spent considerable time considering the author's claims in light of the Scriptural testimony. It is our considered conclusion that the author cannot be regarded as a Bible teacher. 

This is a long article, so we have divided it up into 4 parts.
-------------------

Rick Warren Hosting Global Prayer Event With Trinity-denying T.D. Jakes - BY NEWS DIVISION

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author delves into fine shades of doctrinal hair-splitting based on a single word, "manifestations:" This is pure heresy. God does not exist in three manifestations–they are three distinct persons. Catch that? "Pure heresy." In fact, this is so heretical the author is happy to dismiss the salvation of Jakes: The fact that he continues to affirm Jakes as a brother in Christ and as part of a united church body is a further demonstration of that.

That is, this is of a level of heresy that Jakes is not a brother. 

However, the author does not or cannot actually point to anything that Jakes teaches that is false. In fact, he never quotes Jakes, nor does he provide a link to a video of him or an article written by him. He offers absolutely zero evidence that Jakes is a false teacher, yet is happy to assert that Jakes is not even a Christian.

Even more egregiously, the author never explains the doctrine of the Trinity, nor does he quote or reference a single Bible verse! If the author's purpose is not to instruct on correct doctrine, it seems clear that he intends only to mock and accuse.

Now, we can easily concede that maybe Jakes has the Trinity wrong. Maybe he is or was a modalist. We have the ability to find out for ourselves what Jakes has said. We refer the reader to this article where Jakes makes some pretty clear statements about his beliefs. It only took 30 seconds to find this.

But more to the point, is there any doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is inadequately explained in Scripture? Not that it's not there, but that what is there is less than satisfying? So while we can easily affirm (along with both the author and Jakes) that the Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we can identify characteristics of each person in the Godhead, the exact nature of God is less clear. Honest and learned theologians have debated this for centuries. 

As a result, when we discuss the Trinity we are working from a position of partial data. Because of this we believe there should be the slightest amount of wiggle room available when theology fails us. We should therefore be a bit more circumspect in this area.

Let's look at the idea of "manifestations." Regardless of what Jakes might think it means, we can review the Scriptures to see what they tell us. 

BAPTISMAL EFFICACY AND THE REFORMED TRADITION: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE - By Rich Lusk

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

This is a nearly inscrutable presentation, with more than 13 thousand words (including footnotes.)

2100 go by before any Scripture is referenced.  Another 600 pass before a Scripture is actually quoted. After these few Scripture quotes, and a very brief discussion of each, another 800 words flow before our eyes before we find the next Scriptural reference. Then we have to wait more than 600 words after that for another actual Scripture quote. After that, there are more than 3300 words for us to arrive at the footnotes.

Why do we mention this? Because the bulk of the presentation is restricted to man's viewpoints, logic, and opinions, with precious little direct biblical exposition. We would expect that if an author intended to explain a doctrinal stance, he would spend most of his ink expounding on key Scriptures.

We are going to extract mentionable quotes and attempt to address them apart from the author's dense prose.