Kris Vallotton Usurping the Throne of God - Believes He Never Sins - by Rev. Anthony Wade

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

We have commented on Rev. Wade before. We have not been impressed by his biblical exposition, nor his demeanor.  This article, long, pedantic, and obtuse, is in keeping with these shortcomings, and is in fact very nearly astounding for its misrepresentation of Kris Vallotton's statements.

It is noteworthy that Vallotton clearly says that Christians do sin. In spite of this, the author again and again hyperbolically asserts that Vallotton is teaching "sinless perfection."

We do not specifically intend to defend Vallotton or Bethel church. We shall, however, analyze the author's presentation.
---------------------

Cessationism: Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit. Baptized in the Spirit?

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.
------------------

Modern Restoration of Apostles? - by Chris Rosebrough

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

We are happy the author provides us with extended quotes from those with whom he disagrees. We are also delighted at the largely even-handed presentation.

What is absent from the author's presentation is Scripture. He manages to provide only two tangential verses and a handful of Scripture references. For all his hyperbole about Sola Scriptura, Scripture is conspicuously absent from his presentation.

We should note that our intention is not to defend the N.A.R. or any of the people the author quotes. Instead, we intend to examine the author's presentation.
-------------------

What the N.A.R. Really Teaches

For nineteen centuries the church has existed without any living apostles (The features of history are not relevant to the biblical case. The author will need to establish his case, if he can, from the Scriptures. 

And by the way, how does he know there weren't apostles, when it's possible that they might have existed, but not have been identified as such?)

who operated in the same power, authority and office as Peter, James, John, Paul (What is the biblical basis for this requirement? Well, there isn't one.)

and the others whom Jesus sent into the world to make disciples. But for those who buy into the ideas and teachings of the New Apostolic Reformation (N.A.R.), (C. Peter Wagner coined this phrase in the 1980s to describe a coming reformation of understanding regarding supernatural power, and the leadership structure in the church. Some in the charismatic camp embraced the descriptor, many embraced the teachings, and others actually linked themselves with Wagner.

However, the Doctrinal Police have latched onto the phrase as a pejorative, using it as a bludgeon to dismiss anyone who might have charismatic leanings. Or even a minor doctrinal difference. 

Among the Doctrinal Police, it is an epithet.)

dontbanequality.com

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

This is an advocacy group that is all in for abortion, enlisting corporate support. And they want everyone to know it.

The first thing we wonder about this is, why do these companies want to drive away pro life customers? Why would a business want to alienate a substantial part of their potential clientele?

Second, we note the irony of describing a policy that will kill future clients as being good for business.

Third, we note that this issue is represented as a matter of equality, which implies that bearing children makes people unequal. Where this disdain for families comes from is mystifying.

Last, we wonder how being against the murder of unborn children is hindering peoples' health.
-----------------------

Equality in the workplace is one of the most important business issues of our time. (Unsupported assertion.)

When everyone is empowered to succeed, our companies, our communities, and our economy are better for it. (Unsupported assertion.)

Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health,  independence and economic stability of our employees and customers. (Unsupported assertion.)

Simply put, it goes against our values, and is bad for business. (Unsupported assertion.)

It impairs our ability to build diverse and inclusive workforce pipelines, recruit top talent across the states, and protect the wellbeing of all the people who keep our businesses thriving day in and out. (Unsupported assertion.)

The future of equality hangs in the balance, putting our families, communities, businesses, and the economy at risk. (Unsupported assertion.)

We, the undersigned, employ more than 108,000 workers (The number of people employed is 156,758,000. That is .0689% of the workforce.)

and stand against policies that hinder people’s health, independence, and ability to fully succeed in the workplace. (Unsupported assertion.)

Don’t Ban Equality Coalition To see the full list of signers, visit DontBanEquality.com

Mike Pence doesn’t quite realize the Bible’s lessons pertain to him, too | Opinion - BY LEONARD PITTS JR.

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

Mr. Pitts, as is typical for leftists, completely misrepresents the Bible and the people who believe it. Interestingly he is happy to judge Pence's sin.
---------------------------

Mike Pence was right. At least, inadvertently, he was.

In a commencement address Saturday at Liberty University, the Christian evangelical college in Virginia, the vice president warned graduates that they should expect to be “shunned or ridiculed for defending the teachings of the Bible.”

“As you go about your daily life,” he said, “just be ready because you’re going to be asked not just to tolerate things that violate your faith, you’re going to be asked to endorse them.”

And yes, an argument can be made that this was sound advice, albeit not in the way Pence intended it to be. (Mr. Pitts does not actually supply us with the reason this is sound advice.)

Take, for instance, Jesus’ admonition that “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor.” Anyone who supports the idea of giving to the poor should expect to be “shunned or ridiculed” by the likes of Mitt Romney, who said 47 percent of us don’t want to work, (Mr. Romney did not say this. I wonder what Mr. Pitts believes about bearing false witness? The quote: 

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Nowhere in this comment did Mr. Romney say that 47% don't want to work.)

Four Dumb Myths Charismatics Believe That Aren’t Real - by News Division

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Many of the author's objections are thoroughly covered elsewhere in our blog. We shall note them with links so as not to complicate our presentation.

Where the author makes new claims, we shall examine them.

We note yet again a common theme among those who claim "discernment" ministries. They hardly ever quote Scripture, and the author is no exception. In fact, he doesn't make a single biblical argument, or even an argument of any kind. He only mocks, denies, and then moves on.

Also, he manages to quote only a single snippet of a Scripture. That's it. One.

Lastly we note the author's acerbic and disrespectful writing style. He clearly disdains charismatics, whose only sin is to have a different doctrinal perspective than he does. 

This entire screed is bereft of a single intelligent thought. There is nothing here at all. Nothing. We are mystified that he even bothered to write it.

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

6 Reasons We Don’t Need Song Leaders in Worship - BY JONATHAN AIGNER

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

One would expect the author to provide at least one biblical reason for not having song leaders. In fact, we would expect the author to quote or even reference at least one Scripture to document his case.

He does neither.
----------------------

In many ways the song leader is the single most important person in leading great congregational singing.

A friend sent me this quote last week, found buried within promotional material for something called a “Word in Song” conference put on by some group called Emu Music. A look at their “Who We Are” tab reveals this group to be predominantly Anglican. Keep that in mind. We’re not talking about a bunch of Hillsong disciples or quasi-charismatic evangelicals here.

(...)

Naturally, as one who believes wholeheartedly that each Christian church should be a singing church, this quote and its source made me shudder. It’s long been obvious that as modern society moved from being one of music-making to one of music-consuming, the free church was following suit. (Undocumented assertion.

And we wonder how one can consume music unless someone is also making music.)

Why Is It Your Business How Other People Worship - JONATHAN AIGNER

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

This incendiary writer has appeared in this blog before. His presentation is typically slash-and-burn, frequently absent a meek heart or thoughtful, logical analysis.

He is somewhat more charitable today, but nevertheless has some pretty dismissive things to say about people who choose non-liturgical worship.

In addition, he cannot bring himself to quote or even reference a single Scripture or document any assertion.
-------------------

The Plague of Lazy Pastors - by David Mathis

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

This confused and errant author references Scriptures that teach something very different than what he is writing about.

Not understanding the biblical role of pastors, he dooms them to a ministry that places an unbiblical burden on them, which will inevitably result in burn-out and failure.
-------------------

The apostle Paul thought and spoke of Christian ministry as labor. He abhorred laziness in the pastorate. (Undocumented assertion.)

Paul did not see the office of pastor as a nice fit for guys with soft hands who prefer an indoor job. (The "office of pastor," apparently a reference to Ep. 4:11-12:

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...

This is the only reference to this office. 

The author equates the office of pastor with the titular head of the local church, a paid staffer with everyone else working as subordinates. Nothing in the Bible indicates this structure.)

How the NAR Experiential Christianity Corrupts the Role of the Holy Spirit - Anthony Wade

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

After reading Rev. Wade's blog for a few weeks, we have noticed an emerging modus operandi. The Reverend seems have a propensity for making connections between things without taking the necessary steps to arrive at his conclusions.

The author has had a lot to say about the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation), a bogeyman term indiscriminately applied to describe a branch of Christianity that frequently operates outside the boundaries of the traditional church. 

However, there is really no such organization. The NAR is not a group or a denomination. The term was coined by C. Peter Wagner in the late 80s to describe a phenomenon rising up in Christianity. Some have embraced the labeling, while others have used it against people or groups as a dismissive, a tool to lump together those Christians who believe differently about the way the Holy Spirit operates.

Within this labeling there are certainly those who are crackpots and hustlers. And it's easy for bloggers like our author to lump people into the label, characterize them as typical, and then dismiss them as heretics. 

We have no intention here of defending the NAR. We are simply going to examine the Reverend's narrative.

Also, the author is supposedly going to tell us how the role of of the Holy Spirit is corrupted. He never does.

A final note. The author quotes no Scripture, provides no Scriptural references, and in fact, no references at all. 
-------------------

Why it is important not to conflate prophecy and teaching in discussions about women preaching - by Denny Burk

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

Having just recently published an analysis of the issue of women teachers, we are delighted that the below article appeared regarding the same subject. This gives us the opportunity to examine the claims of Mr. Burk.

We are not entirely convinced that conflating prophecy and teaching is the primary reason for "egalitarians" thinking that women can teach.
---------------------

In evangelical debates over women in ministry, two biblical texts have always stood as a prima facie obstacle to the egalitarian view:

1 Timothy 2:12 “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

1 Corinthians 14:34 “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”

At first blush, these two texts seem to settle the matter in favor of the complementarian position. After all, this is the sense adopted in the vast majority of English translations. How could they all be wrong? (It's a bit odd that the author puts his total faith in the translators. He seems to suggest that the translators cannot be wrong, which is an odd idea. 

However, we have made the case that the translators were at the least imprecise, and at worst colored by cultural bias. We shall recap parts of that argument below.)

Why We Need a Wealth Tax - Robert Reich

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

The title actually should be, "Why we need to tax the same money again."
----------------

The crisis of income inequality in America is well-known, (Is it a crisis? Why? How?)

but there is another economic crisis developing much faster and with worse consequences. I’m talking about inequality of wealth.

The wealth gap is now staggering. In the 1970s, the wealthiest tenth of Americans owned about a third of the nation’s total household wealth. Now, the wealthiest 10 percent owns about 75 percent of total household wealth.

America’s richest one-tenth of one percent now owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

Wealth isn’t like income. Income is payment for work. Wealth keeps growing automatically and exponentially because it’s parked in investments that generate even more wealth. (This is an astoundingly ignorant statement. Wealth does not grow automatically. The markets rise and fall.  The wealthy are subject to the same investment risks as anyone else, and often they lose. 

And sometimes they lose spectacularly. Many of them are entrepreneurs. The wealthy frequently take larger risks in order to start a company, develop a new product, and expand into new areas. 

The wealthy are the ones who supply venture capital, they are the ones who are funding innovation and progress. They are the ones who have the means to push technology and development of new ideas. 

And, the wealthy took the biggest hit in the 2009 recession. Much has been made about Trump's "failure" to beat the market returns, and his many failed ventures. 

Dr. Reich is either ignorant or deceptive.) 

Women as Teachers/Leaders - a more in-depth look

Having recently posted about women preachers and leaders, we believe a more comprehensive analysis is needed. Some of this material is from prior posts.

Some have tried to establish the propriety of women teachers/leaders by appealing to Joel's prophecy reiterated by Peter in Acts 2, where our sons and daughters will prophesy; or to famous women of the Bible like Deborah, an obviously prominent and respected woman; or to the idea that Paul's commands were expressed in his particular cultural context, which some suppose should not be applied to the contemporary church.

We shall not consider these points, largely because we do not find them fully illustrative of the issue of the role of women. Instead, we shall examine various proof texts to see if they are accurately rendered. So we intend to ascertain if there is cultural bias in the translation of words to see if a reasonable alternative viewpoint is available.

As we make our case, we are not suggesting it is definitive. We are not theologians. But we do think the interpretation of Scripture has been colored by the culture in which translators are found. A translator in the 19th century would have a 19th century world view. This should be obvious.

We will also state at the outset that we do not believe women can be elders, which is the highest authority in the local church. We believe that this position is specifically reserved for men as the position of authority, but any other position in the church, like deacon, worship team, teaching, preaching, children's church, youth group, Sunday school, prayer ministry, facilities, and church fellowship can be filled by women. None of these positions are authority positions.

We should note as an aside that we do not believe the pastor or preacher is or should be the highest authority in the local church (1Pe. 5:1-2).

It should go without saying that this does not mean women are in any way spiritually inferior to men. We simply acknowledge what we discern from the Bible about proper church structure. In addition, we note once again that we are simply offering an alternative, not a definitive case.

With that in view, let's examine some Scriptures.

Should Women Preach in Church? Why Brent Hobbs is an Imbecile. - BY NEWS DIVISION (JD Hall)

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

A completely over-the-top offensive presentation. This author is supposedly a Christian, believe it or not. Yet he seems to have no problem at all characterizing his theological enemies in the most egregious ways.

Granting for the moment that the author is correct, what is he setting out to accomplish? Persuasion? Restoration? Correction? Nope. Everything he writes is intended to blow things up. Nothing else.

We should note that our intent here is not to defend women pastors. In fact, we oppose them. Our purpose is to examine the presentation and ideas of the author.
--------------------

Does the Bible teach the world will get darker and darker?

Recently We've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. This shift comes as our question becomes, "does the Bible really teach that?"

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. We read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpret what we read through those lenses. We've grown lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians are telling us the truth, but we rarely check it out for ourselves.

You'll find everything written about doctrinal rethink here.

Some of the more significant teachings we've examined are

• What is communion?
• Will only a few be saved?
• Does the Bible support women in leadership, or as teachers?
• Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus?
• What is the real role of pastor?
• Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?
• Did the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit cease?

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

Refusing the Prophetic Word - By Bill Muehlenberg

Found here. I like this article, partly because it's written by cessationist, but also because it puts a fresh take on what it means to be prophetic.

It is strange, however, that the author offers this proviso: They will not be infallible and inspired..., a statement he repeats towards the end. It is strange because he ably chronicles the impact of  some great men of faith who spoke to their times and to the church with a God-sent message sorely needed at the time.

Ye he feels the need to in essence dismiss them as uninspired. How can someone be speaking God's message but not be inspired? This makes no sense.

Nevertheless, the author provides us with an excellent perspective on our those who have and are speaking with boldness God's message.
-------------------

More Proof of Hillsong Danger -- Cookies and Orange Juice for Communion - by Anthony Wade

Excerpt, found here. My comments in bold.

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

It seems to me that once you get on the Doctrinal Police's radar, every perceived misstep is a crisis situation.

Here is a video, the source of the current outrage. We have a Hillsongs person suggesting that if you're at home and don't have a pre-prepared communion package, communion can be taken with cookies and OJ. 

This, according to the Doctrinal Police, is apparently beyond the pale. It's sinful. It's heretical. It's blasphemy!

Everyone knows that only a wafer that tastes like cardboard and a splash of grape juice honors God.

The author has appeared in our blog before, with a similarly undistinguished presentation.

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

Does 1 Timothy 2:11-13 really mean women can't teach men?

A hotly debated topic in Christian circles is the role, if any, of women teaching men, whether it's from the pulpit or in any church function. We are not going to attempt to answer that question here.

We are however, going to take a closer look at one of the passages used to not permit women to teach, 1Ti. 2:11-13:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

First we should note the word "authority." The greek word is αὐθεντέω (authenteó):

Definition: to govern, exercise authority
Usage: I domineer, govern, have mastery over.

831 authentéō (from 846 /autós, "self" and entea, "arms, armor") – properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission).

So, it doesn't seem that Paul is telling Timothy to keep women out of the pulpit, but rather, to keep women from unilaterally taking over. It sounds more like preventing a Coup d'état. The KJV captures the nuance of this word, translating the phrase as nor to usurp authority over the man.

So it would seem that Paul was cautioning Timothy to not let a woman domineer or take over.

Should we care about climate change?

In thinking about climate change, we should attempt to cut through the hype and moral preening to get at the basic issues.

While much has been written about climate change, we have never seen anyone explain why we should care. This moral imperative that we should care is predicated on the idea that man-made climate change should be dealt with. But why?

The planet has been here four billion years. Humans, 200,000. And, humans have been industrial since the 18th century. We are a mere drop in the bucket in the long history of the earth.

It seems almost presumptuous that we could have such a profound effect in such a sort amount of time, but that's what environmentalists claim. Now granted, we do pollute. And that has measurable effects. But that's a separate moral question.

The moral question we are considering is, should we care about climate change? What if we chose not to care? Assuming environmentalists are correct, what would happen?

The earth would warm. Deserts would expand. Places like Northern Canada, Siberia, and Greenland would become more habitable and fertile. Eventually, these also would also turn into deserts. All the ice would be melted. Ultimately, the human race would die out. 

The presumption is that this is bad and must be fixed. We ask, why? Why is it bad? What is the moral imperative that human life should be preserved? The planet will go on without us. Why are we so important? Why shouldn't we go extinct?

WHEN JESUS SAYS, "MANY WILL SAY TO ME..." JUST HOW 'MANY' WILL IT BE? - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata repeats a common idea among Christians, that hell will be full. Indeed, she seems to like the idea.

We're not by any means universalists, nor are we fatalists. We simply don't want to consign people to perdition because of some misconstrued idea that this is the way it's supposed to be.

It's not supposed to be that way! The testimony of Scripture is not what the author paints for us.

2Pe. 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Is it foolish to think that what God wants is what God gets? Absolutely not. Why should we think that God does not get His desire? We think God should get as much of this desire as possible.

We believe it means our view might be too small. 

Ms. Prata's assertion that there will be a small remnant of saved people is not correct.

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