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.

THE GIFT OF TONGUES - Let Us Reason

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author attempts to explain tongues, and we are happy that he refers to and quotes a lot of Scripture. 

Though he fails to make his case, and sometimes contradicts himself and/or the Scriptures, he is remarkably thorough in his attempt. This is refreshing considering the superficial analyses generally offered by cessationists.

The reader may wish to review our topical cessationism series, as well as everything we have written about cessationism.

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

Slow Down - For Younger Pastors - by Peter Bogert

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Quite often we find these advice-giving writers offering their wisdom to pastors. Inevitably we discover that the problem being addressed is weariness, overwork, and/or the inability to stop being a pastor when at home or on vacation, etc, etc.

It is with unabashed certainty we declare that none of these problems would be problems if these pastors embraced the biblical model of leadership. There is nothing in the Bible about a pastor being the head guy atop the leadership structure of the local church. The biblical structure is a co-equal eldership:

1Pe. 5:1-3 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, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Notice that there is nothing here about a pastor presiding over a flock, but rather elders/overseers/shepherds serving the flock. 

Some elders are particularly noteworthy:

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 but a single mention of pastor:

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...

Notice here that there are five gifts to the church, not one. This passage does not indicate these five are specifically leaders of the local church, but rather it suggests that they minister to the entire body of Christ in some fashion. The point is, there is no such thing as a singular leadership in the church with a credentialed professional leading the flock.

And that brings us back to the idea of burn-out. A traditional pastor, charged with preaching the sermons, praying all the prayers, coordinating the mechanics of church operation, leading elder/deacon meetings, visiting the sick, and shoveling the sidewalks of snow, is a pastor who will soon weary of the pastorate and quit or move on.

The author would probably not have to give this advice to struggling pastors if the church leadership model was not awry.

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

Coronavirus is God’s Plague Upon Charismatics - BY NEWS DIVISION

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

This pronouncement of death to charismatics is evil, plain and simple. The author apparently thinks he's an apostle or an old testament prophet with the God-given power to declare judgment and death to 600 million charismatic Christians. He literally wants God to use coronavirus to kill believers:

Might God use coronavirus to wipe the plague of charismaticism off the map and sweep these charlatans into the dustbin of history. Might God place the entire world into a quarantine against the Satanic false claims of charismaticism and innoculate (sic) us against their devilish assertions. Might God rid the world of every last one of them.

Why? Because a few famous charismatic characters misbehave. Thus he consigns millions of brothers and sisters to perdition without a pang of regret or any circumspection at all.

We also note for the record the substantial irony of the author issuing his own decree, even as he mocks people for making decrees about coronavirus. So we will watch the news for the mass death of charismatic Christians to see if the author's declaration comes to pass.

But we are not like the author. His failed proclamation will give us cause to pray for his black heart, not to cast him into the outer darkness. Our hope is that God would have mercy on him and lead him to the truth.

*Edit* The author has made a big deal of charismatic churches closing and none are trying to heal coronavirus sufferers. Oops.
--------------------

How are we to deal with false teachers?

We continue our doctrine rethink by considering the issue of false teachers. We shall review what "discernment ministers" do, then we shall consider what Bible has to say about false teachers and what our response to them should be.

Discernment Ministers 

We find the Doctrinal Police are consumed with the latest thing about this false teacher or that false teacher. "Discernment ministers" consider it their duty to point out their flaws and error. Their analyses are usually expressed in hyperbolic terms with breathless urgency. We have posted numerous critiques of these self-styled "discernment ministers." We examine their fallacious arguments, but we also address their insulting language and egregious name calling.

One of their most pointed claims is that false teachers are, well, false. That is, through and through they are false. Not saved, not entitled to grace, respectful correction, or the restoration prescribed in the Bible. Not even entitled to our prayers!

That is, false teachers are despicable wolves, liars and deceivers, deemed beyond redemption.

Thus we note that the ire of the "Doctrinal Police" exceeds the level of mere disagreement. Merely setting the biblical record straight is not sufficient, though ironically they rarely even do that. No, for them, false teachers deserve only mocking, derision, and attack.

Our complaint is not that the "Doctrinal Police" are defending the truth, it's that they tend to view even the smallest doctrinal difference as false teaching. Perfect doctrine is the highest goal for them, and any deviation is false teaching, and by inference, a matter of salvation.

The doctrinal hairsplitting gets to ridiculous levels, which means for them that the category of false teachers is extremely large. This has the effect of branding every sort of doctrinal deviation as "them," which means they are not "us."

This is cultic thinking.

NAR Experiential Christianity Says it is Time to do Away with Church - by Reverend Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have come to regard Rev. Wade as little more than a curiosity. He has amply demonstrated that he can't be regarded as a serious Bible teacher. In fact, in this missive he doesn't quote a single Scripture other than the one at the beginning. And that Scripture isn't relevant to anything he presents here. 

He explains no Scriptural principle, he provides no insight, no clarity, and does no exposition of the Bible. He spends thousands of words railing against people, attacking their motives, their salvation, and their words, without offering a shred of evidence that any of what he asserts is true.

Yet he calls this a devotional. What, exactly, would we take away from this screed to which we can devote our attention? What faith-building principle is contained here? Where does he edify the faith of reader? Where does he spur us on to godliness and maturity of walk?

Lastly, we want to note the author's typical modus operandi:

• NAR is bad
• NAR means (insert weird occurrence or something Bethel Church did)
• (Insert name of unrelated party here) is NAR
• Someone wrote something Rev. Wade doesn't like
• That someone is really saying (insert weird occurrence or something Bethel Church did)
• It's NAR

The reader may think we are exaggerating. But as you read, pay attention the the way Rev. Wade connects disparate elements into a Frankenstein's monster.

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

Cessationism - Episode 14, Was the purpose of the miraculous restricted to the authentication of the apostles?

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.
****

Why Aren’t “Faith Healers” Like Francis Chan, Todd White, and Todd Bentley in China Fighting the Coronavirus? - by Jeff Maples

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

We previously noted with dismay the almost gleeful tone displayed by the Doctrinal Police at the failure of Bethel Church to raise a dead little girl to life.

Now another article in the same vein, where the author exhibits a smug self-satisfaction regarding the corona virus. This author appears quite delighted at the prospect that people might not or shouldn't be healed. According to his doctrine, anyway. 

And what of the Scriptures that teach healing, like 

Ja. 5:14-16 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Does the author believe the Bible? Well, he doesn't bother to quote it. In fact, he makes no biblically-based statements at all.

And we can throw the author's question back at him. He believes the Gospel saves, so why isn't he in China sharing the Gospel with people?)
--------------------

Five Ways You’re Probably Not A Calvinist - By Wes Bredenhof

Found here. Interesting things here.
------------------

What’s a Calvinist? That can be a tough question to answer. It’s fair to say there are Reformed people who believe it simply means we’re followers of John Calvin. If a Lutheran follows the teachings of Martin Luther, then a Calvinist must follow the teachings of John Calvin. In a general sense, that’s true. We do follow and share some of the important tenets held by John Calvin – not because he said so, but because the Bible teaches these things. Most importantly of all, with Calvin we maintain the gospel of sovereign grace.

Nevertheless, there are things John Calvin taught or practiced that few, if any, self-identifying Calvinists would hold to today. Let me outline five of them.