At What Price Awakening? Examining the Theology and Practice of the Bethel Movement - Stephen Tan

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

In our examination of this author's criticisms of Bethel church, we first must consider his biases. From his church's doctrinal statement:

WE BELIEVE.... that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Teacher Who fills and empowers all believers for Christian life and service, and Who guides believers into all truth; and, that it is the privilege and duty of all the saved to be filled with the Spirit. Some gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as the gift of speaking in tongues and the gift of healing, were temporary gifts, and never the necessary signs of the filling of the Holy Spirit.

So this doctrinal statement explicitly excludes at least two of the so-called supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Armed with this information, we are able to dismiss a good portion of the author's presentation as only relevant to those who agree with this doctrinal position.

For a detailed critique of the cessationist position, you may read our cessationism series.

In addition, it is not our intention to defend Bethel church or Bill Johnson, but rather examine the statements of the author.

The last thing to note before we begin is that we don't know if the author's summaries of the quotes he footnotes are accurate. So we shall take those summaries with a grain of salt.

A final observation: The author doesn't quote a single Scripture.
----------------------

10 Common Unbiblical Beliefs in the Contemporary Church - by JOSEPH MATTERA

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

These aren't really unbiblical beliefs. If you thought you were going to read an article that corrects bad doctrine, you'd be wrong.

What the author is actually doing is correcting misconceptions. Or more precisely, he's correcting some of the sloppy ways we talk about things. And the author does a pretty good job of explaining the better way.

But really, I'm not really sure these are "common unbiblical beliefs." I don't think they're common at all.
----------------------

Hillsong Worship Makes “O Holy Night” Unrecognizable - BY JONATHAN AIGNER

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

What we have here is someone elevating his personal opinion to the level of Bible doctrine. He doesn't like this rendition of O Holy Night, so apparently he is free to mock and criticize the singer in a most unseemly manner.

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

Relevant online recently shared Hillsong’s new version of O Holy Night, claiming it will “give you chills.”

From the post:

“Hillsong Worship has released a stirring version of the Christmas classic, “O Holy Night”. The fully orchestrated take on the holiday staple not only features a full choir, but also the powerful lead vocals of Taya Smith.”

I’m really not sure what Relevant was seeing and hearing here. As with practically everything Hillsong does, it’s high on production value and low on actual substance. (We will soon find that the author's complaints are ironically without substance.)

Hillsong has long turned the commercial Christmas season into a commercially profitable one for them with wild spectacles, turning beautiful carols into money-making pop songs. (Apparently making money is a sin. And apparently, people like these things enough to part ways with their money. Alas, their tastes are sub par compared to the author's. We will find he has a degree in applied voice, so he knows better what we should like. He's an expert.)

Here’s yet another example in O Holy Night, And I find it to be in particularly poor taste. (Violating the author's taste is akin to taking the Lord's name in vain. He is the arbitrator of what's good and bad, and is happy to relegate people to the outer darkness if he doesn't like them.)

Masturbatory Worship and the Contemporary Church - BY JONATHAN AIGNER

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Here the author paints with a broad brush, dumping every "Contemporary megachurch-style worship" service into the rhetorical trash can. These generalizations are largely useless, because we don't know if there really are any churches that are this way. Because if there are, the author does not point them out to us.

It is astonishing to me how someone can make assertion after assertion with absolutely no documentation at all. He's absolutely sure that these evils are all over the place, but he cannot or will not provide us with even one example.

It's entirely possible that people are engaging in fleshly, self-centered worship. But is this a new thing? No. Is it restricted to a particular style or liturgical expression? No. 

Ultimately, I believe the author's mistake is that he excoriates certain kinds of worship services and fleshly people when he should be instructing us regarding the purpose and expression of our worship. 

--------------------- 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A system that allows billionaires to exist alongside extreme poverty is immoral - Carmin Chappell

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

This is what happens when a young person gets involved with Leftists and tyrant wannabes.

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

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agrees that "a system that allows billionaires to exist" is immoral. The freshman congresswoman made those comments at an event celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. 
• She said it is "wrong" that billionaires can coexist in a country alongside "parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health." 
• One of Ocasio-Cortez's solutions to America's wealth disparity is a 70 percent marginal tax rate, a policy proposal that has already made waves in Washington. 
• Ocasio-Cortez made the comments as many of the world's billionaires were gathering for the start of the annual Davos economic confab in Switzerland amid concerns over economic uncertainty and rising populism. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agrees that "a system that allows billionaires to exist" is immoral.

The freshman congresswoman responded affirmatively to a question on the subject at an event celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday in New York, just as many of the world's billionaires were gathering for the start of the annual Davos economic confab in Switzerland amid concerns over economic uncertainty and rising populism.

"I don't think that necessarily means that all billionaires are immoral," she qualified, citing Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both major philanthropists. Gates is expected to attend Davos again this year. (Class warfare agitprop. She really believes in class struggle, where the proletariat rises up against the bourgeoisie. 

She really believes this nonsense spouted by her peers in their little meetings as they sip lattes. And having little if any experience in the real world, she nevertheless discovers a heretofore unknown superpower, the ability to discern the morality of a group of people based on the number of dollars they have in their pocket.

The correlation coefficient r = +1 for morality vs. dollars is of course a puerile assertion. Human nature is clear in what it shows us. All people have the propensity for greed, avarice, stealing, and general mayhem, regardless of their wealth or status. Ocasio Cortez herself possesses this trait, which is ennobled by the socialist rhetoric she spouts. She doesn't realize that her obsession regarding the wealth of people she doesn't know is in itself greed. 

Thus she believes that she has a claim on other peoples' property. She believes she has the power to decides how much is too much, and those who exceed her morality threshold must surrender their excess wealth to what is to her a higher purpose: Give it to people who did not earn it.

This is nothing more than theft by majority. Theft is self-evidently immoral.)

Jesus Ended the Old Covenant Once and for All - by Andy Stanley

Found here. I find myself largely in agreement with Stanley's position.

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

A brief response to Robert Foster on my book, ‘Irresistible.’

I want to thank Robert Foster for reading and engaging with my latest book, Irresistible. To begin, I’d like to clarify a few points.

First, I’d like to put to rest any fears that my truncated quotation of 2 Timothy 3:16 in the book was intentionally shortened. Foster correctly notes that I only quote the first half of that verse. My purpose was to point out the OT is God-breathed and inspired, useful for many purposes, and I completely agree with the rest of that verse. In fact, that’s one reason I wrote Irresistible, to show that the fulfillment and end of the OT leads us to Jesus, and Jesus gives us a new ethic, one that calls us to sacrificial love and good works that make our faith irresistible to the world.

So I agree that God’s Word—both Old and New—is given to equip us for all sorts of good works, and I wish more Christians took that message to heart.

Foster provides three points to help us understand the function of the OT for Christians today:

• The OT can help Christians understand the implications of the gospel for our lives. 
• The OT can illuminate Christians’ understanding of God’s way in the world. 
• The OT can provide a foundation for Christian moral conduct. 

James Goll Gets Discernment 100% WRONG! - Pirate Christian

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

As is typical for the Doctrinal Police, Pirate Christian hyperventilates over an innocuous statement. 

If you visit the supplied link,  you will find that Pirate Christian is working only from the information provided by the bookseller. I sincerely doubt they read the book. 

If this is true, they have no idea what James Goll actually meant by the quoted statement.

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

These Lies Are Fueling Witchcraft Movement in the Church - JOHN BURTON

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

The author does tell us that he likes to rock the boat and challenge systems, motives and traditions that exist within the local church. But he doesn't actually say what he does or to what end. 

I raise this because the premise upon which the author builds his case is the that people have wrong views of what the pastor is and does. But the author assumes the propriety of a singular authority in the church called "pastor."

Few, if any of the problems the author chronicles would gain traction if we had a biblical model of church leadership. There is nothing at all in the Bible about the church being led by one man called a pastor. Rather, there are apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists (Eph. 4:11). They are the ones who together raise up the body to maturity.

The NT teaches team leadership and Body ministry. No wonder 80% of the work of the church is done by 20% of the people. We have a bad model.

Thus the author lists several false attitudes about pastors, yet seems to reinforce false attitudes about pastors. 
---------------------

Marginal tax rates: the super easy explainer America needs - by Jason Linkins

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

I actually don't have a lot to say about this. The author spends a lot of time hyperventilating about the Republican's supposed lack of understanding about marginal tax rates, while gamely doing his best to obscure the real issue: Cortez, like every Democrat under the sun, wants to raise taxes. Again.

According to this chart, income to the government has increased substantially since the recession, but spending has increased all the more. 

It's quite clear that the problem is spending, not income. Increasing taxes solves no problem. It never has and never will.
------------------------

Did God pour out His wrath on Jesus?

We want to explore the idea more fully the belief that God poured out His wrath and punished Jesus as a penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). This seems to be a very common belief, in fact, it's a core belief of the reformed branch of the Church.

The idea is, God's wrath burns against the unrighteous, and Jesus comes to intervene on behalf of the sinner. He takes the place of the sinner and bears God's wrath instead. Jesus is punished in our stead and God's wrath is now atoned for by Jesus' sacrifice.

But does the Bible support the idea?

Love and Anger at the Cross? POSTED BY NICK BATZIG

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

It seems a central tenet of Reformed Calvinism that the Father's wrath was poured out on Jesus at the Cross.

We have very little to comment upon here, since the author gives us not a single verse to support his position. Read it carefully. The author does not support his conclusion with Scripture.

We thoroughly discuss this matter here, here, and here.
--------------------

Beth Moore Declares “Spending Time With God and Spending Time With the Bible Are Not the Same Thing”

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

My intent here is to examine the claims of the author. I have no particular desire to defend Beth Moore.
------------------

The well-known lady preacher and popular bible-study author, Beth Moore, makes an astonishing declaration–that spending time in God’s Word is not the same thing as spending time with God. (Let's see if the author actually demonstrates that reading the Bible is the same thing as spending time with God.)

Bad Worship Songs - Throne Room - Jesus Culture

Audio link here.
-----------------

From time to time we post the lyrics of what we consider to be poorly written worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

But too often, the ones we select from are largely limited to what is playing now. It's sort of an Overton Window of worship music. That's not always bad, because there is some very good music being written and played on mass media.

But "what's playing now" is based on a variety of factors, including marketability, production, and content. The gatekeepers determine what access there is, and Jesus Culture has gained access to the market and is using it to continue to promulgate its material. That makes sense. What doesn't necessarily happen is continued high quality.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? 

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song. Throne Room. There are some good parts, especially the first half of the chorus. But on the whole, there's just not enough here to consider it a good worship song.

Ok, Let's look at the song.

Verse one

Dream after dream, 
You are speaking to me, 
breathing word after word of kingdom come
Here at Your feet, 
I can see the unseen, 
truly one look at You and I'm undone

I run to the throne room
I run to the throne room

Read verse one aloud. Does it even make sense? Not really. There's a sense here of some disparate phrases cobbled together without regard to a cohesive narrative.

The song starts with the idea that God is speaking to the songwriter with a series of dreams about "kingdom come." Fair enough. We might object to this on the basis that we are forced to sing about the songwriter's experiences which may not be our own. Lauren Daigle also does this in the first line of her song "You Say:" I keep fighting voices in my mind that say I'm not enough. 

Those are intensely personal expressions, which in our view are outside the boundaries of corporate worship. In that vein, the song does tend to be self referential as a whole (19 uses of referents like I, me, and my).

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.)