STEVEN FURTICK PREACHES FROM NON-EXISTENT BIBLE VERSE By News Division

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

Hyperventilating Pulpit and Pen goes off on Steven Furtick. We do not intend to defend Mr. Furtick, but rather, we shall examine the author's statements.
-----------------

Steven Furtick, who named a book “Unqualified” in reference to John MacArthur’s assessment of him, preached a sermon from a non-existent Bible verse. (In actual fact, the verse does exist. What is a matter of debate is whether or not this existing verse was added by a later scribe. Pulpit and Pen is amping up the offense in an effort to paint Mr. Furtick as being a a big-deal offender.

However, a quick survey of commentaries indicates that there is plenty of thoughtful dissent among Bible scholars, with the preference tending towards rejecting the verse's authenticity:

Studylight.org: In regard to this passage, it should be remarked that the account of the angel in John 5:4 is wanting in many manuscripts, and has been by many supposed to be spurious, There is not conclusive evidence, however...

Bible Study Magazine: This suggests that John 5:4 does not belong in the New Testament, which explains why many modern Bible translations have omitted it.

Bibleref.com: According to manuscript evidence, the most likely answer is that these words were not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. They might have been written into a margin, as a note, or a traditional explanation of the pool. At some point, the note might have been inadvertently copied into the main body and been absorbed as part of the text itself.

"Supposed." "Suggests." "Most likely." "Might." This is hardly the definitive situation asserted by P&P.)

WHAT IS FREEDOM? A definitive answer to an age-old question… by NATHAN J. ROBINSON

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

Our idle curiosity is always willing to entertain any leftist trying to make a "definitive answer" to anything.

Mr. Robinson is previously unknown to us, but apparently he is the latest bright light socialist. He engages in the typical leftist rhetorical tactics.
-----------------

What about the gift of healing?

In our pursuit of true Bible teaching, and also attempting to dispense with the sometimes questionable doctrines we have been taught from the pulpit, we now turn to healing.

Unfortunately, not only do errant sermons unduly color our thoughts, but also the claims made by certain Bible teachers, as well as televangelists. So, we will neither accept what we've been taught, nor what we have observed on TV, until we have taken the opportunity to explore Scripture ourselves.

The gift of healing is linked to the wider issue of other "supernatural" gifts, so the scope of our discussion will necessarily broaden at times.

A Glimpse Inside the Mind Damaged by Bethel's False Teachings By Rev. Anthony Wade

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

Rev. Wade has become a regular fixture on these pages, largely because of his scorched earth rhetoric. Once he has branded you a heretic, you become the recipient of a mindless barrage of name calling, personal attacks, and withering condemnation, ironically deemed a "devotional."

But the crucial questions, not addressed by the author, are

• Can God raise someone from the dead? 
• Has God informed us that there will be no more raising from the dead? 
• Is God capable of raising the dead, but simply unwilling?
• Is there some verse in the Bible that tells us raising the dead has stopped? 

Let's review some Bible verses that actually deal with the subject:

Ac. 26:8 Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

Mat. 12:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.

John 14:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

1Co. 12:7, 9 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 9 To one there is given through the Spirit...  gifts of healing...

Ep. 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead...

He. 6:1-2 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the raising of the dead, and eternal judgment.

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

BETHEL CHURCH ‘DEAD RAISING TEAM’ FAILS TO SAVE 2-YEAR-OLD By News Division

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

Pouncing on the tragic death of a little girl, the Doctrinal Police are happy to say the most egregious, evil things about people whose only "mistake" is praying that this child might be raised from the dead.

You see, it's more important to love your doctrine than love others. It's more important to mock and ridicule those who beliefs are different than it is to show compassion for hurting people.

Pulpit and Pen has now descended into the depths, and cannot be regarded as a trustworthy Christian website.
-----------------

WHY YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE IMAGES OF JESUS, EVEN AT CHRISTMAS TIME - By News Division

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

Video link.

The forms of idolatry are,

• Fetishism, or the worship of trees, rivers, hills, stones, etc.
• Nature worship, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars, as the supposed powers of nature.
• Hero worship, the worship of deceased ancestors, or of heroes.

...strictly speaking denotes the worship of deity in a visible form, whether the images to which homage is paid are symbolical representations of the true God or of the false divinities which have been made the objects of worship in his stead.

The video tries to explain why a baby Jesus in a creche is idolatry. Mr. Stewart says in the video that an image would draw your mind to the subject, and this by definition must be worshipful. Thus he tries to establish that looking at an image of God is in itself worship of the image.

Worship is προσκυνέω (proskuneó), I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship. From pros and a probable derivative of kuon (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore) -- worship.

This is a very specific and deliberate action, not a casual or incidental thing. One cannot accidentally or inadvertently worship.

Mr. Stewart does quote a Scripture:

Jn. 14:9 Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

We can only speculate why this Scripture is relevant. Mr. Stewart does not tell us why a picture, a figurine, or even a movie that portrays Jesus is idolatry. He simply does not do it.

We certainly recognize that certain religions teach the worship of images. And we also recognize that there are a lot of false beliefs out there. However, we would say that having a baby Jesus simply does not rise to the level of a pressing problem.

It smacks of superstition to us. 

As an aside, the screenshot below pictures a creche, with an X drawn through the baby Jesus. Apparently the potential for sin is so great here that the scene needs to be edited for offensive content. Hmm.
-------------

17 ways that the Holy Spirit helps us - by Pastor Marcus Elmer

17 ways that the Holy Spirit HELPS us:

1. He dwells within us at all times (John 14:17, 1 Cor. 6:19, Rom. 8:16, 2 Tim. 1:14). “Don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?” (1 Cor. 6:19)

2. He guards our salvation and assures us we belong to God (Rom. 8:16, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5) “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” (Rom. 8:16)

3. He gives us hope and peace during difficult times (Rom. 14:17, 15:13, 1 Thess. 1:6). “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 15:13)

4. He gives us strength and endurance during trials (Eph. 3:16). “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being…” (Eph 3:16)

5. He brings conviction (John 16:8, 1 Thes. 1:5). “When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment…” (John 16:8)

False Converts Can Now Get Wet With Mobile Baptistry Unit - BY NEWS DIVISION

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

It is difficult to discern what the author objects to. He seems to take offense with people having an easy time of getting baptized. Then without reason he calls them false converts.
-------------------

Revive Mississippi is probably a well-intentioned evangelical group that’s full of wonderful people. ("Probably" great people, who apparently are making false converts. Hmm.)

However, their mobile baptistry unit is ill-conceived.

The trailer, which has a cattle watering troughs designed for baptisms-on-the-go, is equipped to be hauled on location for various church activities in which the gospel will (theoretically) (For unknown reasons the author feels the need to impeach this church.)

The NAR Dominionist Agenda Calls on Local Pastors to Let Their Church Die - by Rev. Anthony Wade

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

We probably deal with Rev. Wade too often, but he is a rich treasure trove of unhinged rants and incendiary commentary. We feel it is important to chronicle these excesses, not to demean him (which we do not do), but rather, in the hopes that some good will come of it. Thus we continue on to his latest screed.

Not counting the words in the verse he quotes at the beginning, and not counting the quoted sections from John Burton, the author expends 2495 words in his attempt to debunk the NAR bogeyman. That's a lot of verbiage to "Wade" through (pun intended).

Especially since there is not a single Bible verse quoted here, except for the opening passage. There is not a single biblical exposition here. There isn't a single assertion documented in any way. The author has nearly 2500 words to increase our understanding, refer us to biblical principles, or encourage us to press on in faith. Nothing.

We will be adding paragraph breaks in order to try to make sense of the author's stream-of-consciousness presentation.

Our usual caveat is that we do not intend to defend the NAR or John Burton. We are simply intent on examining Rev. Wade's presentation.

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

Using Paganism and Bible Mangling to Reinforce NAR Bless-Me Theology - Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------
In typical fashion, Rev. Wade throws around loose accusations and undocumented claims in scattershot fashion, presuming the worst about people without evidence or context. 

We should note that our intent is not to defend Eddie Hyatt. We are here to examine the author's claims and presentation.

We have excerpted a relatively brief portion of a much longer article.)

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

Is Grace undeserved favor?

Introduction

We have been examining our own doctrinal understandings (doctrine rethink) for some time now. We have discovered that what some of what has been preached from our pulpits is not necessarily the truth. We would deem these "Christian myths," that is, things that are common knowledge accepted by Christians, but are ultimately unbiblical.

Our process of doctrine rethink has brought us to an examination of grace.

The rhetorical tactics of the political Left

In our interactions with the political Left, we have noticed recurring tactics among our interlocutors. These tactics are so pervasive as to have become predictable.

Some of those are:

• Reframe the issue

Example: "The national debt is too high."

Leftist rejoinder: "Don't you want to have police, schools, and highways?"

• Do not address the argument presented

Example: "Return the government to its constitutional limits."

Leftist rejoinder: "The real problem is tax cuts." 

• Blame the problem on the ignorance or stupidity of the other party

Example: "Unemployment among blacks has dropped 30% under Trump."

 Leftist rejoinder: "Stop watching Faux News." 

• Infer evil intent

Example: "Obamacare is a failure."

Leftist Rejoinder: "Do you want people to die?"

Is It OK to Confess That Jesus Descended into Hell? - by Justin Dillehay

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

We are posting just a part of the author's article, which centers on a single phrase from the Apostles' Creed: 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. Amen.

The author is discussing a book by Matthew Emerson, who attempts to explain what happened when Jesus descended. According to the author, there is a problem with the idea that Jesus descended to hell and was punished.

The author enthusiastically acknowledges the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement: ...it is gloriously true that Jesus delivered us from hell by experiencing the hellish torments of God’s wrath on the cross. This is "gloriously true," but then he states that Jesus being punished in hell doesn’t mean that Jesus suffered in hell’s flames.

So on one hand it's ok that the Father punished Jesus on the cross, yet on the other hand it's offensive he was also punished in hell. Why might one be gloriously true and the other is not?

We examined at length the idea that the Father punished Jesus, and have concluded that the Father did not punish Jesus at all. We therefore would assert with consistency that Jesus was neither punished on the cross, nor was He punished in hell. 

This is perhaps controversial, we realize. It is a cherished doctrine in much of Christendom. In fact, many have stated that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a central doctrine, and to deny it is heresy. These ardent reformists defend the doctrine as critical to being a Christian.

Yet the doctrine was “virtually unattested” to before Calvin. It seems he invented a whole new doctrine, a doctrine that was basically unknown back then but is now is deemed critical. 

If Calvin overthrew 1500 years of doctrinal understanding, one might expect the biblical basis be unassailable. Once again we refer the reader to our analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We think there is good reason to abandon this doctrine.
-------------------

A TENDENCY ARISING WITH SUCH FREQUENCY I SUSPECT A DEEPER PROBLEM [uncaring pastors] - by Stephen Kneale

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

The author is puzzled why so many pastors don't seem to care about people. The short answer is, they're not pastors. They may have a title, but they don't have the gift.

The author will repeatedly ask "why," but ultimately does not have the answer. We will suggest an answer at the end.
-------------------

Battling Against Five Dumb Reasons for Female Preachers - BY NEWS DIVISION

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has his agenda, and alternately abandons or misrepresents what Scripture has to say about the issues he raises. In addition, we are extremely disappointed in the author for not documenting his statements. In fact, he barely manages to quote Scripture at all.

Most disconcerting, however, is his penchant for making unbiblical statements.

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

The Bible Is Rational Truth - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur tries to make the case for understanding Scripture rationally and logically. Ironically, his presentation is not terribly rational.

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

Constitution must be saved from Trump’s lawlessness -letter by Bruce Gourley

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

You can be sure that when a leftist talks about the Constitution, it is only for the purpose of furthering his agenda. Because leftists don't like the Constitution. They don't like the 2nd Amendment. They don't like the Electoral College. They don't believe in separation of powers. They don't believe in the 1st Amendment for anyone but themselves. They don't believe in the 9th or 10th Amendment at all. 

And, we once again need to invoke Mountain Man's Law (tagged at the bottom of this post), because the letter writer complains that the Constitution is under assault. Yes, indeed. The Constitution, written by white European racists, has been under attack from the Left for decades.  Obama himself decried the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties, that is, government was forbidden to do things.

Mountain Man's Law is, "Everything a Leftist Democrat accuses someone of doing is actually being done by Leftist Democrats." 
----------------------

What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

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. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

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

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

PREACHING IS WORSHIP, NOT PERFORMANCE - by MATT HENSLEE

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

The author's thesis is in the title. However, we disagree that preaching is worship and agree that it's not performance. And the author never documents or explains how preaching is worship. He simply re-asserts it and moves on.

The author suggests that he should be preaching to an Audience of One. However, we're pretty sure God doesn't need to be preached to. Preaching is for the edification of the saints:

Ro. 12:6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. Ro. 12:7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; Ro. 12:8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

1Co. 12:27-28 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Teaching (or preaching) is actually a separate practice from worship:

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

"Worship" is προσκυνέω (proskuneó), which means I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship. It comes from the root word 4314 /prós, "towards" and kyneo, "to kiss") – properly, to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees..."

Now, we have heard worship described in terms of singing, the offering, or as service unto the Lord, but we would suggest these things are not worship. Worship is a state of the heart, coming as a result of a revelation of His glory, which brings one's self low in the presence of the King of kings. 

We think it cheapens worship by naming things that are supposedly worship, while leaving untouched better explanations of it.
-------------------

Good business acumen doesn’t mean good politics - letter by Jay Moor

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author writes a letter replete with non sequiturs, undocumented assertions, and leaps of logic. The blizzard pace of these makes for some very difficult analysis. But we shall try.

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

Many politicians tout their business acumen as a sufficient and superior credential for public office. (First problem, right out of the chute: The descriptors "sufficient" and "superior." This artificially narrows the issue to two supposed reasons, excluding other, perhaps more valid reasons for having a business person in public office.

Indeed, we are in our present swamp because of career politicians who are mostly lawyers, and leftists at that. But the author apparently wants these types to maintain their stranglehold over our political processes by excluding people who actually know how to run successful organizations like businesses.)

Their experience making money, they claim, will help government run more efficiently. ("Business acumen" is not synonymous with "making money." And of course, no one has claimed that their experience making money is the reason for someone's suitability for running for office. 

In addition, the author tacitly admits that government is not efficient, but for some reason objects to electing people who have some skill in running efficient organizations.)

Unfortunately, many business folks enter politics primarily to re-purpose (i.e., corrupt) the powers of government. (Re-purpose" is not synonymous with "corrupt." 

Nearly everyone who enters politics does so to make a difference in government in some fashion. All of them are intent on re-purposing government. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has an objective. And everyone has perceptions of their skills. 

But apparently only politicians with a business background are a problem, despite the fact that the Left has created our present situation by putting their people in government for the last 80 years.)

Hank Hanegraaff’s Son Says His Dad Is Still A Christian (Even Though He Left Christianity) BY NEWS DIVISION

Found here.

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

We find it extremely unseemly for someone to speculate on another's salvation. However, this author is happy to accuse Hanegraaff of apostasy, not because of sin, but because he joined with another denomination. Let's say that again: This is not a matter of sin, but a matter of choice of church.

In addition, the author will never quote a single Scripture in support of his position. He will quote Scriptures that he thinks characterizes Hanegraaff, but as far as making a scriptural case against him, it is absent.
------------------

Hank Hanegraaff left the Christian faith in April of 2017. (As a reformist, the author must believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. Thus, Hanegraaff cannot have "left the Christian faith." He either was never saved, or the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is wrong.)

In joining the Eastern Orthodox cult, Hanegraaff began to worship idols, denied Penal Substitution, no longer believing that Jesus died to pay for his sins. (Let's see if the author documents these charges. Hint: He won't.

Hanegraaff himself said, I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with evangelicals, with Roman Catholics, with Orthodoxy around the essentials of the Christian faith — meaning the main and plain things..." 

In an interview with NPR's Charlotte affiliate WFAE earlier in July that for the most part, his theological beliefs have not changed.

So the author needs to demonstrate that Hanegraaff is either lying or mistaken. In fact, the author needs to provide some evidence, any evidence at all, that Hanegraaff believes something so errant that his salvation is at stake. 

This of course will not happen.)

Most egregiously, as an Eastern Orthodox idolater, Hanegraaff deneis (sic) Sola Fide, and now believes that he’ll be justified by his own good works. (Again we wait for the documentation of these charges.)

No Protestant believer could rationally call Hanegraaff a Christian believer. (No real Christian should be comfortable setting himself up as a judge of a man's heart.)

Contemplative Prayer - By Amy Spreeman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We do not intend to defend contemplative prayer as represented by the author. Rather, we shall evaluate the author's statements, and then we shall develop our own case for a biblical "contemplative" prayer.

We note sadly that the author will never quote a single Scripture in defense of her position, probably because many of the referenced Scriptures do not support her assertions.

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

Is healthcare a privilege or a right? FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

Healthcare in Britain: "A National Health Service (NHS) trust has announced that it will withdraw treatment from patients it deems to be racist or sexist.

"The policy would cover not just 'Threatening and offensive language' but also 'Racist or sexist language, gestures or behaviour' more generally, as well as 'malicious allegations...'”

Comments

• Evan: I can’t say i’ve made up my mind on how I feel about this, but I’m curious as to your perspective on if health care is a right or a privilege?

  1

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 4h
  • Me: It is neither, in my opinion. This is an interesting explanation I read recently of why healthcare is not a right: https://thefederalist.com/.../why-you-have-no-right-to.../
    
    In addition, Since acquiring healthcare is a transaction that requires the exchange of value (money for services), this cannot be an exercise of a right. Someone else is compelled to participate, and/or give up value. Rights cannot involve extracting value from others.

    

    THEFEDERALIST.COM

    Why You Have No Right To Marriage, Health Care, Or An…

    Why You Have No Right To Marriage, Health Care, Or An Education

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · Remove Preview
    •  · 4h
  • Evan: if you express/support that it is not a right, do you not, then, believe it is relegated to being a privilege?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 3h
    •  · Edited
  • Me: No. It is a transaction that exchanges value between parties.

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 1h
  • Evan: ie: privilege? It’s a privilege to purchase goods and services, no? I guess it’s semantics, but just wondering how you’d classify it. It’s pretty much one or the other...? We’re privileged to live in a country where we can go to a grocery store and have a huge variety of produce. Do you feel the same with health care?
    
    Secondary item to ponder: I’m wondering where the balance is when privatized medicine and insurance becomes so expensive that most people can no longer afford it, like medical procedures that cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. You nor I would be able to pay that out of pocket, correct? So where does that leave ya when a privilege becomes a necessity? Or do we just die then, if we can’t afford it?

    • Like
    •  · Reply
    •  · 26m
  • Me: Neither. A privilege is an ability granted by a power structure. A right is an intrinsic feature of natural human existence.
    
    Both are outside the realm of free exchange. A person who agrees with someone else to exchange value is not exercising a privilege.
    
    In fact, we would better define the "right to healthcare" as a privilege, created by law. This, then, is a legal right that could be amended or rescinded by government.
    
    Any "right" created by government is subject to government's future whims. However, unalienable rights, that is, the rights a free people possess, are not granted by government, because they possess them by being endowed with them. Government can only secure them (safeguard them) or infringe upon them.

NAR Charismaniacal False Teaching about Walking in the Blessings of Our Promised Land - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Our typically bombastic and cocksure author offers another barely coherent diatribe.

We should note we are not here to defend Mark Virkler's beliefs, our purpose is to examine the author's presentation.

-------------
For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. -- 2Corinthians 1:20 (ESV)

https://charismamag.com/spirit/spiritual-growth/43241-god-has-a-promised-land-of-blessing-for-you-here-s-how-to-walk-in-it

"God has a promised land of blessing for you and here is how to walk in it" the headline screamed. Gee, what can go wrong from there? Beloved, the NAR Charismaniacal landscape is littered with such poor teaching about experiential Christianity outweighing the verity of Scripture. We need to be vigilant in these last days lest we become deceived. God speaks to us clearly through His written word if we would have ears to hear. His voice is not discerned by goose bumps and liver shivers. It is not confirmed through pagan beliefs and happenstance. The above linked article is from NAR charismaniac Mark Virkler. It is important to pay attention so that we can learn to spot these mangled teachings in our own church and lives, mark them and then avoid them. So come and let us reason together once more.

"We all want to achieve the goals and receive the blessings God has prepared and ordained for us. I believe God has a promised land of blessing for each and every one of us. Some of these promised land blessings are delineated in Deuteronomy 28:1-18, and as you read them, they will take your breath away. They touch every area of our lives! If you haven't read them recently, do so now! All these promises are reaffirmed to us in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 1:20). Let's make sure we arrive at our promised lands." -- Mark Virkler

Sigh. One of the most prolific false teachings that is central to so many others is this warped sense of Christian purpose. (Will the author present us the "correct" sense of Christian purpose, citing Bible references? Nope.)

This started in the mid 1990's with Rick Warren publishing the Purpose Driven Church, which has become a manual for up and coming pastors for how to build mega-churches devoid of the Gospel. The "purpose" pastors sell sheep is now based on providing free labor to the growing church. (This is new?? Churches have relied on their congregations' volunteer labor for hundreds of years! Or does the Reverend's church have 100% paid staff?)

Maybe your purpose can be found in the Parking Lot Ministry or Kidz Church. Whether a security guard, camera man, or choir member, God always has a "purpose" for you. (The author, without documentation, conflates the idea of purpose with volunteer service given to the church. But we don't know if either Mark Virkler or the "purpose driven" church believes this. 

For the author, it is sufficient to simply make blanket unattributed statements.

So, what does the Bible have to say about purpose? Well, we wouldn't know if we rely on the author, whose only Scripture quote is at the top. So it is left to us to document this:

Lk. 7:29-30 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

Ro. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Ro. 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Ph. 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Ep. 2:10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. 

2Ti. 2:20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble.

He. 10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds.

The Bible has plenty to say about our purpose.  

There is no such thing as chance, even when casting lots - By Elizabeth Prata

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

We go into this article with questions we hope will be answered. Is the casting of lots divination? What is the context and explanation for the casting of lots in the Bible? Is it something we should do today? 

These are not questions the author will answer.

Let's consider the biblical usage of the phrase. In the OT, it appears that only one word is used, גּוֹרָל (goral), which means a lot (for casting)... allotted (2), allotted portion (1), choice (1), land (1), lot (53), lots (15), lots and the lot (1), territory allotted (2)... a lot cast for the decision of questions... So it is quite literally a method used for making decisions. 

But there is a specific sense in the casting of lots. The future is not being foretold, neither is a fortune being discerned, nor is divine will being ascertained. Rather, it is more like, "I have two coats. Which one should I wear today?" Or, "Whose turn is it to go get the pizza?" Or, "You two, stop fighting. We're going to settle this." Pr. 18:18 Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart. Perhaps akin to rock-paper-scissors, or closing our eyes and picking one. It's simply a way to make decisions.

By contrast, there are two Greek words used in the NT. The first is λαγχάνω (lagchanó), which is (a) I obtain (receive) by lot, my lot (turn) is, (b) I draw lots. The word is found in

Lk. 1:8-9 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

This is much like the Hebrew word, in that one thing is being chosen over another. The word seems to be used in the context of seeing whose turn it is, or who gets a thing when the lot is cast. It's a case of determining who is coming up next, or who gets what. 

This is how the men chose who got to receive Jesus' cloak.

The second Greek word is as found in 

Ac. 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. 

Here the word is κλῆρος, ου, ὁ (kléros), which means, a portion assigned; hence: a portion of the people of God assigned to one's care, a congregation... properly, a lot, cast to distribute ("apportion").

This word speaks to an allotment of something assigned to someone. It's almost like the selection of a business partner, or how to divide up an inheritance among your children, or who to include when you want to share a candy bar.  It is to determine who should partake of the thing, or who is to be included in the thing being done. 

This the word that describes how the apostles chose Matthias, done we believe with presumption. We discuss this here. 

As we can see, the two words have different shades of meaning. The author will not make this distinction. Nor will she explain her implied approval of casting lots ("There is no such thing as chance.")

So, would we want to cast lots today? We have a simple and short answer, No. We are led by the Holy Spirit (Ro. 8:9, Ga. 5:18), by the Word of God (2Ti. 3:16, Col. 3:16), and by the wise counsel of the brethren (He. 10:24, He. 3:13). 

Casting lots is not necessarily bad. It's simply moot.

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

Why Your Church Should Sing New Songs (Not Only Old Songs) - By Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------
We agree with the author. There is a rich treasure trove of old and new available to us, and neither should be neglected.

Mt. 13:52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”

The old was at one time the new. Every hymn was contemporary Christian music at the time. And the best of our contemporary songs will become part of the hymnody 100 years from now. 

The author is correct that time and usage weeds out the bad or superficial in favor of the great and powerful hymns. This will also happen for contemporary worship songs.

And there are great and powerful contemporary songs of faith. Some that have arisen within the last few decades (in no particular order) are

• Revelation Song
• In Christ Alone
• Shout to the Lord
• How Deep the Father's Love for Us
• This is Amazing Grace
• God of Wonders
• So Will I
• Lord I Lift Your Name on High
• Majesty
• Seek Ye First
• I Exalt Thee
• Agnus Dei

This is only scratching the surface of a wide and deep ocean of great contemporary worship songs. 

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

We all must stand against supremacy, supremacists - letter by Sara Rushing

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

Contrary to the author's statements, it is not ok to be white, and someone saying that it is ok to be white is not automatically being a white supremacist. But of course, the author is content to simply make her assertions as if they were self-evident. This is how the typical leftist functions.

We, however, will document our claims. A quick Google search "white people evil" yields these top results:

• Why are white people so evil and barbaric?
• Teen Vogue Writer: "All White People are Evil"
• Whites are the Source of All Evil
• Why are White People the Most Evil
• Almost All White People are Inherently Racist
• White Men Must be Stopped

She claims, White people have never been told that whiteness is anything other than superior. This is spectacularly false. Whites are typically blamed for every problem in the world today. Whites are routinely shouted down, they are told they are exercising "white privilege," and they are expected to pay reparations. Clearly whites are being told it is not ok to be white.

Ironically, the author herself admits that being white is bad. Whites have the advantage of a system of power and privilege that advantages white people simply for being white, and has shaped up historically in ways that subjugate non-white peoples in more (slavery, genocide) or less (implicit bias) brutal ways.

The overwhelming majority of whites do not fit this description. The overwhelming majority of Americans reject participating in any system that unfairly advantages any race. The overwhelming majority of people simply have no desire to hate or oppress anyone.

Last point. A white person is like any other person. It's ok to be who they are, including their skin color. Their skin color, like any other skin color, does not speak to their character, work ethic, morality, generosity, emotional state, or intelligence. 

Leftists need to have the same attitude about whites as they do for any other race. The fact they don't means, hmm, they're racist.
--------------------

Can Women Be Pastors? - by Denny Burk

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

We have deleted a long and largely irrelevant explanation of how the author views as synonymous the names "pastor," "shepherd," "elder," and "overseer." 
------------------

Is holy fire a bad thing to pray for?

Introduction

Some commentators, in their criticism of charismatics, complain about those who would want the "fire of the Holy Spirit." These commentators would have us believe that fire from God is always a negative thing, it's always a manifestation of God's judgment or wrath.

We would suggest that the fire of God can be much more than judgment. But this doesn't set well with some. With the preconception that fire must always mean judgment, they prefer that people would not pray for holy fire because to them it represents the excesses of charismaticism. That is, if charismatics do it, it must be wrong.

In fact, if the reader will review the link we provided above, he will find that the author warns that God might give you a disease if you ask for His fire! He writes, Don’t ask for more 'holy fire' in your life; you might get cancer when God answers your prayers. 

This astonishing statement, offered almost in a joking manner, ought to offend any thinking Christian. He thinks that asking God for the wrong thing could lead Him to give you a disease.

Does anyone really believe that God would inflict cancer on someone who has called on His name, believed on His Son, and desires to serve Him with more adequately? Is this the capricious god we serve, one who would pour out curses and pain on those who love him?

This is reminiscent of Linus, Charlie Brown's little friend, who was terrified the Great Pumpkin would notice his slip of the tongue and pass him by. But our God is not like this. He does not punish His redeemed with disease and infirmity simply because we asked for the wrong thing. He does not torture us.

We are therefore spurred on to examine the Scriptures for ourselves. Is the fire of God always a bad thing? Does it always represent wrath or judgment? We don't think so. We think it can also represent  increased passion, purity, or devotion.

So let's examine the the other side of the issue. Is holy fire really judgment?

Let's briefly review God's fire and what it can mean.

The OT

It is certainly true that fire can represent judgment. We read of the fire of God's judgment in many places, like

Isaiah 29:6 From the LORD of hosts you will be punished with thunder and earthquake and loud noise, With whirlwind and tempest and the flame of a consuming fire.

This is a common picture of fire in the OT (Josh. 7:15, 2Kg. 1:10,

But we also read that He appeared as a pillar of fire by night as He led Israel:

Ex. 13:21 By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

He also descended in fire upon Mt. Sinai when Moses ascended to receive the 10 commandments:

Ex. 24:17 To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. 

Fire in the OT often represents the manifest Glory of God (Ex. 3:2, 2Sa. 22:9), or consuming a sacrifice (1Kg. 18:38, 1Ch. 21:26).

Fire can be deadly, or it can be awe or fear inspiring. Fire is not automatically judgment.

The NT

How Did Jesus Suffer Eternal Punishment in Only 3 Hours? - by Andrew Menkis

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

What a strange title. Where did the three hour thing come from? 

***Update*** it appears the reference is to the three hours Jesus hung on the cross. 

***

Our views on the death and resurrection of Jesus might be viewed as controversial, but in our pursuit of biblical truth apart from the preconceptions instilled in us by well-meaning pastors and theologians, we have come to the conclusion that some of the things taught to us are misleading, mistaken, incomplete, or just plain wrong.

We have concluded that Jesus was never punished by the Father. 
---------------------

CLOSING THE GAP BETWEEN SCRIPTURE AND OUR EXPERIENCE - By: Sam Storms

Found here. An excellent article.
---------------------

We just concluded our second national Convergence conference here in OKC and witnessed a multitude of healings. As people send in reports of what happened, I’ll share them on this blog.

In my first message at the conference I addressed the problem of the gap (indeed, the vast chasm!) that often exists between what we believe the Bible teaches to be true and what we have personally experienced. We are always quick to believe and embrace what reinforces and confirms our experience. But when the Bible teaches some truth or calls us to some action that we haven’t yet experienced, we instinctively react with pushback or skepticism. Worst of all, we simply find a way of reinterpreting the text of Scripture or even explaining it away so that the discomfort it creates can be overcome.

Online abuses demand changes to First Amendment - letter by Douglas Stream

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This letter writer, with justifiable concern, chronicles the deterioration of society via expressions of less-than-desirable speech. He then proceeds to a non-sequitur, a supposed need to amend the First Amendment. Let's quote the relevant section:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

This amendment, like every other amendment, grants, defines, and restricts government powers. Congress shall make no law...

Thus the letter writer will recommend that First Amendment be amended to grant the government more power. He would want the judicial branch to be empowered determine what is appropriate speech, and what is not. 

Can you imagine? A federal branch of government would occupy its time examining what someone said or wrote to determine if it is allowed. Case after case would be brought to the court for adjudication. Endless parsing of phrasing, context, and propriety of words would be considered.

The author then asserts: You can be certain that if the internet had existed when James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, he would surely have imposed reasonable restrictions on its use. Really? Newspapers existed at that time. Pamphlets. Did Madison have anything written into the Bill of Rights addressing the content of these? No.

Why not? Because the Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, has nothing to say about what The People can and cannot do. From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses (emphasis added) should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to further restrict the power of government! Its intent is not to create rights, for it cannot. Rights descend from the Creator, and are unalienable.

This is made clear from Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is the letter writer unfamiliar with Prohibition? The Constitution must not be wielded to speak to what The People can or cannot do.

He is completely mistaken about the Bill of Rights and Madison's intent. His prescriptions would be a disaster.

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

Joseph Prince -- How To Make the Lord's Supper About You - Rev. Anthony Wade

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

The author continues his acerbic and congerous writing style.

He will suggest we keep our Bibles open, but never quotes or references a single verse besides the verse in question. 

We should note that we don't necessarily share Joseph's Prince's belief about communion, we are simply interested in the merit of the author's biblical case against him, if he has one.
-------------------

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. -- 1Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV)

https://www.charismanews.com/culture/78526-joseph-prince-there-is-supernatural-healing-power-in-taking-communion-daily

I have said for some time now that Joseph Prince is perhaps the most dangerous pastor alive today. Sure, no one has done more damage to the cause of Christ then Rick Warren through his purpose driven church but Prince's preaching style is so smooth and often difficult to perceive the heresy unless you keep your bible open when listening to him. That is because so much of what he says is biblical. (It seems to us that any Bible teacher is going to be mistaken about this or that. What we would like to know is, is Prince wrong about primary doctrines or tertiary ones? Does he teach wrongly about ancillary things, or rather, are they things that imperil salvation?)

Cessationism - Episode 13, The sufficiency of Scripture

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?
• Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts.

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. not appeal to silence
4. not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.
****

The Pastor as Hourly Employee?- BY ADAM PARKER

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

Almost everything the author writes is wrong, unbiblical, or just plain bad counsel.

We have discussed at length the biblical description of church government, the points of which we will try not to rehash here.

In addition, the author will repeatedly reference the biblical position, but never quote a Bible verse. Never.

This is a long, faulty, ill-conceived article.
----------------

One of my favorite things is getting together with other pastors and asking them how their ministry is going. Most of the time a pastor will say that things are going great, and then he will share some of the joys of his ministry. However, occasionally a pastor will sigh deeply and tell me that things are getting difficult... and on more than one occasion, that the pastor goes on to tell me that he has a particular elder who demands to know how he spends his time. (The author presumes a grievous thing, but this is not automatically the case. Pastors and all leaders must be accountable, period. They don't get to define their own duties. An elder who "demands" this is not automatically wrong.)

There are few things that elicit a deeper groan of sympathy from my own heart than a fellow pastor of a smaller church who tells me that his elders are suspicious enough to resort to tracking how much time he spends "in the office." (Is there never a reason to be suspicious of a pastor?)

To me, it is an immediate sign of an unhealthy session (eldership) that distrusts the pastor when the elders want a man to keep track of his hours or when they take it upon themselves to do so. (This is not automatically a sign of distrust. The author implies that the eldership should not have the power to do this. He never explains why.

Further, the author will constantly focus on the accountability issue in terms of the hours spent. That is, scrutinizing the performance of a pastor, or having standards, or having the ability to evaluate a pastor, is akin to having him punch a time clock and accounting for every minute of his time. However, there is much more besides the pastor's schedule that is relevant here.

And frankly, we should not exclude the possibility that a pastor might be indeed wasting time.)

Continuationism is not a non-essential doctrinal issue [3] - Fred Butler

Found here. Part one found here. Part two here. Excerpt from part four here.

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

The author offers his third installment, but has yet to actually make an argument, let alone a biblical argument. 
------------------

I’ve been laying out my case as to how I believe continuationism is not a non-essential, second-tier doctrinal issue. (Now it's not "second-tier?" In his prior post the author confused the subject by interchanging a variety of non-synonymous descriptors [It's a primary issue. It's a core doctrine. It involves theological error. It's blasphemy. It's a false Gospel.]. The list of descriptors grows ever longer, with no additional clarity brought to the issue.

The author has yet to demonstrate, nor will he, biblically or otherwise, that holding continuationist views in any way impacts any primary doctrine or one's salvation.)

As I explained in two previous posts on this subject, see HERE and HERE, continuationism is a disastrous doctrine both in the church and with individuals because it has massive influence upon the way people think about God and practice their Christianity. The majority of the time, their faith and practice is sub-biblical, if at all, and out right frightening and pagan. ("Sub-biblical?" Add it to the list.

Again the author flings about casual accusations, not documented, and not even reasonable.)

In the first post, I explained how that if the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself among the continuationist believers he will not lead continuationist pastors and their people to embrace theological heresy. (This is a tautology. The author also commits a non-sequitur. Whether or not  people are heretical [here's yet another new descriptor] does not speak to the Holy Spirit's manifestation at all. That is, there is no such equation as "Holy Spirit = No error." 

Every believer has the Holy Spirit, yet every believer at some time or other commits error [sin]. This ought to be self-evident to a supposed Bible teacher like the author.)

With the second post, I pointed out how numerous continuationist leaders, preachers, and conference speakers are known for telling grandiose, urban legend-like stories about spiritual encounters they allegedly had with God, angels, traveling to heaven, healing people, and other tales of fantastic spiritual adventure. (That is, the author recounted several anecdotal examples of excess, and uses them to characterize every single person as blasphemers. Notice he also dismisses these stories summarily, presuming a priori that they are false, without refutation or even analysis.)

As remarkable as they may be, those tales are never truly verifiable and the only conclusion one can draw is that the person telling it is lying. (Now the author deceives us. There is more than one conclusion. The person can be mistaken [#2]. The person can be exaggerating [#3]. The person can be deceived [#4]. The person can be telling the truth [#5].) 

I wanted to end my overview with considering a third area that I believe demonstrates that continuationism is not just a harmless and acceptable secondary, non-essential doctrinal issue. (More disparate descriptors to add to the list...

Will he make a case from the Bible? Nope. Not even a little bit of biblical exposition, let alone a logical refutation.)