What Cessationism Is Not - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author spends his entire presentation explaining what cessationism isn't, bolstered by quotes from theologians and historical figures. But he never provides us the affirmative biblical case for his own cessationism.

In fact, the author doesn't quote a single Scripture, very common for cessationists. He doesn't even bother to make a biblical argument.
-------------------

Two Types of Tongues? - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

We have given extensive treatment to the Tongues issue, so we will attempt to avoid repeating those points here. Instead we will address any new arguments.

As we have discovered in our critiques of cessationists, it is typical of them to avoid Scripture. This author supplies many scriptural references, and even a couple Greek words, but amazingly, doesn't quote a single Scripture.

We also note that the author makes a concerted effort to affirm his own preconceptions, sometimes to ridiculous lengths. For example, the author switches "translation" for "interpretation" when discussing the spiritual gift of interpretation. This is simply dishonest.

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

I want to respond to the idea that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is somehow qualitatively different than in Acts or even than in 1 Corinthians 12.

* * * * *

Is the gift of tongues in Acts the same as in 1 Corinthians?

Some Observations:

1. Acts – The miraculous tongues in Acts were directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (2:4, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). In fact, tongue-speaking is evidence of having received the “gift” (dorea) of the Holy Spirit (10:45). (The gift of the Holy Spirit is not synonymous with the gift of Tongues or any other spiritual gift. The gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts specifically manifested in Tongues, and later prophecy, as a sign to the Apostles that the gentiles were now included in salvation. 

But nowhere in Acts is speaking in Tongues referred to as a spiritual gift.) 

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (12:1, 7, 11, etc.). Similarly, the gift of tongues is an evidence (or “manifestation”) of having received the Holy Spirit (12:7). (This is true for Acts, false for 1 Corinthians. Let's quote the Scripture: 1Co. 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. Why did the Holy Spirit give gifts? For the common good, NOT as evidence of having received the Spirit.)

2. Acts – Along those lines, in Acts 11:15–17, Peter implies that the tongue-speaking of Acts 10 was the same as that of Acts 2, even noting that Cornelius and his household had received the same gift (dorea) as the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. (Perhaps the author doesn't quote Scripture because the Scripture he references does not say what he says it does. Let's start with the context of the cited passage:

Ac. 11:1-4 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened...

Peter had finally learned the lesson of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which ironically he first explained when he quoted the prophet Joel [Acts 2:16-21]. But that lesson had to be repeated to Peter many times. It took him quite a while to understand that the gentiles could be part of the people of God.

So now we find Peter is being challenged by the circumcision group for hanging out with gentiles. He explains what happened, culminating in the passage cited by the author:

Ac. 11:15-17 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

This passage is clearly not about Tongues. The reader will not find mention of Tongues here, because the gift of Tongues was not the subject. Peter's point was the fact of the gentiles receiving the gift of the very same Holy Spirit.)

Did You Go To Them Privately? - DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

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

It wasn't long ago that we commented on another blogger about the very same thing. Therefore, we will most likely reference our previous article in this critique.

We should note that we embrace the principles of Matthew 18 in our dealings, even with the Doctrinal Police. If we believe the polemicist has sinned against us, we privately contact them. Otherwise, we content ourselves with providing simple analysis of the content of their writings, evaluating it according to biblical principles.

In the case of this particular author, she provides us with her rules of engagement here. She writes, 

Although I have absolutely no objection to a husband investigating my writing to ensure that I don’t steer their wives toward false doctrine, I hope that they stop reading once they feel assured that they can trust me to instruct their wives according to Scripture.

Unfortunately, we do not trust her, based on our prior analyses here, here, and here. Thus we continue to operate according to her open invitation.
--------------------

Yes, God Still Performs Miracles - by Josh Buice

Found here.
--------------------

This is a puzzling article. The author sucks us in with a title, but does absolutely nothing to explain his beliefs regarding how God does miracles. In fact, this article was really written to criticize the prosperity gospel, not to explain miracles or biblical healing.

Sadly, the author manages to quote the Bible only once (which we edited out, since it was a not a Scripture about healing or the miraculous [Acts 8:20].)

Then he creates a false choice. Either we accept his views, or it's prosperity gospel. Of course there are more choices than these two. 

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

Does it matter if we’re singing to God or about God? - BY JONATHAN AIGNER

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

This is an older article, but it brings up a topic regarding worship we have not seen before. Of course, just because the topic is novel does not mean it is Biblical.

As is typical for the Doctrinal Police, not a single Scripture quoted, referenced, or even alluded to. We would expect that an author who is offering correction to the church ought to make a biblical argument. He does not.

We also note that the author himself answers the question he raises in the title: He begins with yes but ends with no.

And just for reference, we should roughly define the terms the author uses:

First person: Speaks of one's self
Second person: Speaks to the intended audience

Third person: Speaks about someone not present

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

Cessationism - Episode 12 - What is discernment? Is there such a thing as a discernment ministry?

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.

The Perils of Billionaire Philanthropy The ultra-rich are using philanthropic vehicles to shield their wealth—it’s time Congress acted. - By Chuck Collins

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

This is a stark example of muddled leftist thinking.
---------------------

At this year’s World Economic Forum at Davos, billionaire Michael Dell, the 25th-wealthiest man in the world, weighed in on new proposals to tax the very wealthy. Dell said he was “much more comfortable” giving through his private foundation “than giving…to the government.” He’s not the first billionaire to confuse his obligations to society and conflate charitable giving with paying taxes. (On what basis does the author claim Dell is confused? Dell's statement is pretty clear. He would prefer to choose for himself where his money goes.

The author himself seems confused. He writes that Dell has an obligation to society. That is a moral claim. Dell does not have any obligation to society. He does have a legal obligation to the IRS. 

Dell does not conflate giving with taxes, the Left does. The Left continually claims that Christians, for example, are not Christ-like because they do not support leftist compassion programs. That is, if you're opposed to anti-poverty programs, you hate the poor.)

Indeed, the discussion about solutions to most social problems are too often sidetracked by stories of beneficent billionaires and their charitable deeds. Lost in a fog of generosity is the recognition that philanthropy is not a substitute for a fair and progressive tax system and robust public investments in poverty alleviation, infrastructure, economic opportunity, and social protection. (This is an astonishing claim. First, it is the tax system that substituted itself for charity, not the other way around. Government inserted itself and made itself the agent of compassion. 

Second, there is no comparison at all between people giving voluntarily to the recipients of their own choosing versus the government extracting money from people via coercion. The free choices of individuals determining for themselves where to spend or give their money is not a matter for government.

Third, the author biases the comparison by giving glowing descriptors to taxation, like "fair," "robust," "opportunity," and "protection." This is particularly egregious, since government programs are none of these, while charity is much more efficient and notably effective in achieving its goals.)

Retiring Congressman Duffy to rely on pre-existing condition protections he voted to repeal - JOSH ISRAEL

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

Like many leftist causes, this issue of pre-existing conditions is based on a false understanding. We once thought that such misunderstandings were accidental or inadvertent. However, we see increasing evidence that this is actually purposeful deception, in order to advance an agenda.

This seems to be the case with today's article.
-------------------

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) announced on Monday that he will soon resign his House seat, citing family reasons. He and his wife, Fox News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy, said their soon-to-be born ninth child will require heart surgery soon after her birth.

On Tuesday, Duffy explained that he had made sure the child will have access to health insurance despite her pre-existing conditions. (The child does not have a "pre"-existing condition. A pre-existing condition is a status that can only exist if one has a condition, but does not have coverage. 

If the person in question has insurance, then it is an existing condition, that is, a health issue is present and the person has coverage. "Pre" means a health issue "pre" coverage.)

It is laudable that the Duffy family is preparing to provide as much care as possible for a child with serious medical challenges. But as a congressman, Duffy voted to take away those same important protections for others with pre-existing conditions — directly contradicting his own campaign promises. (We don't know this is true, especially since it's a leftist stating it. We are unable to trust the honesty of leftists.)

Jesus Culture New Hit Calls the Lord an Uncontrollable, Voracious, Wolfish and Greedy God - by Rev. Anthony Wade

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

We are surprised to find a point of agreement with the author. He tends to have a bit of trouble focusing, so we have deleted long passages that are unrelated to the matter at hand.

In addition, the author has in the past engaged in some incendiary rhetoric, a fault that continues below. But he is correct about this song, in our view.
---------------------

Audio link.

From time to time we run across worship songs that frankly cause us to pause. It isn't our intent to berate the songwriter or to throw charges of heresy around, but simply to apply analysis.

We would like to articulate our criteria for examining worship songs, which is something we would have thought the author might have taken the time to do.

• A worship song is an expression to God, and best addresses Him in the first person. There are some perfectly acceptable songs that address the people, that is, refer to God in the Third Person voice ("How great is our God, sing with me..."). While they might contain elements of worship, are generally not considered worship songs. Related faults: God/Jesus not mentioned.

• A worship song generally does not tell God what we will do. Songs about our commitment to Him or our statements about our intentions (Jesus, lover of my soul; Jesus, I'll never let you go...) are generally not worship songs.

• A worship song is doctrinally sound. It doesn't have to be a doctrinal treatise, but it cannot contain heresy. Related faults: vague theology, no theology.

• A worship song is better if it's not excessively metaphorical. (Like a tidal wave, crashing over me, rushing in to meet me here, Your love is fierce! Like a hurricane, that I can't escape, tearing through the atmosphere, Your love is fierce.) Related faults: flowery metaphor, contradictory metaphor, thematically unconnected or no theme.

• A worship song is better if it's not excessively repetitive. (There is power in the name of Jesus, there is power in the name of Jesus, there is power in the name of Jesus, to break every chain, break every chain, break every chain.)

• Facilitates congregational singing. Songs with a wide range are not singable.

• Jesus is not your boyfriend. (I wanna sit at your feet Drink from the cup in your hand. Lay back against you and breath, feel your heart beat This love is so deep, it's more than I can stand. I melt in your peace, it's overwhelming...)

• A worship song is not focused on self. (We're the forgiven, singing redemption's song, There's a fire that burns inside, A fire that burns inside, Nothing can stop us, We'll be running through the night, With a fire that burns inside, A fire that burns inside.

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

A More Sure Word of Prophecy - by John MacArthur

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

(Dr. MacArthur starts with a premise he never documents, and extrapolates on that to absurd levels. This is truly an astonishing article.)
------------------

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 26, 2017. -ed.

Go with your gut.

That might be good advice when shopping for shoes online, but it’s not a reliable means for interpreting or understanding God’s Word. Too many people in the church today trust the inclinations of the upper abdomen to be the final arbiter that determines both when God is speaking and what He is saying. (A preposterous and undocumented claim.)

As we saw last time, (We evaluated that article here.)

that is a dangerous approach—one that will likely lead to spiritual confusion and chaos. (Dr. MacArthur constructs a straw man and deems it dangerous. Hmm.)

If we turn our faith into an entirely subjective exercise, ("Entirely?" Who does this?)

we’re left with no reliable way to determine what is actually true. (Well of course. If something is "entirely subjective" there is no way to evaluate it. This is a tautology. And it remains to be documented that anyone is actually "entirely subjective.")

THREE WAYS THE PROSPERITY GOSPEL HAS INFECTED OUR CHURCHES by Stephen Kneale

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The Doctrinal Police seem to be obsessed with looking for bogeymen under every rock. They have caused large parts of the Church to become suspicious, hair-splitting, doctrinal exclusionists. They insist on absolute doctrinal conformity. Miss a small point and you're a heretic. Use the wrong word and you're branded an apostate.

We believe there should be room in the Church for any who have been saved and call upon the name of the Lord. 

This isn't to say that we accept any and all no matter what they believe. Rather, those who are our brothers and sisters should be honored and prayed for, not bludgeoned and left by the side of the road.

If the author simply made his points apart from blaming things on the prosperity gospel, well, we might tend to agree with him at points. But the issues of our prayer lives, our service, and our worship, can be fully dealt with via encouragement, instruction, and exhortation.

In addition, the author never quotes a single Scripture. We can only conclude that either there isn't a biblical case to be made, or that these points are nothing more than the author's ax to grind.

Finally, we note that every issue the author chronicles pre-dates the prosperity gospel by centuries.

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

Cessationism - Episode 11 - What about Impressions?

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