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.)
(...) (A long, anecdotal story deleted.)
Outlandish manifestations are ubiquitous among continuationist churches. All a person has to do to see what I mean is search Youtube, and in a matter of a few clicks, you will see videos of continuationists gone wild; or mad, depending upon how you think about it. (We belatedly have noticed a second kind of a persistent, yet subtle manipulative technique being employed by the author. We already observed him describing the "issue" of continuationism with non-interchangeable descriptors: Primary issue. Core doctrine. Theological error. Blasphemy. False Gospel. Not second-tier. Heresy.
Now we see he is doing the same thing with the names of the groups themselves. Charismatic = Pentecostal = continuationist = crazies. Our lazy and stereotyping author, not bothering with a biblical argument, has now managed to sidestep any obligation he might have had to account for the fact that there is a broad variety and large numbers of continuationists who aren't Pentecostal, bouncing off the walls, charismatic, etc.
In fact, there are large numbers of continuationists who call themselves cessationists, and a large number of continuationists who act like cessationists.
We will never find these nuances in the author's lengthy and pedantic presentation, now in its third part.
His technique is a tried-and-true strategy, one typically used by the political Left: Label and dismiss. It's rather distressing to observe a Christian use these tactics.)
What I find to be truly troubling about those scenes is that continuationists will insist it is a genuine move of the Spirit. (Undocumented statement. We no longer trust the author to tell us the unadorned truth. Therefore, every unsupported statement he makes will now be summarily dismissed.)
Moreover, if anyone were to offer criticism or challenge the biblical precedent for such behavior, that person is waved off as quenching the Spirit or some such nonsense. (Summarily dismissed.)
Yet that criticism is well earned. (Summarily dismissed.)
Why should people believe such oddball happenings are God moving? (Summarily dismissed.)
Why would the Holy Spirit lead Christians to behave in such an embarrassing, degrading fashion? (Summarily dismissed.)
How exactly does that behavior testify to God’s anointing or His presence? (Summarily dismissed.)
For instance, why is a woman violently shaking her head as she allegedly “prophesies” said to be “filled with the Spirit” or have “the anointing?” (Summarily dismissed.)
Seriously, why is that even Christian? (Summarily dismissed.)
Especially given the fact that genuine works of the Spirit include sobriety and self-control? (A fruit of the Spirit is sobriety? The author can't even trouble himself to quote the relevant Scripture, let alone represent it accurately.
Ga. 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.We realize it's a minor point. But this guy presents himself as a truth-teller.
And what about:
Ac. 2:15 These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!The behavior of these men was that of drunks, yet it was the Holy Spirit upon them. Hmm.
It's no wonder the author doesn't quote Scripture.Scripture disagrees with him.)
Yet such manifestations are witnessed in continuationist services all over the place. You can see further examples of what I mean HERE
What about worship services themselves? Many times the behavior displayed is indistinguishable from pagan occultism. (Summarily dismissed.)
(...)
What about the so-called baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues? (We discuss tongues here, much more thoroughly than the author's supposed refutation below. Plus we even quote Bible verses and translations of Greek words. Astounding we know, but this is what we think thoughtful commentators ought to do.)
Throughout church history, “tongue speaking” has accompanied the rising of nearly every fringe, heterodox splinter group and pseudo-Christian cult that has reared its ugly head. The sensible Christians recognized the babblings of “tongues” as an indicator that the folks were wackos, so such groups like the Montanists, Shakers, and Mormons, were always marked out and avoided.
However, con-artist revivalist preacher, Charles Parham, mainstreamed tongues among early, 20th century Pentecostals. Originally, it was believed those speaking in “tongues” were speaking real, genuine human languages, like Japanese, or Spanish, or Canadian. But when folks began to realize there was nothing supernatural whatsoever with their tongues, and that they were speaking nonsensical gibberish, tongue speaking enthusiasts did what the homosexual revisionist do now with the Bible to make it confirm sodomy: they changed the definition of words and verses. So the word “tongues,” which was understood as meaning human languages, was redefined to meaning ecstatic speech, or Holy Spirit anointed repetitive gibberish.
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment