Found here. Some very good material.
-------------------------
Were it not for the fact that no less than the Apostle Paul himself commanded us not to quench the Spirit, who among us would ever have suggested that this is even within the realm of possibility? To suggest that the omnipotent Spirit of God, the third person of the Godhead, could ever be quenched and thus limited or hindered or in some manner restricted in what he might do in our lives and in the life of the local church is to tread on thin theological ice.
Yet in 1 Thessalonians 5 we are told that the Spirit has, in some sense, granted to the Christian the power and authority either to restrict or release what he does in the life of the local church. What are we to do with this? Certainly the Holy Spirit can accomplish all that he wills to accomplish. But it is no less true that in certain instances, especially when it comes to spiritual gifts, he will rarely, if ever, force himself upon us against our will or judgment.
To use Paul’s metaphor or analogy, the Spirit is like a fire whose flame we must be careful not to quench or extinguish. He is not literally or metaphysically a fire, but what he does in us and through us, says Paul, is analogous to the effect fire has on dry wood or hay or dead grass. The Holy Spirit wants to intensify the heat of his presence among us, to inflame our hearts and fill us with the warmth of his indwelling power. And Paul’s exhortation is a warning to all of us lest we be part of the contemporary bucket brigade that stands ready to douse his activity with the water of legalism and fear and extra-biblical rules and a flawed theology that without biblical warrant claims that his gifts have ceased and been withdrawn.
Sadly, there are people who, as soon as they feel the slightest tinge of warmth from the Spirit’s supernatural work, quickly grab their theological, confessional, and denominational fire hose and douse his flame! So let’s turn our attention to some ten ways this is done.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Monday, July 16, 2018
Not Tired of Winning Yet XLVII (the illogic of the Left) - by John C. Wright
Found here. I love this guy's writing.
-----------------------
I have heard Democrat talking heads solemnly repeating the talking point that Donald Trump, by trying to get NATO to strengthen its military spending, and trying to get Germany to stop giving money to Russia, is acting as a Russian agent, because maneuvering to impoverish Russia and cordon it about with a strong military is obviously in Russia’s best interest.
The phrase used was that Donald Trump is destroying the international architecture of the postwar world, or something to that effect. Meanwhile, when I listen to what world leaders actually say, the exact opposite is happening. Teresa May, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s government of the United Kingdom, just announced her support for Trump’s meetings with Russia, with North Korea, and said the UK and the US were pursuing a wide-ranging free trade agreement.
Meanwhile, with their typical calm and even-toned understatement, the Dems have announced that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh means the end of the Republic, if not the end of all life on earth, as well as the destruction of ten thousand advanced civilizations throughout the Orion Arm of the galaxy.
Some of my conservative friends have expressed mild disappointment with this pick, since they would have preferred Ted Cruz or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI instead, someone who might have more clearly been ready and willing to overturn Roe v Wade. Both good choices, but I am willing to speculate on the logic behind Trump’s pick.
Now, my belief is not that Donald Trump is a genius who plays four-dimensional chess, nor a blundering fool whom kindly fate has merely by accident delivered to him one victory after another. I believe he is a businessman who thinks in the straightforward way of a businessman, and therefore the point of his moves is and will always remain invisible and incomprehensible to pundits and politicians who think in the elliptical way their professions require.
-----------------------
I have heard Democrat talking heads solemnly repeating the talking point that Donald Trump, by trying to get NATO to strengthen its military spending, and trying to get Germany to stop giving money to Russia, is acting as a Russian agent, because maneuvering to impoverish Russia and cordon it about with a strong military is obviously in Russia’s best interest.
The phrase used was that Donald Trump is destroying the international architecture of the postwar world, or something to that effect. Meanwhile, when I listen to what world leaders actually say, the exact opposite is happening. Teresa May, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s government of the United Kingdom, just announced her support for Trump’s meetings with Russia, with North Korea, and said the UK and the US were pursuing a wide-ranging free trade agreement.
Meanwhile, with their typical calm and even-toned understatement, the Dems have announced that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh means the end of the Republic, if not the end of all life on earth, as well as the destruction of ten thousand advanced civilizations throughout the Orion Arm of the galaxy.
Some of my conservative friends have expressed mild disappointment with this pick, since they would have preferred Ted Cruz or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI instead, someone who might have more clearly been ready and willing to overturn Roe v Wade. Both good choices, but I am willing to speculate on the logic behind Trump’s pick.
Now, my belief is not that Donald Trump is a genius who plays four-dimensional chess, nor a blundering fool whom kindly fate has merely by accident delivered to him one victory after another. I believe he is a businessman who thinks in the straightforward way of a businessman, and therefore the point of his moves is and will always remain invisible and incomprehensible to pundits and politicians who think in the elliptical way their professions require.
Friday, July 13, 2018
Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?
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.
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.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
The Dignity of Being a Sinner - by Eric Davis
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
This is the "I'm a sinner saved by grace" taken to the next step. Somehow we are supposed to believe that there is dignity in being labeled a sinner. Apparently we're supposed to grovel before God because of how evil we are, and celebrate the dignity of being this way.
But there is no dignity in being a sinner, contrary to the author's assertion.
It seems to be a stubbornly prevalent idea that we are lowly worms, not even deserving to be in the presence of God. Where does this idea come from? Well, one of Job's "friends," continually administering bad advice to Job. But these men are not to be trusted as purveyors of godly truth. Here's the passage, Job 25:1-5:
Otherwise, how could John tell us,
------------------
---------------------
This is the "I'm a sinner saved by grace" taken to the next step. Somehow we are supposed to believe that there is dignity in being labeled a sinner. Apparently we're supposed to grovel before God because of how evil we are, and celebrate the dignity of being this way.
But there is no dignity in being a sinner, contrary to the author's assertion.
It seems to be a stubbornly prevalent idea that we are lowly worms, not even deserving to be in the presence of God. Where does this idea come from? Well, one of Job's "friends," continually administering bad advice to Job. But these men are not to be trusted as purveyors of godly truth. Here's the passage, Job 25:1-5:
Then Bildad the Shuhite replied: 2 “Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. 3 Can his forces be numbered? Upon whom does his light not rise? 4 How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? 5 If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, 6 how much less man, who is but a maggot — a son of man, who is only a worm!”So, what is the truth about our status as Christians? Are we really dirty sinners? Is what Jeremiah says true about us as Christians? Je. 17:9:
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"Beyond cure." What does this mean? Is the condition of man's heart really beyond God's abilities? Of course not! We read in Ezekiel,
I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Ez. 11:19God has indeed done this thing. Ezekiel's word has come to pass. Something new has happened in our hearts. Ro. 5:5:
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.God did something about our hearts of stone. When we believed, we became new. 2Co. 5:17:
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!This is the status of those who have believed and received salvation. That's us. That's the new creation. We are no longer who we were. We are now simultaneously righteous and also in the process of transformation. He. 10:14:
...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.We should not regard ourselves as dirty sinners anymore. Yes, we still sin. That is why John says,
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1Jn. 1:8This is true. We are not without sin. But we must regard ourselves according to the truth of the Gospel. So yes, we sin; and, we are not sinners. Both are true.
Otherwise, how could John tell us,
No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 1Jn. 3:9Persisting in sin, that is, continuing to sin as though we were not saved, calls into question our status as new creations. New creations do not continue in their sin. It's a crucial distinction.
------------------
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Confirmation Bias: Why You Are Protecting Your False Beliefs - by Steven Kozar
Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------
This article is found at the bottom of many Pirate Christian posts. It is a pre-emptive dismissal of any and all responses anyone might make in refutation of the author's perspective. That is, to disagree with the author is to engage in "confirmation bias."
-----------------------
----------------------
This article is found at the bottom of many Pirate Christian posts. It is a pre-emptive dismissal of any and all responses anyone might make in refutation of the author's perspective. That is, to disagree with the author is to engage in "confirmation bias."
-----------------------
Monday, July 9, 2018
The Pastor Is the Primary Worship Leader.- Geoffrey R. Kirkland
Found here. My comments in bold.
-------------------
The author makes a statement about pastors that is completely lacking in biblical support, probably because he accepts the traditional role of pastors as the leader of the church. However the traditional role is not the same as the biblical role. We dicuss the roots of this understanding here.
Today's Church is built on a faulty model, a pyramidal hierarchy. The Bible teaches a different model, a team of leadership.
1Pe. 5:1-2:
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care...
1Ti. 5:17:
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.There is only a single mention of a pastor, in Ep. 4:11-13:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fu'lness of Christ.The leadership of the church should be a team, each ministering in the role and according to the grace the Holy Spirit has apportioned.
-------------------
Friday, July 6, 2018
The ad hominem fallacy is a sin - Edward Feser
Found here. A very good article.
----------------------
An argumentum ad hominem (or “argument to the man”) is the fallacy committed when, instead of addressing the merits of an argument someone presents you with, you attack the person himself – his motives, some purported character defect, or the like. This disreputable tactic has, of course, always been common in public controversies, but resort to the fallacy seems these days nearly to have eclipsed rational public discourse. A large segment of the country has made it a matter of policy never to engage its political opponents at the level of reason, but only ever to demonize them and shout them down. Even in the Church, recent years have seen the ad hominem routinely deployed against even the most respectful and scholarly critics of Pope Francis’s doctrinally problematic statements concerning divorce and remarriage, capital punishment, and other matters.
This is not a mere foible in those prone to it, or merely a regrettable aesthetic defect in a polity. It is sinful, sometimes gravely so.
What the ad hominem fallacy is (and is not)
To see why, it is important first to understand what an ad hominemfallacy is – and what it is not. As all logicians know, and as I explained at length in a post several years ago, merely calling someone a name, or calling attention to his character defects, is not an ad hominemfallacy and it is not necessarily morally objectionable. Sometimes a person merits a nasty description, and sometimes what is at issue is precisely his moral character. There is no ad hominem fallacy in judging someone to be dishonest, or feckless, or incompetent, or simply a scumbag, and then going on to say so. Those may just be the facts, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with calling attention to such facts.
An ad hominem fallacy is committed when what is at issue is not a person or his character, but rather the truth or falsity of something he said or the cogency of some argument he gave, and instead of addressing that, you attack him or his character. If I call Charles Manson a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, I have not committed an ad hominem fallacy, but simply stated the facts. If Charles Manson gives me an argument purporting to show (for example) that Amoris Laetitia is hard to reconcile with Christ’s teaching on marriage or that immigration laws need to be enforced, and in response to that argument all I do is call him a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, then I have committed an ad hominem fallacy.
----------------------
An argumentum ad hominem (or “argument to the man”) is the fallacy committed when, instead of addressing the merits of an argument someone presents you with, you attack the person himself – his motives, some purported character defect, or the like. This disreputable tactic has, of course, always been common in public controversies, but resort to the fallacy seems these days nearly to have eclipsed rational public discourse. A large segment of the country has made it a matter of policy never to engage its political opponents at the level of reason, but only ever to demonize them and shout them down. Even in the Church, recent years have seen the ad hominem routinely deployed against even the most respectful and scholarly critics of Pope Francis’s doctrinally problematic statements concerning divorce and remarriage, capital punishment, and other matters.
This is not a mere foible in those prone to it, or merely a regrettable aesthetic defect in a polity. It is sinful, sometimes gravely so.
What the ad hominem fallacy is (and is not)
To see why, it is important first to understand what an ad hominemfallacy is – and what it is not. As all logicians know, and as I explained at length in a post several years ago, merely calling someone a name, or calling attention to his character defects, is not an ad hominemfallacy and it is not necessarily morally objectionable. Sometimes a person merits a nasty description, and sometimes what is at issue is precisely his moral character. There is no ad hominem fallacy in judging someone to be dishonest, or feckless, or incompetent, or simply a scumbag, and then going on to say so. Those may just be the facts, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with calling attention to such facts.
An ad hominem fallacy is committed when what is at issue is not a person or his character, but rather the truth or falsity of something he said or the cogency of some argument he gave, and instead of addressing that, you attack him or his character. If I call Charles Manson a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, I have not committed an ad hominem fallacy, but simply stated the facts. If Charles Manson gives me an argument purporting to show (for example) that Amoris Laetitia is hard to reconcile with Christ’s teaching on marriage or that immigration laws need to be enforced, and in response to that argument all I do is call him a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, then I have committed an ad hominem fallacy.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
What? No Way! - Part 2 (Women speaking in church) - by The Pepper Ginder
Found here. Some very good information here about the role of women in the church. While I may not entirely agree, I appreciate the author's approach.
-----------------------
It's usually much easier to knock something down than to build it up. In my last post I laid out the reasons why I strongly disagree with Kris Vallotton's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don't want to be guilty of just tearing Kris's argument apart without presenting my own interpretation. Let's start with my translation, not just of the two "silence" verses, but the larger section of which they're part.
Paul continues this line of reasoning by laying down some ground rules for Spirit-inspired messages in church.
-----------------------
It's usually much easier to knock something down than to build it up. In my last post I laid out the reasons why I strongly disagree with Kris Vallotton's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don't want to be guilty of just tearing Kris's argument apart without presenting my own interpretation. Let's start with my translation, not just of the two "silence" verses, but the larger section of which they're part.
For you can all prophesy, one at a time, so that everybody can learn and be encouraged. The spirits of prophets are under the control of the prophets. For God doesn't bring confusion, but peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in church, for they aren't permitted to speak, but they should be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to ask something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it's disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.
Has the word of God only come from you? Are you the only ones to receive it? If anyone thinks he's a prophet or spiritual, he should recognize that what I'm writing is the Lord's command. If anyone ignores this, he will be ignored.
So, brothers, eagerly desire to prophesy, and don't stop anyone from speaking in tongues, but let everything be done properly and in good order. (1 Corinthians 14:31-40)I think the most important key to understanding these verses is to see what Paul's primary concern is in chapter 14. Let's follow the argument of the chapter. Paul spends the first 25 verses talking about messages in tongues versus prophecies. His point is that if people give messages in tongues but no interpretation is given, it won't help people in the church. Even though he thinks there is definitely a place for praying in tongues without an interpretation, he doesn't think that place is in church. One thing that seems pretty clear from this is that there must have been times in the church at Corinth when people were giving messages in tongues without any interpretation being provided. As you can imagine, this was causing confusion, especially to anyone present who wasn't a believer. Paul wants this confusion to stop.
Paul continues this line of reasoning by laying down some ground rules for Spirit-inspired messages in church.
No more than two or three messages in tongues should be given, and none at all should be given unless there is someone present with the gift of interpreting tongues.
Prophecies should be limited to two or three as well, with people considering carefully what is said.
If one prophet is speaking, and someone else receives a prophetic message, the first speaker should stop talking and sit down.What picture does this give you of the Corinthian church? I picture a place where there were many messages in tongues, with the congregation having no clue what was being said. I picture lots of prophecies, with times when more than one person was speaking at once. In general, it sounds to me as though the Corinthians were very excited about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul is not at all trying to discourage them, but he wants the people to use their gifts in a way that will do the most to build other people up. He wants order.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Hillsongs' "So WIll I" and evolution
"So Will I" is all over Christian radio, and we think deservedly so to a large degree. It is a beautiful expression of the Creator, well written and excellently performed.
Except for verse 2. Some people are in a lather over the word "evolving." Here it is:
All nature and science
Follow the sound of Your voice
Except for verse 2. Some people are in a lather over the word "evolving." Here it is:
All nature and science
Follow the sound of Your voice
And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I
Let's let Joel Houston, worship leader for Hillsongs NYC, explain via his tweets:
Let's let Joel Houston, worship leader for Hillsongs NYC, explain via his tweets:
Monday, July 2, 2018
What is the gift of discernment & how it is supposed to work in the church? Part 2 - Elizabeth Prata
Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------
In part 1 of this two-part series, yesterday I’d written about what discernment is, and that there is discernment as a skill that all Christians are to train themselves in (Hebrews 5:14), and discernment as a gift of the Spirit given to some. (1 Corinthians 12:10). (Let's quote the passage. 1Co. 12:7-11:
------------------
In part 1 of this two-part series, yesterday I’d written about what discernment is, and that there is discernment as a skill that all Christians are to train themselves in (Hebrews 5:14), and discernment as a gift of the Spirit given to some. (1 Corinthians 12:10). (Let's quote the passage. 1Co. 12:7-11:
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, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.The author is a cessationist, yet appeals to a passage in support of her gift, which also contains gifts she doesn't believe in. Notice that Paul begins this with "Now to each one..." That is, each person has some sort of spiritual gift, and that all these mentioned are in operation in someone in the Body. So how is it the author can find scriptural support for her gift of discernment, but dismiss the balance of the passage?)
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe - R.C. Sproul
Found here. Our comments in bold.
The five points of Calvinism, TULIP, are as follows:
They are particularly proud of the sovereignty of God, that is, that God chose the elect, and those people are pre-ordained to be saved. Because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. No, our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace. Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.
What strikes us about Calvinism is how much it doesn't matter. Yes, Calvinism doesn't matter. Practically speaking, none of the points have any bearing on our day-to-day faith.
Why? Imagine that TULIP had never proposed as a doctrine. Nothing of them were ever offered to you for consideration. You were unaware of these principles. So, would TULIP change the fact that you need salvation? Would it change your standing before God? If you are saved, would it change the way you lead your life? No. Would you still share your faith, pray for the sick, and be generous with your time and your money? Yes.
None of these principles, even if true, would matter in the least. You would still be lost and in need of a Savior, you would still be called to lead a holy life, you would still be obligated to help the widow and the orphan, you would still be required to study the Word and live a life pleasing to God. TULIP is nothing more than arcane doctrinal hairsplitting, an intellectual exercise used to determine Us vs. Them.
- Total depravity
- Unconditional election
- Limited atonement
- Irresistible grace
- Perseverance of the saints
They are particularly proud of the sovereignty of God, that is, that God chose the elect, and those people are pre-ordained to be saved. Because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. No, our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace. Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.
What strikes us about Calvinism is how much it doesn't matter. Yes, Calvinism doesn't matter. Practically speaking, none of the points have any bearing on our day-to-day faith.
Why? Imagine that TULIP had never proposed as a doctrine. Nothing of them were ever offered to you for consideration. You were unaware of these principles. So, would TULIP change the fact that you need salvation? Would it change your standing before God? If you are saved, would it change the way you lead your life? No. Would you still share your faith, pray for the sick, and be generous with your time and your money? Yes.
None of these principles, even if true, would matter in the least. You would still be lost and in need of a Savior, you would still be called to lead a holy life, you would still be obligated to help the widow and the orphan, you would still be required to study the Word and live a life pleasing to God. TULIP is nothing more than arcane doctrinal hairsplitting, an intellectual exercise used to determine Us vs. Them.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
What Is Discernment? - Sinclair Ferguson
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------
On the whole a pretty good article, but glaringly incomplete. The author completely omits an explanation of the biblical gits of discernment, which is given by the Holy Spirit specifically to service the Body. 1Co. 12:7-10:
The Holy Spirit is the source of all discernment. 1Co. 2:14:
---------------------
-------------------
On the whole a pretty good article, but glaringly incomplete. The author completely omits an explanation of the biblical gits of discernment, which is given by the Holy Spirit specifically to service the Body. 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, to another distinguishing between spirits...The word "distinguish" is διάκρισις, Definition: distinguishing; hence: deciding, passing sentence on; the act of judgment, discernment.
The Holy Spirit is the source of all discernment. 1Co. 2:14:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.Here the Greek word is ἀνακρίνω Definition: I examine, inquire into, investigate, question.
We are commanded to test spirits as well. 1Jn. 4:1:
This is a far cry from the so called "discernment" ministries, which simply lambaste people they disagree with. Discernment in reality is the primary activity of those who are gifted with discernment, and it operates in the local Body to ensure correct teaching, the detection of spiritual forces of darkness that might be at work in the gathering, and for things like exhortation and deliverance.
But in the NT, we just don't see any examples of people going around evaluating and criticizing other churches and ministries. We do see discernment at work as Paul goes around to those churches he is apostle over. We see discernment at work in evangelism (Simon the Sorcerer is a good example), and we see discernment at work in the church to test prophetic words.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.The word here is δοκιμάζω Definition: I put to the test, prove, examine; I distinguish by testing, approve after testing...
This is a far cry from the so called "discernment" ministries, which simply lambaste people they disagree with. Discernment in reality is the primary activity of those who are gifted with discernment, and it operates in the local Body to ensure correct teaching, the detection of spiritual forces of darkness that might be at work in the gathering, and for things like exhortation and deliverance.
But in the NT, we just don't see any examples of people going around evaluating and criticizing other churches and ministries. We do see discernment at work as Paul goes around to those churches he is apostle over. We see discernment at work in evangelism (Simon the Sorcerer is a good example), and we see discernment at work in the church to test prophetic words.
Lastly, the author will assert that "judgmentalism" is bad, but judgment is ok. He does not tell us the difference.
---------------------
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Clarity Not Charity - by Tim Bates (The song "Reckless Love")
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------
The song under scrutiny is "Reckless Love," by Cory Asbury. The lyrics read:
-------------------
The song under scrutiny is "Reckless Love," by Cory Asbury. The lyrics read:
Thursday, June 14, 2018
What Really Happened on the Cross? Part 1 Sacrifice and Propitiation - by MIKE RICCARDI
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------
We've previously commented on the atonement here, here, and especially, here.
-----------------
The atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross stands at the very epicenter of Christianity. It is no exaggeration to say that the cross-work of Christ is the heart of the gospel. When the apostle Paul summarized the gospel he preached, he encapsulated it by speaking of the atonement: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). The cross is the content of the gospel itself, for “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). The gospel message by which we are saved is “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18). The eighteenth-century slave-ship captain turned Puritan preacher, John Newton, captured it well when he said, “I advise you by all means to keep close to the atonement. The doctrine of the cross is the sun in the system of truth.”
One way to “keep close” to the atonement is to ensure we understand precisely what happened on the cross. We’re likely familiar with the events of the crucifixion, but the significance of those events is so boundless that it will be the theme of the saints’ praise for eternity (Rev 4–5). Despite this, there has been, historically, and there is, today, great confusion concerning this central and essential doctrine of the Christian faith. We must therefore ask of the text of Scripture, “What really happened on the cross? What is it that Jesus has accomplished in His work of atonement? What is the biblical significance of what our Savior has done on our behalf?”
-------------
We've previously commented on the atonement here, here, and especially, here.
-----------------
The atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross stands at the very epicenter of Christianity. It is no exaggeration to say that the cross-work of Christ is the heart of the gospel. When the apostle Paul summarized the gospel he preached, he encapsulated it by speaking of the atonement: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). The cross is the content of the gospel itself, for “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). The gospel message by which we are saved is “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18). The eighteenth-century slave-ship captain turned Puritan preacher, John Newton, captured it well when he said, “I advise you by all means to keep close to the atonement. The doctrine of the cross is the sun in the system of truth.”
One way to “keep close” to the atonement is to ensure we understand precisely what happened on the cross. We’re likely familiar with the events of the crucifixion, but the significance of those events is so boundless that it will be the theme of the saints’ praise for eternity (Rev 4–5). Despite this, there has been, historically, and there is, today, great confusion concerning this central and essential doctrine of the Christian faith. We must therefore ask of the text of Scripture, “What really happened on the cross? What is it that Jesus has accomplished in His work of atonement? What is the biblical significance of what our Savior has done on our behalf?”
The cross is not a ransom payment to Satan; the chief captive of hell is in no position to demand ransom payments from God. The cross is not an illustration of God’s general moral government of the world. Still less is the cross God’s declaration of the value and worth of humanity, except as it testifies to the depth of our sinfulness. Neither is the cross merely a cosmic victory of good over evil or a good example for Christians to imitate. Most fundamentally, the cross is a work of penal substitution—the Lord Jesus suffering the penalty for the sins of His people as a substitute for them. In His great love, the Father appointed the Son to stand in our place, to bear our sin, to carry our guilt, to receive our punishment, and thereby to satisfy the righteous wrath of God against us. (We do not agree Jesus was punished. God never punished Him.
There is a great difference between "bear our sin" and "receive our punishment." Jesus indeed carried our sin, as one might take out the garbage. Col. 2:13-14:
There is a great difference between "bear our sin" and "receive our punishment." Jesus indeed carried our sin, as one might take out the garbage. Col. 2:13-14:
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."Took it away" is the Greek word αἴρω which is I raise, lift up, take away, remove. Jesus literally carried our sins like a bundle on His shoulders to the cross. There is absolutely no hint that God punished Jesus in any way. God was never mad at Jesus.)
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Judge Everything - by John MacArthur
Found here.
-----------------------
I am so pleased to be able to offer a John MacArthur article without commentary. Ordinarily I find so many whoppers that I am pressed to respond. But not here.
-------------------------
False teachers flourish where there is no scrutiny. That’s why so many of them set up camp in environments where there is little to no biblical discernment—where God’s Word is nothing more than a supplement to personal experience, anecdote, and embellishment.
Why do the heavy lifting of careful Bible study when one can simply “let go” and be drawn into the gravitational pull of a religious guru? Our short attention span and quick-fix culture is easily preyed upon by charismatic sideshows, feel-good philosophy, and the television hucksters of modern pseudo-Christianity.
But we are derelict in our Christian duty if we allow that to happen to us and our churches. When the apostle Paul says to “examine everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), he is calling on all Christians to practice careful biblical discernment in all realms of life.
That may surprise some Christians who see discernment as uniquely a pastoral responsibility. It is certainly true that pastors and elders have an even greater duty to be discerning than the average layperson. Most of the calls to discernment in the New Testament are issued to church leaders (1 Timothy 4:6-7, 13, 16; Titus 1:9). Every elder is required to be skilled in teaching truth and able to refute unsound doctrine.
-------------------------
False teachers flourish where there is no scrutiny. That’s why so many of them set up camp in environments where there is little to no biblical discernment—where God’s Word is nothing more than a supplement to personal experience, anecdote, and embellishment.
Why do the heavy lifting of careful Bible study when one can simply “let go” and be drawn into the gravitational pull of a religious guru? Our short attention span and quick-fix culture is easily preyed upon by charismatic sideshows, feel-good philosophy, and the television hucksters of modern pseudo-Christianity.
But we are derelict in our Christian duty if we allow that to happen to us and our churches. When the apostle Paul says to “examine everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), he is calling on all Christians to practice careful biblical discernment in all realms of life.
That may surprise some Christians who see discernment as uniquely a pastoral responsibility. It is certainly true that pastors and elders have an even greater duty to be discerning than the average layperson. Most of the calls to discernment in the New Testament are issued to church leaders (1 Timothy 4:6-7, 13, 16; Titus 1:9). Every elder is required to be skilled in teaching truth and able to refute unsound doctrine.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Lessons From a Prayer Warrior - by Mike Phay
Found here. A very good article.
-------------------
This is not an article for spiritual giants who spend three hours a day on their knees, attend every prayer meeting, and pack each spare moment with petitions and praises.
If this is you, feel free to stop reading now (and pray for the rest of us).
This is an article for those of us who think the word “PRAY” is the most jarring four-letter word uttered in the church. It’s for those of us who struggle to pray, who are afraid to pray, or who feel guilty about our crummy prayer lives.
I get it. I struggle to pray, too. I don’t consider myself a prayer warrior or a prayer giant. I’m more of a prayer toddler.
But I want to learn to pray. Not set any prayer records—just learn to pray. I want to be a man known for prayer. When you don’t know how to do something, you ask an expert. So that’s what I did.
This is not an article for spiritual giants who spend three hours a day on their knees, attend every prayer meeting, and pack each spare moment with petitions and praises.
If this is you, feel free to stop reading now (and pray for the rest of us).
This is an article for those of us who think the word “PRAY” is the most jarring four-letter word uttered in the church. It’s for those of us who struggle to pray, who are afraid to pray, or who feel guilty about our crummy prayer lives.
I get it. I struggle to pray, too. I don’t consider myself a prayer warrior or a prayer giant. I’m more of a prayer toddler.
But I want to learn to pray. Not set any prayer records—just learn to pray. I want to be a man known for prayer. When you don’t know how to do something, you ask an expert. So that’s what I did.
Friday, June 8, 2018
More thoughts from an 80 year old - reflections from the 1980s
6/10/85 - Be still and know I am God. Your guidance is for one day at a time. The future you could not bear otherwise. I am with you and you will have the necessary strength. All is secondary to My plan. Have more faith.
8/29/85 - Praise and thanksgiving are to be used every day. Love more. Be cheerful and happy in the Lord at all times. I am directing your paths. Be obedient.
8/29/85 - Praise and thanksgiving are to be used every day. Love more. Be cheerful and happy in the Lord at all times. I am directing your paths. Be obedient.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
The Argument from the Bible (1996) - By Theodore M. Drange
Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------------
Another analytical attempt at debunking the Bible. Many of the author's arguments can be dismissed on their face because a lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Some can be dismissed because there is no issue. And had the author took some time to look up what's already been written about some of these, he wouldn't even bother to include them.
Others we will examine in greater detail.
This is a very long article. I'm not quite sure I will be able to critique it in its entirety. However, it is very clear that the author's objections are of a sort that can be easily dealt with. Given that, we can safely assume that what I do not get to will be of the same vein.
I might return to this post from time to time to add commentary.
-------------------
Almost all evangelical Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was divinely inspired and represents God's main revelation to humanity. They also believe that the Bible contains special features which constitute evidence of its divine inspiration. This would be a use of the Bible to prove God's existence within natural theology rather than within revealed theology, since the book's features are supposed to be evident even to (open-minded) skeptics. Furthermore, since a divinely inspired work must be true, those features are thereby also evidence of the Bible's truth, and thus can be used in support of Christianity as the one true religion. When expressed that way, the reasoning can be construed as an argument both for God's existence and for the truth of the gospel message from the alleged special features of the Bible. We may refer to it as "the Argument from the Bible". Although almost all evangelical Christians agree with it at least to some extent, it is an argument that is for the most part ignored by professional philosophers of religion. One explanation for such neglect is that the argument can be easily refuted. In this essay/outline, I shall try to sketch how such a refutation might be formulated, though I am sure many will feel that I am attacking a strawman. (I believe there are millions of such "strawpeople" out there!)
The Argument from the Bible is usually regarded as a kind of "cumulative-case" argument. It may be formulated as follows:
Another analytical attempt at debunking the Bible. Many of the author's arguments can be dismissed on their face because a lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Some can be dismissed because there is no issue. And had the author took some time to look up what's already been written about some of these, he wouldn't even bother to include them.
Others we will examine in greater detail.
This is a very long article. I'm not quite sure I will be able to critique it in its entirety. However, it is very clear that the author's objections are of a sort that can be easily dealt with. Given that, we can safely assume that what I do not get to will be of the same vein.
I might return to this post from time to time to add commentary.
-------------------
Almost all evangelical Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was divinely inspired and represents God's main revelation to humanity. They also believe that the Bible contains special features which constitute evidence of its divine inspiration. This would be a use of the Bible to prove God's existence within natural theology rather than within revealed theology, since the book's features are supposed to be evident even to (open-minded) skeptics. Furthermore, since a divinely inspired work must be true, those features are thereby also evidence of the Bible's truth, and thus can be used in support of Christianity as the one true religion. When expressed that way, the reasoning can be construed as an argument both for God's existence and for the truth of the gospel message from the alleged special features of the Bible. We may refer to it as "the Argument from the Bible". Although almost all evangelical Christians agree with it at least to some extent, it is an argument that is for the most part ignored by professional philosophers of religion. One explanation for such neglect is that the argument can be easily refuted. In this essay/outline, I shall try to sketch how such a refutation might be formulated, though I am sure many will feel that I am attacking a strawman. (I believe there are millions of such "strawpeople" out there!)
1. The Argument Formulated
The Argument from the Bible is usually regarded as a kind of "cumulative-case" argument. It may be formulated as follows:
(1) The Bible contains a large number of prophecies of future events which have been remarkably fulfilled. (Agree.)
(2) The Bible does not contain any unfulfilled prophecies. (Disagree.)
(3) The only reasonable explanation for the above facts is that God used his foreknowledge to make the prophecies and inspired the authors of the Bible to record them. (Agree.)
(4) The Bible contains a convincing eye-witness account of the resurrection and subsequent appearances of Jesus of Nazareth. (Agree.)
(5) The only reasonable explanation for the above fact is that Jesus was and is a divine being, which shows the truth of the Bible and its gospel message. (Agree.)
(6) The Bible contains no contradictions. (Agree and disagree.)
(7) The Bible contains amazing facts about the planet earth, compatible with modern science, which were unknown in ancient times. (Agree and disagree.) Also, the Bible contains no conflicts with modern science or errors of a factual nature. (Agree and disagree.)
(8) The Bible contains a perfect morality, and no ethical defects. (Agree.)
(9) The only reasonable explanation for facts (6)-(8), above, is that the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself. (Agree and disagree.)
(10) Putting together results (3), (5), and (9), above, we may infer that the Bible is not a purely manmade work, but divinely inspired, which establishes the truth of Christianity and its gospel message. (Agree.)Other premises are sometimes appealed to in the formulation of the argument. For example, Henry M. Morris places much emphasis on the alleged uniqueness of the Bible. [1] He also mentions what he takes to be remarkable numerical designs in it. [2] But for our purposes, the given formulation should suffice. It includes what are regarded to be the main factors within the Argument from the Bible. (We have some additional criteria.
- The historical accuracy of the Bible
- The huge variety and numerousness of manuscripts placed close to the events
- The presentation of main characters that include all their flaws.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The Bible is sufficient. - Excerpt from Tim Challies
Found here.
----------
I wonder if the author is cleverly phrasing his statements in order to sort of say something without saying it. He writes:
----------
I wonder if the author is cleverly phrasing his statements in order to sort of say something without saying it. He writes:
- The Bible is the final and sufficient authority on matters of life and faith.
- We do not need any other revelations from God to complete the Christian faith.
- By saying it is the final authority, we acknowledge that other forms of Special Revelation have ceased.
- We no longer expect to receive God’s revelation by dreams, visions or by hearing His voice directly.
- The Bible is complete and perfect, meaning that no more books can be added to it or taken from it.
Friday, June 1, 2018
Three Bible verses that say the Bible is NOT God’s word! - by Scepcop
Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------
It's not often you come across an atheist who quotes the Bible, expounds on the ideas contained in those quotes, and then draws reasonable and discuss-able conclusions from those ideas, all without excessive mocking or derision. Such is the author of today's article.
His presentation is not without its flaws. Ultimately, the author deems the Bible to be unremarkable and unprovable. But such a standard is one not possible for any document from antiquity.
For example, we cannot prove the Constitution was written by James Madison. We have no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses to interview, no photographs. All we have is historical documentary evidence. It is unprovable, therefore, that James Madison wrote the Constitution.
So of course we can't prove that God inspired the Bible. We can only read it for ourselves, study the original languages, read apologists and critics, and reach our own conclusions. We think the average person who retains a balanced and unbiased approach to the Scriptures, will conclude they are indeed unique, worthy of devotion, and quite possibly the answer to all the questions of life.
-------------------
Argument # 1: The Bible is the infallible word of God.
This is the first and most fundamental claim that Christians make when Evangelizing. It is just taken for granted that it is true, but if you analyze the weight of the evidence for this doctrine, you find that it is in actuality both weak and nearly non-existent. First of all, the first sentence of this argument, that the “Bible is the word of God” implies that the text in the Bible books are God’s words verbatim. However, we all know, including the Christians, that humans wrote those books. The only difference is that Christians believe that the humans (the identity of many of them are unknown) who wrote the Bible were guided by God the Holy Spirit, and therefore, they are God’s words verbatim and without flaw.(That may indeed be the implication in the author's mind, but it's not the only thing that can be inferred. Other reasonable inferences are
Now these are huge assumptions for one thing. It would take A LOT to prove or even demonstrate such outlandish claims literally. (The author has not demonstrated that these are outlandish claims. And in fact voluminous scholarship has been undertaken over the centuries to demonstrate these very things. The field is apologetics, sir.)
However, not only do Christian Evangelists make these assumptions, but they just assume it to be true as well without any real basis. (The author has not demonstrated Christians are making assumptions, nor has he established that there is no basis. So far, he has only made summary statements.)
In general, the issue is not questioned or analyzed in the church as to whether the Bible is God’s word or not. It is simply ASSUMED to be so. It’s a GIVEN. (Another summary statement. As we mentioned, there is a substantial field of study in Christian apologetics.)
And it rests on a very shaky foundation, much more so than they could imagine. What most Christians don't realize and never think about is that God himself never actually told them directly that the Bible was his word. (Undocumented assertion.)
It's not often you come across an atheist who quotes the Bible, expounds on the ideas contained in those quotes, and then draws reasonable and discuss-able conclusions from those ideas, all without excessive mocking or derision. Such is the author of today's article.
His presentation is not without its flaws. Ultimately, the author deems the Bible to be unremarkable and unprovable. But such a standard is one not possible for any document from antiquity.
For example, we cannot prove the Constitution was written by James Madison. We have no DNA evidence, no eyewitnesses to interview, no photographs. All we have is historical documentary evidence. It is unprovable, therefore, that James Madison wrote the Constitution.
So of course we can't prove that God inspired the Bible. We can only read it for ourselves, study the original languages, read apologists and critics, and reach our own conclusions. We think the average person who retains a balanced and unbiased approach to the Scriptures, will conclude they are indeed unique, worthy of devotion, and quite possibly the answer to all the questions of life.
-------------------
Argument # 1: The Bible is the infallible word of God.
This is the first and most fundamental claim that Christians make when Evangelizing. It is just taken for granted that it is true, but if you analyze the weight of the evidence for this doctrine, you find that it is in actuality both weak and nearly non-existent. First of all, the first sentence of this argument, that the “Bible is the word of God” implies that the text in the Bible books are God’s words verbatim. However, we all know, including the Christians, that humans wrote those books. The only difference is that Christians believe that the humans (the identity of many of them are unknown) who wrote the Bible were guided by God the Holy Spirit, and therefore, they are God’s words verbatim and without flaw.(That may indeed be the implication in the author's mind, but it's not the only thing that can be inferred. Other reasonable inferences are
- The Bible is filtered through the personalities of the writers, yet is still inspired and trustworthy
- The Bible captures the essence of what God wanted humankind to know and is sufficient for communicating His purposes towards us
- The Bible is wholly written by man, yet God moved through those writings
- A combination of any of these.)
Now these are huge assumptions for one thing. It would take A LOT to prove or even demonstrate such outlandish claims literally. (The author has not demonstrated that these are outlandish claims. And in fact voluminous scholarship has been undertaken over the centuries to demonstrate these very things. The field is apologetics, sir.)
However, not only do Christian Evangelists make these assumptions, but they just assume it to be true as well without any real basis. (The author has not demonstrated Christians are making assumptions, nor has he established that there is no basis. So far, he has only made summary statements.)
In general, the issue is not questioned or analyzed in the church as to whether the Bible is God’s word or not. It is simply ASSUMED to be so. It’s a GIVEN. (Another summary statement. As we mentioned, there is a substantial field of study in Christian apologetics.)
And it rests on a very shaky foundation, much more so than they could imagine. What most Christians don't realize and never think about is that God himself never actually told them directly that the Bible was his word. (Undocumented assertion.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)