The Lessons of the Twentieth Century - by John C. Wright

Found here. A very good article.

---------

A reader asks:

I’m used to hearing leftists say that capitalism (free markets) are driven by greed, and therefore bad. Now, since I know where their end game leads (mass graves), I don’t feel any serious need to rebut their claims. I’ve recently heard some sincere Christians, non-leftists, say something much similar, and I honestly didn’t know how to respond.

What would you say in response to this charge?

My response: What I would say depend on whether I am answering a Christian or a Leftist, because the same words, in their two different mouths, come from two different backgrounds, hence mean two different things.

If your Christian friends mean to say that anything, no matter how good, becomes an idol when elevated above God, then it becomes corrupt and evil, then I say “Amen.” They are exactly right.

The free market is a good thing the way marriage is a good thing. It is an institution calculated to channel otherwise harmful passions into productive uses: a way to harness the dragon to a chariot, so to speak. But keeping a harem is overdoing it. The bridegroom makes marriage an idol, a source of pain and woe, if he starts gathering wives and concubines like Solomon.

10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT OPEN THEISM - By: Sam Storms

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

I'm not entirely sure the author is accurately assessing the situation. I'm not a proponent of open theism, but I'm definitely not in agreement with TULIP either.

The problem, and the root of the debate is that somehow we must define God in a binary manner. If He's this, He's therefore not that. If He says A, He opposes B. 

But God is not binary. He's not 1 or 0, yes or no, up or down.  Repeat: God is not binary! This means that He does not "change his mind" Nu. 23:19 while simultaneously he will relent and "not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened." Ex. 32:14 

He "will take vengeance" De. 32:41 while at the same he says, "I am merciful." je. 3:12 

He says, "Esau I have hated," Mal. 1:3, but His great love and mercy abounds to all flesh (La. 3:22) 

There no contradiction. Paul even explains this to us in Ro. 9:13!

If we truly understood that the nature of God exceeds the bounds of logical and systematic classification, many of the doctrinal controversies would simply fade away, and articles like the below would be entirely unnecessary. 

Is God completely sovereign? Yes. Does He let humankind choose? Yes! 

Does God know the future? Yes. Does the future play out as it will? Yes!

Does He determine what we will do? Yes. Does He allow freedom? Yes!

What appears to be a conflict is nothing other than our Western minds locked into a system of thinking. It is our thinking that needs to change.
----------------

More thoughts from an 80 year old - Jeanette Swim

3/9/12 - Middle of the night thoughts after meditating on Mark 11:

Examples of the power of faith. There is nothing greater than the power of faith:

1. The faith to believe in God
2. The faith to know that God created you
3. The faith to know Christ died for you
4. The faith to know your sins are forgiven
5. The faith to know you are a child of God
6. The faith to know you are a joint heir with Christ
7. The faith to know God knows best
8. The faith to know you have eternal life

Don’t Title People “Pastor” If They Aren’t An Elder - by J.A. Medders

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is wrong. There is no Bible verse that tells us what the author asserts. He's wrong about church leadership and he's wrong about pastors.

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

ROB BELL, FUNDAMENTALIST: 5 IRONIES FROM THE NEW BELL FILM - by OWEN STRACHAN

Found here. A very perceptive article.

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

It’s the strangest thing: the heretic is actually the fundamentalist.
I just watched the new Rob Bell documentary. It’s entitled The Heretic. Here’s a better title for it: The Fundamentalist: Rob Bell Walks Through Airports. I’ll explain what I mean below, and encourage you to look for the early April podcast I just recorded with Isaac Dagneau of indoubt ministries.

After viewing The Heretic, I was struck by five ironies that relate not merely to Bell, but “progressive” post-evangelical gurus more broadly. Here they are.

First, the so-called “heretics” are the new fundamentalists. The worst people for a post-evangelical are the so-called “fundamentalists.” According to Bell and others in the film, fundamentalists believe in a woodenly literal Bible, emphasize the bloody death of Jesus, and get really excited about preaching on the damnation of sinners. Fundamentalists do not exhibit an open mind; they guard their fences with extreme watchfulness; they do not show generosity of spirit to others; they draw the lines of doctrine sharply, and are eager to keep the bad guys out.

Bell’s doctrine is heretical, as is well-known. In the documentary, he continues to espouse his soft universalism, he argues that the Bible has damaging teaching in it, and he downplays biblical morality. But here’s the curious thing: Bell actually operates and speaks as a “fundamentalist.” He does not exhibit an open mind toward conservative religious types; he censures them. He does not truly believe that everyone has an equal place in the Christian tradition; he believes that serious evangelicals are bad people. He does not show generosity in the film toward his disputants; over and over again, he drags them through the mud. He does not truly hold an open, flexible, free-thinking faith; he draws his own doctrinal lines precisely, and makes no bones about excluding conservatives. He talks openly—to my honest surprise—about helping “people read the Bible in a much better way.” That’s how a conservative talks!

It’s the strangest thing: the heretic is actually the fundamentalist.

Divine causality and human freedom - By Edward Feser

Found here. An interesting presentation.

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

Is the conception of divine causality defended by classical theists like Aquinas (and which I defend in Five Proofs of the Existence of God) compatible with our having free will? The reason they might seemnot to be compatible is that for Aquinas and those of like mind, nothing exists or operates even for an instant without God sustaining it in being and cooperating with its activity. The flame of a stove burner heats the water above it only insofar as God sustains the flame in being and imparts causal efficacy to it. And you scroll down to read the rest of this article only insofar as God sustains you in being and imparts causal efficacy to your will. But doesn’t this mean that you are not free to do otherwise? For isn’t it really God who is doing everything and you are doing nothing?

No, that doesn’t follow at all. Keep in mind, first of all, that Aquinas’s position is concurrentist rather than occasionalist. The flame really does heat the water, even if it cannot do so without God’s cooperation. You might say that God is in this way like the battery that keeps a toy car moving. The car’s motor really does move the wheels even if it cannot do so without the battery continually imparting power to it. It’s not that the battery alone moves the wheels and the motor does nothing. Similarly, it is not God alone heating the water. The flame, like the motor, makes a real contribution. Now, in voluntary action, the human will also makes a real contribution. It is not that God causes our actions and we do nothing. We really are the cause of them just as the flame really causes the water to boil, even if in both cases the causes act only insofar as God imparts efficacy to them.

A woman has a right to her own body - FB conversaton

Rod  shared The Conservative Millennial's video.

Yesterday at 3:20am · 

-2:14

Amelia  I just love how everyone and their effing brother point out every bad thing about planned parenthood and none of the good. Come with both sides not just the negative. Pph also promotes safe sex as well as exams to those who couldn't afford it otherwise. When they shut them down in the mid west they had HIV epidemics within a year. If folks want to focus on the bad then youve got to look at all medical facilities as well because pph isn't the only facility that performs abortions and that's not the only thing they do.

WHEREVER TWO OR THREE ARE GATHERED - (in context) - Ferocious Truth

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

The doctrinal police are at it again. Here Ferocious Truth getting it wrong about "where two or three are gathered in My name."
------------------

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
(Matthew 18:15-17, 20)

"So not about Jesus showing up or being 'in our midst.' It's about Church discipline.

"And church discipline is not about kicking people out of the Church. It's about keeping people IN the Church, but on God's terms and to the purity of the body."

Ferocious Truth would have us believe that the only time the "two or three" principle applies is when discipline needs to be discerned. Certainly it is true that the Bible establishes this principle when dealing with matters of sin and discipline (2 Co. 13:1, 1Ti. 5:19, He. 10:28, De. 17:6, De. 19:15), but Ferocious Truth leaves out some critical information. Their selective use of quotes omits these two verses:

Mt. 18:18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Mt. 18:19 “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

Notice the verses say "whatever" and "anything." Jesus is taking a Biblical principle about the need for witnesses and expanding it to include agreement on Whatever and anything. This is a very common technique used by Jesus to bring spiritual revelation to things. "You have heard it said" gets expanded to "but I say to you." 

We Don’t Need To Go Back To The Early Church- by J.A. Medders

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

You’ve heard people say, “We just need to go back to the early church.” We need to be more like the raw, organic, on-the-go church we see in the New Testament.

I disagree.

Now, I don’t totally disagree. Obviously, there are elements of the early church we should imitate. Fellowship, sacrifice, mission, unity, endurance in persecution, and more. But let’s not pretend that the early church didn’t have their problems. (Non sequitur. No one is pretending the early church was perfect.)

When we talk about the New Testament church we can fall prey to the chronological snobbery C.S. Lewis cautions us against. Oldness doesn’t constitute betterness. Nor does newness.

People often over-celebrate the early church in a veiled attack on the present church. “The church today is lame, too organized, not free-wheeling enough.” They look back on the early church and crave those early days. But Solomon tells us not to do such a thing. “Don’t say, ‘Why were the former days better than these?’” (Ecclesiastes 7:10). (Oh my. Perhaps if the author actually read Ecclesiastes he would discover that Solomon was explaining contentment, and admonishing us to not long for another time when things were better in our lives.

This has nothing at all to do with the state of the church today or 2000 years ago. We look in vain for any precept or Bible verse that tells us that wanting to improve today's church is a bad thing.)

Did Old Testament Law Force a Woman to Marry Her Rapist? - by Katie McCoy

Found here. An interesting article that refutes a major criticism leveled by the doubters and mockers.
-------------------

“If you were not already engaged when the rape occurred, you and your rapist were required to marry each other, without the possibility of divorce.” –Rachel Held Evans, author of A Year of Biblical Womanhood

“The laws [in Deut 22:23-29] do not in fact prohibit rape; they institutionalize it…” –Harold Washington, St. Paul School of Theology

“Your objective divinely inspired Bible is full of sanctioned rape.” –Official Twitter account of The Church of Satan.

It’s a frequent accusation about Scripture’s treatment of women.

But is it really what the Bible says?

Like all biblical law, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reflects God’s character; when we see the meaning of the Law, we see the heart of the Lawgiver. This law describes how the community of Israel responded when an unbetrothed virgin was violated through premarital sexual intercourse.[1]

The verb used to explain what happened to the woman is תָּפַשׂ (tāpas). Tāpas means to “lay hold [of],”[2] or “wield.”[3] Like חָזַק (ḥāzaq, the word for “force) used in vv. 25-27, tāpas can also be translated as “seize.”[4] Unlike ḥāzaq, however, tāpas does not carry the same connotation of force. As one Hebrew scholar explains, tāpas does not, in and of itself, infer assault; it means she was “held,” but not necessarily “attacked.’[5]

There’s a delicate difference between these two verbs, but it makes all the difference. Tāpas is often used to describe a capture.[6] Tāpas also appears in Genesis 39:12; when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, she seized (tāpas) him to wear down his resolve. This is distinct from ḥāzaq, which describes a forcible overpowering. Daniel Block notes that, unlike the law in verses 25-27, this law has neither a cry for help, nor an account of male violence.[7] It’s likely that the woman in verses 28-29 experienced overwhelming persuasion, perhaps an erosion of her resolve, but not necessarily a sexual assault.

Why the Common Good Disappeared (And How We Get it Back) - Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich is up to his usual obfuscation.
-----------------

In 1963 over 70 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing all or most of the time; nowadays only 16 percent do. (Let's see if he tells us why.)

There has been a similar decline in trust for corporations. In the late 1970s, 32 percent trusted big business, by 2016, only 18 percent did. (Same question. Why?)

Trust in banks has dropped from 60 percent to 27 percent. Trust in newspapers, from 51 percent to 20 percent. Public trust has also plummeted for nonprofits, universities, charities, and religious institutions. (Why?)

Why this distrust? As economic inequality has widened, the moneyed interests have spent more and more of their ever-expanding wealth to alter the rules of the game to their own advantage.

Too many leaders in business and politics have been willing to do anything to make more money or to gain more power – regardless of the consequences for our society. (Um, yeah. Greedy people are obviously a new phenomena on the scene. No one was greedy before. Suddenly we have more greed, and thus the trust in institutions has eroded... Actually, maybe trust has eroded because these institutions are not trustworthy. Particularly government.)

Keys to a praying church

Having been in many churches and prayer meetings over the years, I have found some recurring problems. If you want to develop a culture of prayer in your church, here's a good start:

Sermon text: How to be a worshiper

Scripture reading: Isaiah 61

I’m here this morning to proclaim freedom. Freedom in the house of God. Freedom for the captives. Liberty for the prisoners. Liberty for you. Liberty for the lost. Liberty for all who are desperate, sick, confused. Let the house be built up, let life return to the ruins. This is the year of the Lord’s favor. There’s good news to be proclaimed. Freedom. Freedom to worship. Praise instead of despair. Everlasting joy. Let gladness fill the church. Let rejoicing be our portion.

This scripture is permeated with hope. It imparts vision and purpose. We also see the principles of worship. That’s what I want to speak about today. I believe worship is one of the key things to living your life in Christ. We are pretty casual about how we talk about worship. We have a “worship time” every Sunday, we have “worship nights,” and we “worship” when we give our offerings. We use this word “worship,” but we really don’t talk about what it is.

Morpheus from The Matrix: “Do you want to know, what, it, is?”

Worship

So what is worship? Why should we worship? How do we worship? What does worship look like?

If you go to Africa and wander into a church, you’re going to be worshiping for several hours, or longer, in a mud brick hut with a thatched roof. If you go into a pentecostal church in South America, they’ll be bouncing off the walls. If you go to a cathedral in England, you’ll find a huge pipe organ, and the congregation will sing a couple of hymns in somber reverence. If you happen to be in Sydney, Australia, you might go to Hillsongs. There will be an impressive light show, a dozen well-produced and carefully choreographed songs expertly performed, and an enthusiastic crowd of worshipers.

There are some churches that regard drums as satanic, and some that regard contemporary worship music as evil. There is a large portion of Christendom wants respectful, reverent worship. If it isn’t a hymn, it isn’t in. 

There is a church for every taste, it seems. And frankly, for the most part it is really a matter of taste. A lot of what we want to see in worship is probably a result of what we grew up with, or what church we were saved in, or what experiences we have had. Worship in the Church today is probably more a cultural expression than it is a Bible–based one.

And that’s not necessarily bad. We have all “shopped around” for churches that suit our tastes. Every person has needs and preferences. Which means there ought to be a variety of churches.

What about us? Within this very congregation there are probably a dozen viewpoints about a proper worship service. Maybe worship to you is quiet contemplation and a whispered “amen.” Others of you are more demonstrative. Some of you are very demonstrative.

Clearly we don’t restrict worship to singing. That much is obvious. So what are all these people doing? What about raising hands, or flags, or shouting, or dancing? Why is all this happening?

It might seem odd if you’re not used to it. Does it go outside your comfort level? Is this really worship? Maybe you don’t know what to do. Should you feel obligated to what everyone else is doing? What should you do if someone is spontaneously singing? What about if the music is going long, or there’s no words, or the wrong words, up on the screen?

What if you don’t like the song, or the mix is bad, or someone plays a wrong note? Why don’t you "feel" it like other people? Are you a bad Christian if you don’t weep or dance when we sing? Should you close your eyes?

I have to confess: I don’t always get it right. One time during worship, I peeked. Once I said amen when I should have said hallelujah and ruined it for everybody.

So maybe it’s a struggle for you. Maybe these things are distracting to you. Or even offensive. Your background is different. Your experiences don’t include shouts of acclamation. Or kneeling. It could be that the whole idea of worship is hard for you. It may be that you aren’t at that place. Or something is going on in your life. What obstacles are preventing you from worshiping?

FB discussion: The second amendment

Dian: True..as part of a "well-regulated militia." Funny how that doesn't seem to be included...nor is the fact that the weapons of multiple destruction were not part of "arms" at that time. Maybe we can moderate the rhetoric a bit Without violating any rights...and maybe we could emphasize the "well-regulated" part of the Second Amendment?

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 12h

Me: "Well regulated" does not mean "passing laws." It means "organized and orderly." The militia consists of "...of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...". The People can be called upon to defend the country, even if they're not in the military. The militia, then, is the citizenry, who come when called to serve, with their weapons in hand. They are already armed.

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 4h

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find that salvation is about "accepting" Jesus. - Voddie Baucham

This was posted by a FB friend.

Transcript: Nowhere in the New Testament will you find that salvation is about "accepting" Jesus. Nowhere are you called to "accept Jesus" Nowhere in the New Testament will you find that salvation is about "asking Jesus into your heart'. Nowhere in the New Testament are you told to "ask Jesus into your heart". Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere. It's not there. What you are told again and again is to repent and believe.

***

It seems Mr. Baucham is against the use of certain words regarding how to get saved. And he is adamant. Emphatic, even.

This kind of moral certainty causes us to wonder what the motive is. What is Mr. Baucham reacting against? Perhaps he is against the easy-believism that seems to be permeating certain areas of Christendom. We don't know, but we can take his statements at face value and examine them.

Let's see what the Bible says about them.

Accept

So, is it really true that nowhere in the Bible are we told to accept Jesus? Let's review a few Scriptures:

Mk. 4:20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop — thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown.”

"Accept" is (paradechomai), to admit i. e. not to reject, to accept, receive...

Jn. 12:48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

"Accept" is lambanó to believe the testimony... 

Jn. 13:20 ... and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.

"Accept" again is lambanó in this case, to receive what is offered; not to refuse or reject... 

Ac. 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

"Accept" is apodechomai, to believe... 

Ac. 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

Ac. 22:17-18 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking. `Quick!’ he said to me. `Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’

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.

1Ti. 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst.

Ja. 1:21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent, and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion - by Dr. C. Truman Davis

This is a horrifying and difficult read. But you need to read it.

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

Crucifixion is the most painful death ever invented by man and is where we get our term “excruciating.” It was reserved primarily for the most vicious of male criminals. Our Lord refused the anesthetic wine which was offered to Him by the Roman soldiers in keeping with His promise recorded in Matthew 26: 29, “And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father.” Our Lord was stripped naked and His clothing divided by the Roman guards. This was in fulfillment of Psalm 21:19, “They parted My garments amongst them; and upon My vesture they cast lots.” The Crucifixion of Jesus guaranteed a horrific, slow, painful death.

Having been nailed the Cross, Our Lord now had an impossible anatomical position to maintain. Jesus’ knees were flexed at about 45 degrees, and He was forced to bear His weight with the muscles of His thigh, which is not an anatomical position which is possible to maintain for more than a few minutes without severe cramp in the muscles of the thigh and calf. Our Lord’s weight was borne on His feet, with nails driven through them. As the strength of the muscles of Our Blessed Lord’s lower limbs tired, the weight of His body had to be transferred to His wrists, His arms, and His shoulders. Within a few minutes of being placed on the Cross, Our Lord’s shoulders were dislocated. Minutes later His elbows and wrists became dislocated. The result of these upper limb dislocations was that His arms were 9 inches longer than normal, as clearly shown on the Shroud of Turin. In addition, prophecy was thus fulfilled in Psalm 21:15, “I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered.”

After Our Lord’s wrists, elbows, and shoulders were dislocated, the weight of His body on his upper limbs caused traction forces on the Pectoralis Major muscles of His chest wall. These traction forces caused His rib cage to be pulled upwards and outwards, in a most unnatural state. His chest wall was permanently in a position of maximal respiratory inspiration. In order to exhale, Jesus had to push down on the nails in His feet to raise His body, and allow His rib cage to move downwards and inwards to expire air from His lungs. His lungs were in a resting position of constant maximum inspiration. Crucifixion is a medical catastrophe. The problem was that Our Blessed Lord could not easily push down on the nails in His feet because the muscles of His legs, bent at 45 degrees, were extremely fatigued, in severe cramp, and in an anatomically compromised position.

Why Don’t We See Miracles Like the Apostles Did? - Justin Holcomb

Found here. A generally good explanation, though he leaves out how miracles might apply to the contemporary church.
----------------

Many contemporary Christians feel disconnected from the vibrant, Spirit-filled ministries of the prophets and apostles described in the Bible. In the Old Testament, God seemingly took the people of Israel through miraculous event after miraculous event. In the New Testament, those who watched the ministry of Jesus were seized with amazement at the miracles he performed (Luke 5:25), and the apostles in the early church regularly performed signs and wonders among the people (Acts 5:12).

Yet today, such miraculous events seem rare and, when we do hear reports of miracles, many Christians are skeptical. At the very least, we feel there's something different about the way God worked in the Old and New Testament periods and the way he works today. This raises a valid question: Why don’t we experience today the miracles we read about in the New Testament?

To answer that question, we need to understand not only how God works through providence and common grace, but we must also understand the purpose of miracles in the Bible.

Purpose of Miracles in Scripture

Miracles in Scripture are acts of God that proclaim his sovereign power over creation as well as his commitment to the good of his people. Miracles are often significant because they serve a larger purpose in God’s redemptive plan, testifying to the authenticity of God’s messengers who bring his revelation to humanity. This is one of the primary functions of miracles in the scriptural narratives: “When miracles occur, they give evidence that God is truly at work and so serve to advance the gospel.”[1] Miracles authenticate God’s message and his messengers.

Why did the Tongues at Pentecost not need translation?

Having already considered many criticisms of the gift of tongues, we began thinking about the way they manifest in the NT. We realized that the issue of tongues, as well as interpretations, seems to be a sticking point with both cessationists and charismatics alike, albeit for different reasons.

Tongues as a sign

Our first observation is that all through the book of Acts, the manifestation of tongues required no interpretation, and all of them were languages known to the hearers. The first occurrence is Ac. 2:3-6:

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. 5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

This was the event now known as Pentecost, the inaugural outpouring of the Holy Spirit. A large crowd heard what was happening and gathered to see what this remarkable commotion was about. We note here that many nations were gathered, and they all heard the glories of God in their own language, so there could have been hundreds of languages being spoken. And no interpretation of these tongues was required.

As we continue reading the account, we find the crowd wondering what this meant. Ac. 2:11-21:

 ...we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” 13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.” 14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.15 These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

Peter explained why this is happening:

16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “`In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ [Joel 2:28-32]

This event was the fulfillment of a prophecy spoken hundreds of years ago. But it's interesting that on one hand Peter noted the pouring of of the Holy Spirit on all people, yet on the other hand did not actually understand the connection to the gentiles. It took a vision with a sheet descending from heaven for him to learn that the Holy Spirit was intended for more than the Jews. But even that wasn't sufficient for him, for Paul tells us in Galatians chapter 2 that he opposed Peter to his face. Even with an incredible event, and then a later vision, Peter still had to be confronted by Paul about his racism.

But regardless, we have God's purpose for these tongues. They were a sign that salvation is available to all men. A better covenant had arrived, where everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. This kind of tongues was a specific sign to the apostles that God's purpose was farther reaching than they thought.

We find later that subsequent manifestations of tongues in Acts further demonstrated this concept. Ac. 10:44-47:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Interestingly, it's now the gentile believers who were speaking in tongues, not the disciples themselves! And again, no interpretation. The apostles are starting to realize that the move of God is for all, not just the Jews.

Continuationism is NOT a Secondary Issue - Excerpt from part four

Found here. Part one here. Part 2. Part 3.

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

This is an excerpt from the last of a four part series on why "continuationism" is not a secondary issue. In his four part series, the author does not quote a single Scripture. Not one. He does not present an affirmative biblical case for his beliefs at all. 

His entire presentation of thousands of words consists solely of chronicling the present-day practices of charismatics. As we have noted numerous times previously, this technique has nothing to do with what the Bible says. 

My four criteria for evaluating the claims of cessationists are that their arguments must be

1. Biblically-based
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

The excerpt below is troubling. He apparently believes it isn't necessary to quote Scripture. He doesn't even think he needs to make his case at all.
------------

Earth’s overpopulation exasperating (sic) climate change - by Norman A. Bishop

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Every social and environmental issue is exacerbated by overpopulation. (Correction: Population. Humans, including Mr. Bishop, pollute by their very existence.)

Fifty years ago, there were 3.4 billion people living. Now that number is 7.6 billion. (That is a growth rate of  about 2% per year, not particularly alarming. And from around the mid 1960s the population growth rate has been steadily dropping to 1.17% in 2017.)

Human population has grown more in the last several decades than in the past three million years. (Well, duh. If you have 10 people and increase them by 10%, then next year you have 11 people. But if you have 100 people and increase them by 10%, the next year you have 110 people. The growth by one additional person is obviously less than the growth by 10 additional people, even though the rate is the same.)