Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------
With an inflammatory title like this, the article had better explain to us how exactly three Supreme court justices used terminology in their decision that would indicate that children are being left without hope of being adopted.
In actual fact, the author is lying. No such thing was said, and as you read you will discover that the story, though couched in vague misleading language, is quite different.
-----------------
Three members of the Supreme Court announced on Thursday that they would literally ("Literally," as in it is the direct result of these justices' decree that orphans are relegated to be without families. We will learn that this isn't actually the case.)
force orphan children to live in a group home or similar setting, rather than allow those children to be placed in foster care with a same-sex couple. (Let's run the actual numbers. Approximately 19% of same sex couples have adopted a child or have a step child, which is 3811 children. For opposite sex couples, the number is 1,143,721 children. So that means 0.33% of the children adopted are to same sex couples.
Remember, the claim is that these children, if denied a same sex adoption, would be relegated to not have a family. As shown by the numbers, however, same sex adoptions are statistically insignificant. The author's claim is simply hyperbole.)
Friday, August 31, 2018
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Trichotomists, Charismatics, and 1 Corinthians 14 - by Daniel M. Brown
Found here. Our comments in bold.
1 Corinthians 14 is one of the most popular chapters in the Bible for Charismatics. (And probably one of the most avoided by cessationists...)
Practically every Charismatic author that writes anything on the gifts of the Holy Spirit will refer to this chapter. (It's a mystery why the author would be surprised at this, since Paul discusses tongues and prophecy extensively here.)
In addition, 1Co. 14:2 says this:
But beyond that, if we just take the Scripture for what it says, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful, why would Paul say that one thing happens but another thing does not if the two are the same thing?)
-------------------
Another installment in our quest for the biblical case for cessationism. Unfortunately, a large part of the author's presentation is about contemporary charismatics, while he barely touches on the biblical case.
In fact, the author entirely avoids quoting a complete Scripture verse, managing only an isolated phrase or two.
In fact, the author entirely avoids quoting a complete Scripture verse, managing only an isolated phrase or two.
------------------
1 Corinthians 14 is one of the most popular chapters in the Bible for Charismatics. (And probably one of the most avoided by cessationists...)
Practically every Charismatic author that writes anything on the gifts of the Holy Spirit will refer to this chapter. (It's a mystery why the author would be surprised at this, since Paul discusses tongues and prophecy extensively here.)
Ironically, 1 Corinthians 14 is one of the strongest rebuttals against the modern Charismatic teaching on tongues, (We are not interested in the modern teachings on tongues. We want the biblical case.
We will soon discover the author will never tell us what is the proper interpretation of the chapter.)
We will soon discover the author will never tell us what is the proper interpretation of the chapter.)
but Charismatics are completely oblivious to this fact because they read the chapter with a trichotomous mindset. (That is, the failing of charismatics is that they view the human person as spirit, soul and body. This is an odd approach to the debate, since it really doesn't come to bear on the author's case at all.)
In a nutshell, this argument against Charismatic tongues goes as follows (He clearly doesn't understand charismatics, so his false premise leads to a false conclusion.):
Further, it isn't necessary to presume from the author's dichotomous perspective that the mind must be informed. By that we mean that even if the soul and spirit are one in the same, it still can be unfruitful as Paul says.
"Unfruitful" (ἄκαρπος) is defined as unfruitful, barren, profitless, while "mind" is νοῦς, the mind, the reason, the reasoning faculty, intellect. So if we don't allow the author to parse Paul's plain statement, we simply discover that praying in tongues does not edify the mind.
In a nutshell, this argument against Charismatic tongues goes as follows (He clearly doesn't understand charismatics, so his false premise leads to a false conclusion.):
- No Charismatic claims to understand the tongues-language that he speaks. (False. Interpretation of one's own utterance is very common.)
- 1 Corinthians 14 plainly teaches that the Biblical tongues-speaker understood the words uttered from his own lips. (The author never demonstrates this false assertion.)
- Therefore, the modern Charismatic phenomenon of tongues has nothing to do with Biblical tongues. (Thus a non sequitur. And ironically, we will never discover the author's idea of biblical tongues.)
Further, it isn't necessary to presume from the author's dichotomous perspective that the mind must be informed. By that we mean that even if the soul and spirit are one in the same, it still can be unfruitful as Paul says.
"Unfruitful" (ἄκαρπος) is defined as unfruitful, barren, profitless, while "mind" is νοῦς, the mind, the reason, the reasoning faculty, intellect. So if we don't allow the author to parse Paul's plain statement, we simply discover that praying in tongues does not edify the mind.
And let's not ignore what Paul writes in the prior verse. 1Co. 14:13-14:
For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.Paul thus states that an uninterpreted tongue can be, but not always is, interpreted by the utterer. Uninterpreted tongues yields the result of the utterer's mind not being edified by the tongue.
In addition, 1Co. 14:2 says this:
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.No-one understands. Including the speaker. Unless it's interpreted.
But beyond that, if we just take the Scripture for what it says, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful, why would Paul say that one thing happens but another thing does not if the two are the same thing?)
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Does God Speak in Unidentified Promptings? by Elizabeth Prata
Found here. Our comments in bold.
We should note that we are not terribly interested in defending Chuck Swindoll. We shall, however, examine Ms. Prata's assertions.
“Unidentified promptings” contradicts his word on the face of it, because He always identified Himself as the One speaking. (Is this actually true? Ac. 9:7:
---------------------
We should note that we are not terribly interested in defending Chuck Swindoll. We shall, however, examine Ms. Prata's assertions.
------------------
This post first appeared on The End Time in September 2016
A quick lesson on discerning a meme. I saw this on Facebook. Here is a lesson on how to parse the silly sayings we see on social media. Let's take it apart phrase by phrase and really think about what it is trying to communicate.
This post first appeared on The End Time in September 2016
A quick lesson on discerning a meme. I saw this on Facebook. Here is a lesson on how to parse the silly sayings we see on social media. Let's take it apart phrase by phrase and really think about what it is trying to communicate.
“Unidentified promptings” contradicts his word on the face of it, because He always identified Himself as the One speaking. (Is this actually true? Ac. 9:7:
The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.They heard a sound, but Jesus did not identify Himself to them. And what about Samuel? God did not identify himself the times He awoke him. Finally Eli had to tell Samuel Who was talking to him. 1Sa. 3:18:
So Samuel told him everything, hiding nothing from him. Then Eli said, “He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes.”
Monday, August 27, 2018
The cessation of tongues and prophecy - by Greg Loren Durand
Found here. Our comments in bold.
Having established the purpose of biblical tongues, (Albeit quite imperfectly. I suspect the author is attempting to use omission to establish a case foreign to the testimony of Scripture.
Having devoted a mere 3 paragraphs to tongues, the author moves on.)
----------------------
Although this repeats a lot of the fallacious arguments of other cessationists, it does contain some novel information.
But we are forced to note that so much of what the author has to say here is superficial, inadequately documented, and suffers logically and exegetically. Frankly, it's embarrassing.)
--------------------
It is the historic position of the Reformed faith that tongues and prophecy had a very specific role to play in the early days of the Christian Church. Not only were they clearly sign gifts which were given to validate the message of the Apostles, but, in the case of tongues, they served as a warning to the unbelieving Jews that the destruction of the nation of Israel was imminent. In Isaiah 28:11-12 we read:
The above words were spoken by the prophet to the people of Judah as a declaration that they were about to be judged by God for their rebellion by an Assyrian invasion. The presence of “unknown tongues” was also mentioned by Moses in his prophecy of the ultimate destruction of national Israel found in Deuteronomy 28:49:
But we are forced to note that so much of what the author has to say here is superficial, inadequately documented, and suffers logically and exegetically. Frankly, it's embarrassing.)
--------------------
It is the historic position of the Reformed faith that tongues and prophecy had a very specific role to play in the early days of the Christian Church. Not only were they clearly sign gifts which were given to validate the message of the Apostles, but, in the case of tongues, they served as a warning to the unbelieving Jews that the destruction of the nation of Israel was imminent. In Isaiah 28:11-12 we read:
“For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, to whom He said, ‘This is the rest with which you may cause the weary to rest,’ and, ‘This is the refreshing’; Yet they would not hear.”(We deal extensively with this verse here.)
The above words were spoken by the prophet to the people of Judah as a declaration that they were about to be judged by God for their rebellion by an Assyrian invasion. The presence of “unknown tongues” was also mentioned by Moses in his prophecy of the ultimate destruction of national Israel found in Deuteronomy 28:49:
“The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand.”(So far, true. But the author does not acknowledge a third purpose - edification. 1Co. 14:4:
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.)
The entire New Testament deals with the scene just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the termination of the Jewish economy in A.D. 70. God began His warnings to the rebellious nation of Israel through John the Baptist, who was sent to declare that the Kingdom was at hand. Following the death of John, Jesus picked up this same theme and began to warn Jerusalem of impending destruction should the people not repent of their rebellion. Of course, the Jewish leaders sealed the nation’s doom when they rejected and crucified their Messiah. It was not until Israel had thus transgressed against her God that the gift of tongues was introduced among the Apostles and their associates on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2); they were then used to call them to repentance. In this sense, they were, as Paul wrote, “for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers” (I Corinthians 14:22a); they served as an indictment against Israel and a public declaration that her “house [was] left... desolate”(Matthew 23:38), and that the Kingdom of Heaven was about to be taken from the Jews and given to another people — the Gentiles (Matthew 8:10-12, 21:33-45).
Having established the purpose of biblical tongues, (Albeit quite imperfectly. I suspect the author is attempting to use omission to establish a case foreign to the testimony of Scripture.
Having devoted a mere 3 paragraphs to tongues, the author moves on.)
let us now determine the purpose of prophecy in the early Christian Church. According to Paul, “[P]rophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe” (I Corinthians 14:22b). Since the New Testament canon was still in the process of being written, via the epistles of Paul, Peter, and the other Apostles, prophecy served the purpose of edifying and strengthening the infant Church (Scripture reference?)
to endure the persecution that God’s enemies were bringing against her, and to offer hope that God’s enemies were soon to be destroyed (Revelation 2:8-11). However, with the close of the canon, this purpose was fulfilled, and prophecy ceased. In Jude 3, we read:
“Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”This verse is very important in dealing with the finality of revelation and prophecy, (Well, no. It does not speak to either revelation or prophecy, it speaks to "the faith.")
for in it Jude clearly anticipated the closing of the New Testament canon of Scripture. (Waaait. Jude was at that writing a letter. It would turn out to be Scripture. It wasn't Scripture yet. And there will be other writers of what will also be Scripture. Scripture had not been completely delivered at the time of this writing. But "the faith" had been.
In actual fact, Jude is not anticipating the close of the canon at all, for he could not. He's making a statement that the entirety of gospel message had been established.)
In actual fact, Jude is not anticipating the close of the canon at all, for he could not. He's making a statement that the entirety of gospel message had been established.)
Thursday, August 23, 2018
If Trump deports Muslim refugees, me and my family will leave the U.S. too. - FB conversation
The voice of the people August 13 at 8:30 AM
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018
What does the pastor do? - by Clint Humfrey
Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------
I'm not entirely sure the author knows the difference between a pastor and an elder.
-----------------
How does the pastor spend his time? (This is a different question from the one asked in the title. I wonder which one he will answer.)
That is a question that sometimes arises from some who are critical and most who are just curious.
Medieval monks would spend their time at appointed hours praying, singing and chanting at their home, while transcribing texts in the intervening hours. (??? What do monks have to do with pastors?)
At the Reformation, so little of the previous centuries work had been dedicated to preaching, that the Reformers stood out for their emphasis on the pulpit. (The preaching of the Word is important, but again, what does this have to do with answering one of the two questions?)
The consistory of Geneva (I have never heard of this before. Apparently it was some sort of mild form of the inquisition, exacting discipline on sinners in the church.)
spent a great deal of time reviewing pastoral care issues, thinking through them biblically and apply counsel to people and situations. Sometimes the counsel and care (A somewhat innocuous description, it seems. This council was a corrective board that had a view towards clamping down on sin via confrontation.)
was disregarded and some Genevans preferred to be disciplined out of the church, than to be discipled in the church. All of this took organization and care. But the primary driver of the ministry was the Word work. Calvin’s preaching through the bible provided the basis for doctrine in the church in Geneva, and the surrounding village churches that worked together with Calvin’s, seeking counsel from Calvin’s elders, even making requests for pulpit supply. (The author's little historical aside has us puzzled. What does all of this have to do with pastors?)
Some things have changed, but others have stayed the same.
Word Work & Prayer Work
Today the work of the Word and Prayer (cf. Acts 6:4) are the two greatest tasks which the pastor must undertake. (Let's quote the Scripture. Ac. 6:1-4:
Second, it was the apostles, not pastors, who desired to dedicate themselves to prayer and the Word.
Third, this is not how churches are structured today. We don't have twelve apostles presiding over a church.
The author has taken over the work of the apostles and made it in to pastoral work.)
----------------------
I'm not entirely sure the author knows the difference between a pastor and an elder.
-----------------
How does the pastor spend his time? (This is a different question from the one asked in the title. I wonder which one he will answer.)
That is a question that sometimes arises from some who are critical and most who are just curious.
Medieval monks would spend their time at appointed hours praying, singing and chanting at their home, while transcribing texts in the intervening hours. (??? What do monks have to do with pastors?)
At the Reformation, so little of the previous centuries work had been dedicated to preaching, that the Reformers stood out for their emphasis on the pulpit. (The preaching of the Word is important, but again, what does this have to do with answering one of the two questions?)
The consistory of Geneva (I have never heard of this before. Apparently it was some sort of mild form of the inquisition, exacting discipline on sinners in the church.)
spent a great deal of time reviewing pastoral care issues, thinking through them biblically and apply counsel to people and situations. Sometimes the counsel and care (A somewhat innocuous description, it seems. This council was a corrective board that had a view towards clamping down on sin via confrontation.)
was disregarded and some Genevans preferred to be disciplined out of the church, than to be discipled in the church. All of this took organization and care. But the primary driver of the ministry was the Word work. Calvin’s preaching through the bible provided the basis for doctrine in the church in Geneva, and the surrounding village churches that worked together with Calvin’s, seeking counsel from Calvin’s elders, even making requests for pulpit supply. (The author's little historical aside has us puzzled. What does all of this have to do with pastors?)
Some things have changed, but others have stayed the same.
Word Work & Prayer Work
Today the work of the Word and Prayer (cf. Acts 6:4) are the two greatest tasks which the pastor must undertake. (Let's quote the Scripture. Ac. 6:1-4:
In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”We first note that the apostles had a problem with their management. They were doing work that should have been delegated to others. So they put others in charge of ministering to the widows.
Second, it was the apostles, not pastors, who desired to dedicate themselves to prayer and the Word.
Third, this is not how churches are structured today. We don't have twelve apostles presiding over a church.
The author has taken over the work of the apostles and made it in to pastoral work.)
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Journalists aren’t the enemy; we are you - Chronicle editorial
Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------
This reads like satire. The clueless Chronicle jumps on the "noble media" bandwagon, clearly unaware of its own irony. The turns and twists of illogic in this editorial is why according to Gallup the public trust of the media has fallen to 32%:
--------------
-----------------------
This reads like satire. The clueless Chronicle jumps on the "noble media" bandwagon, clearly unaware of its own irony. The turns and twists of illogic in this editorial is why according to Gallup the public trust of the media has fallen to 32%:
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
The Holy Spirit’s Ministry - Sinclair Ferguson
Found here. My comments in bold.
------------------
This is a particularly disappointing presentation. The author did absolutely no work to establish his thesis.
-----------------
The Reformers placed tremendous stress on the gifts of the Spirit to the whole body of Christ. John Calvin himself has rightly been described as “the theologian of the Holy Spirit” (B.B. Warfield). Yet Reformed Christians always have been given a “bad press” for their views on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Our conviction is that God purposefully gave some gifts (specifically the ability to work miracles, the gift of revelatory prophecy, and speaking in tongues) only for a limited period. We have solid biblical reasons (Emphasis added.) for believing this:
------------------
This is a particularly disappointing presentation. The author did absolutely no work to establish his thesis.
-----------------
The Reformers placed tremendous stress on the gifts of the Spirit to the whole body of Christ. John Calvin himself has rightly been described as “the theologian of the Holy Spirit” (B.B. Warfield). Yet Reformed Christians always have been given a “bad press” for their views on the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Our conviction is that God purposefully gave some gifts (specifically the ability to work miracles, the gift of revelatory prophecy, and speaking in tongues) only for a limited period. We have solid biblical reasons (Emphasis added.) for believing this:
- A temporary manifestation of these gifts is characteristic of God’s pattern of working. Contrary to popular opinion, such gifts as these were given spasmodically in biblical history. Their occurrence is generally contained within a handful of time periods lasting around a generation each. (This is not a biblical argument.)
- The function of these gifts, namely to convey and to confirm revelation (now ceased until Christ’s return), is underlined in the New Testament itself (Acts 2:22, 14:3; cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). (Let's quote the provided Scriptures, since the author seems reluctant to do so.
Ac. 2:22: Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Ac. 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.
2Co. 12:12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance.
He. 2:3-4 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Let's recall the author's statement: "The function of these gifts, namely to convey and to confirm revelation (now ceased until Christ’s return), is underlined in the New Testament itself..." Oh really? The first three, Ac. 2:22, ac. 14:3, and 2Co. 12:12, do not speak to the gifts at all.
He. 2:3-4 actually argues against the author's premise. Notice that signs, wonders, and various miracles are grouped together, and gifts of the Holy Spirit are mentioned apart. This is interesting in that it implies that the distinction is intentional. The word distributed [μερισμός,] is defined (a) a distributing, a distribution, (b) a parting, dividing, severance, separation. The gifts of the Holy Spirit spread wide, not only throughout the first century church, but through the ages as well.
Further, signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will do not attest to the apostles [who aren't mentioned], they operate to testify to this salvation.
Lastly, there is no indication of cessation in any of the cited Scriptures.)
- The history of the New Testament suggests that by the close of the apostolic age the role of these gifts was being superseded by the completion of the New Testament. (No Scripture references supplied.) Thus, there is no reference to their presence—or, more significantly, their future regulation—in the Pastoral Letters. (Argument from silence.)
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Scandinavia, Socialism, and the Welfare State - by Bill Muehlenberg
Found here. A very interesting article.
------------------------
There is plenty of fuzzy thinking about what is variously called Scandinavian socialism, the Nordic model, democratic socialism, and so on. And now that most leftists have finally realised that their socialist utopia – Venezuela – is actually just another socialist hellhole, they are pointing to Scandinavia as their preferred model.
Whether Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, these dreamers think that socialism is still the way to go, and if we look hard enough we just might find a successful model of it somewhere.
So they point to the Nordic nations as if that will make their case. Not so. Indeed, hot on the heels of my article yesterday on the socialist basket case in South America, I had one guy send in a comment telling me Scandinavia is socialist, and Marxism and Christianity were basically one and the same. Good grief.
This guy appears to be as clueless when it comes to basic economics and political economy as he is about basic biblical teachings. But these trendy lefty Social Justice Warriors tend to be like that. They are usually as uninformed as they are emotive. Facts and data mean little or nothing, while emotions and virtue signalling mean everything.
There is plenty of fuzzy thinking about what is variously called Scandinavian socialism, the Nordic model, democratic socialism, and so on. And now that most leftists have finally realised that their socialist utopia – Venezuela – is actually just another socialist hellhole, they are pointing to Scandinavia as their preferred model.
Whether Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, these dreamers think that socialism is still the way to go, and if we look hard enough we just might find a successful model of it somewhere.
So they point to the Nordic nations as if that will make their case. Not so. Indeed, hot on the heels of my article yesterday on the socialist basket case in South America, I had one guy send in a comment telling me Scandinavia is socialist, and Marxism and Christianity were basically one and the same. Good grief.
This guy appears to be as clueless when it comes to basic economics and political economy as he is about basic biblical teachings. But these trendy lefty Social Justice Warriors tend to be like that. They are usually as uninformed as they are emotive. Facts and data mean little or nothing, while emotions and virtue signalling mean everything.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Reaching those still trapped in charismatic chaos - By Robin Arnaud
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------
The disdain oozes from the author's every sentence. But more troubling is the fact the author cannot produce a single Scripture quote other than a tiny snippet. Nor does the author document or quote anyone from the Charismatic movement.
The disdain oozes from the author's every sentence. But more troubling is the fact the author cannot produce a single Scripture quote other than a tiny snippet. Nor does the author document or quote anyone from the Charismatic movement.
So we are left with nothing to consider other than the author's accusations and bare assertions.
----------------
Decades ago when bible-based churches and denominations first examined and weighed the teachings and impact of the Charismatic movement, (Note the false dichotomy between "bible-based" churches and the "charismatic movement.")
they largely deemed it to be a benign and relatively harmless popular movement toward informal liturgy and enthusiasm, with a few peculiar practices such as speaking in tongues tied on. It has only rarely been examined by church courts (What is a "church court?")
in all the years since, but in the intervening years the Charismatic movement has morphed into a shrouded form of renegade gnosticism (Gnosticism:
These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the divine spark within the human body. This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:
Decades ago when bible-based churches and denominations first examined and weighed the teachings and impact of the Charismatic movement, (Note the false dichotomy between "bible-based" churches and the "charismatic movement.")
they largely deemed it to be a benign and relatively harmless popular movement toward informal liturgy and enthusiasm, with a few peculiar practices such as speaking in tongues tied on. It has only rarely been examined by church courts (What is a "church court?")
in all the years since, but in the intervening years the Charismatic movement has morphed into a shrouded form of renegade gnosticism (Gnosticism:
These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the divine spark within the human body. This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:
- All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
- There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
- One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
- Gnosticism does not deal with "sin", only ignorance.
- To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge.
We are familiar with charismatic teachings, and defend many of them in this blog. Nothing in the above list aligns with the charismatic teaching we know.)
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Mythbuster: "Slain in the Spirit" - by Costi W. Hinn
Found here. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
The author is a nephew of Benny Hinn, which gives him gravitas among the cessationist crowd. However, I suspect his turn against Benny Hinn is less to do with the biblical teachings and more to do with the jadedness one can experience when associated with someone like Benny Hinn.
I don't know much about the author or Benny Hinn. And I have no dog in the fight regarding being slain in the spirit. What we will deal with is the author's presentation below.
---------------------
--------------------------
The author is a nephew of Benny Hinn, which gives him gravitas among the cessationist crowd. However, I suspect his turn against Benny Hinn is less to do with the biblical teachings and more to do with the jadedness one can experience when associated with someone like Benny Hinn.
I don't know much about the author or Benny Hinn. And I have no dog in the fight regarding being slain in the spirit. What we will deal with is the author's presentation below.
---------------------
Thursday, August 2, 2018
If you think God is speaking directly today, here is what that means… By Elizabeth Prata
Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------
Logic-challenged Elizabeth Prata takes a stab at explaining why God is silent. In these two articles, she will not quote a single Scripture. Not one.
---------------------
A follow-up to this essay is here, One more thought on direct revelation (Included below.)
Women have for at least two generations now, grown up in the faith with famous or celebrity women Bible teachers claiming to have had personal revelations and interactions with Jesus. They say “God told me” or “God laid it on my heart to tell you” or “I want to share some of the messages I have received” or “I heard Him specifically say…” Their persistent claims of direct revelation outside of the Bible has normalized it when it was never even normal in Bible times! Worse, it has accomplished two things:
Whenever I or any of my friends say this, we receive tremendous push back. We are charged with proving it. We are told we’re wrong/bad/ignorant of scripture or history. Or, demands are made for scriptures that say so. But when provided, those very scriptures are dismissed. (That is, Ms. Prata expect people to shut up and accept her take on these unmentioned Scriptures as if she has the last word on their meaning.)
We are given the excuse that we must not “put God in a box” because, after all, He has the ability to do anything He wants, including speak to us in any way or at any time He wants.
It’s true that in the past He spoke in many different ways. He spoke directly to man (Adam, Noah, Moses et al), through rituals, ceremonies, from the sky, from the mountain, a donkey, angels, prophets, and a burning bush.
I want to come at this from a different tack today. I was listening to Steven J. Lawson preach Hebrews 1:1-4. This is the classic text that declares that God has ceased speaking because, though He spoke in many ways in prior ages, He has spoken finally in this age, through His Son. (This is another astonishing claim. How can God be speaking through His Son but His Son is not speaking? Let's quote the passage. He. 1:1-3:
Worse, as we read further in Hebrews, we come to this passage: He. 2:3-4:
----------------------
Logic-challenged Elizabeth Prata takes a stab at explaining why God is silent. In these two articles, she will not quote a single Scripture. Not one.
---------------------
A follow-up to this essay is here, One more thought on direct revelation (Included below.)
Women have for at least two generations now, grown up in the faith with famous or celebrity women Bible teachers claiming to have had personal revelations and interactions with Jesus. They say “God told me” or “God laid it on my heart to tell you” or “I want to share some of the messages I have received” or “I heard Him specifically say…” Their persistent claims of direct revelation outside of the Bible has normalized it when it was never even normal in Bible times! Worse, it has accomplished two things:
- de facto declared the insufficiency of the Bible
- made a generation of women illiterate, because why do the hard work of studying the Bible when it can just plop down from the sky? (Two astonishing claims. Let's see if she can actually back them up.)
Whenever I or any of my friends say this, we receive tremendous push back. We are charged with proving it. We are told we’re wrong/bad/ignorant of scripture or history. Or, demands are made for scriptures that say so. But when provided, those very scriptures are dismissed. (That is, Ms. Prata expect people to shut up and accept her take on these unmentioned Scriptures as if she has the last word on their meaning.)
We are given the excuse that we must not “put God in a box” because, after all, He has the ability to do anything He wants, including speak to us in any way or at any time He wants.
It’s true that in the past He spoke in many different ways. He spoke directly to man (Adam, Noah, Moses et al), through rituals, ceremonies, from the sky, from the mountain, a donkey, angels, prophets, and a burning bush.
I want to come at this from a different tack today. I was listening to Steven J. Lawson preach Hebrews 1:1-4. This is the classic text that declares that God has ceased speaking because, though He spoke in many ways in prior ages, He has spoken finally in this age, through His Son. (This is another astonishing claim. How can God be speaking through His Son but His Son is not speaking? Let's quote the passage. He. 1:1-3:
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.Jesus is speaking all time, holding the universe together by the power of His voice. But we are expected to believe that this somehow means He is silent? The book of Hebrews was written in about A.D. 65, when the Bible didn't yet exist. Would the readers of Hebrews conclude this?)
Worse, as we read further in Hebrews, we come to this passage: He. 2:3-4:
...how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.In A.D. 65, the Hebrews were right in the thick of the manifestations of the Spirit. It is preposterous to conclude that these things would be understood by those readers as referring to the cessation of the supernatural!)
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 4, signs and miracles)
Part one here. Part two here. Part three here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------
Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
- be biblically based
- not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
- not appeal to silence
- not appeal to events or practices of history
We shall note any part of the author's presentation that violates these criteria by highlighting them in red.
----------------
----------------
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 3, prophecy)
Part one here. Part two here. Part four here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------
Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. He barely quotes the Bible. We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
----------------------
Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. He barely quotes the Bible. We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
- be biblically based
- not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
- not appeal to silence
- not appeal to events or practices of history
----------------------
Monday, July 30, 2018
The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 2, tongues)
Part one is here. Part three here. Part four here. Our comments in bold.
Once again we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to the biblical argument. We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
- be biblically based
- not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
- not appeal to silence
- not appeal to events or practices of history
We fully discuss Tongues here.
-------------------------------
Tongues
One practice that all Pentecostals and Charismatics hold in common is the practice of speaking with tongues. Since there are differences of opinions regarding what tongues are and how they should be used in public worship and private devotions, we will deal only with views which are common within the Charismatic movement.
Charismatics generally hold to three different uses of tongues. First, most Charismatics argue that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. [15] They regard the historical occurrences in the book of Acts (ch. 2, 10, 19) as normative for the church for all ages. Second, tongues are to be used in public worship for the edification of the body. These public tongues must be interpreted or translated, so that the edifying message can be understood by all. (In many Charismatic churches, people blurt out “tongues” which are never interpreted.) Charismatics differ over whether or not “tongues” in the assembly are a form of direct revelation from God. The third use of tongues is speaking in tongues for private edification. This is based on a false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:1-4. This form of tongues is considered a private prayer language to God.
There are a number of questions relating to tongues that we want to answer. What are biblical tongues? Are tongues real human languages or unintelligible, ecstatic gibberish? Are there two types of tongues in the Bible: one for the church and one for private prayer? Are tongues revelational in nature, like prophecy, or just another method of uninspired exhortation? (Several false binary choices are offered to us. We shall reject the author's attempts to prejudice the issue by reducing our choices.
"Uninspired exhortation?" What in the world is this?)
The only way to define tongues biblically is to study the usage of the term by biblical writers. The Greek word glossa, translated “tongue” (pl. glossais), when not referring to the actual bodily organ called the tongue, refers either to an ethnic group (that is, a group separated by language) or to actual human languages. “The word glossa is used some thirty times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and always its meaning is normal human language” [16] (This footnote is identified as Gromacki. We don't know who Gromacki is, since there are two footnotes that both mention only this name.
We would take issue with Gromacki's definition. Strong's does not define tongues this way, that is, to limit them only to known human languages.)
Our primary concern is what the term refers to when speaking of the New Testament spiritual gift of tongues. The Bible clearly teaches that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues always refers to real, known human languages. (Does it? We shall see...)
On the day of Pentecost, the disciples “began to speak in other tongues” (glossais, Ac. 2:4). Were they babbling unintelligible nonsense or speaking in real human languages? (The Scriptures answer this quite clearly. The author again supplies us with a false binary choice. So the question is puerile.)
Because this first instance serves as a paradigm or pattern for all subsequent tongue speaking, (Undocumented claim. In fact, we reject it as we shall demonstrate below.)
the Holy Spirit carefully defined the nature of tongues, It is clear that the disciples were speaking real, known languages. They even spoke different dialects of the same language (e.g., the Phrygians and Pamphylians spoke different dialects of Greek).
In Acts, tongues are always real, human languages. (Yes, indeed. Because that's what Acts says happened. However, that fact does not speak to any requirement that there can be no other manifestations of tongues.)
This fact is confirmed when we examine the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48. Peter says that the Gentiles “received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (v. 47). He tells the Jerusalem church that “the Holy Spirit fell on them [the Gentiles], as upon us at the beginning” (Ac. 11:15). Peter says that God gave the Gentiles “the same gift as He did unto us” (v. 17). Peter is saying that the gentiles experienced the same thing as the Jewish disciples did at Pentecost, “This likeness of experience extends not only to the fact of receiving the Spirit but to the nature of tongue-speaking in foreign languages” [17] Thus, there is not a shred of evidence within the book of Acts that tongues-speaking is anything but real foreign languages. But what about 1 Corinthians? (We agree up to this point. It is quite true that tongues in Acts were real languages. But the tongues speaking in 1 Corinthians is not a manifestation of being filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time, or to demonstrate to the apostles that salvation has come to the gentiles.)
In 1 Corinthians, tongues are also real foreign languages. (We don't believe this is true.
First, as we have noted, the tongues in Acts served a quite different purpose than the tongues in 1 Corinthians. The tongues in Acts were signs for the apostles, to serve as one of the identifiers that the gentiles received the promise of salvation too. However, tongues in 1 Corinthians was inside the body of believers as part of the gatherings.
Second, tongues in 1 Corinthians required interpretation, Acts did not.
Third, interpretation is different than translation. And interpretation requires a person with the supernatural gift of interpretation, not a natural understanding of the language. That makes the 1 Corinthians gift of tongues different than the Acts tongues. It is a supernatural, prophetic language in operation in the meetings of the saints.)
-------------------------------
Tongues
One practice that all Pentecostals and Charismatics hold in common is the practice of speaking with tongues. Since there are differences of opinions regarding what tongues are and how they should be used in public worship and private devotions, we will deal only with views which are common within the Charismatic movement.
Charismatics generally hold to three different uses of tongues. First, most Charismatics argue that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit. [15] They regard the historical occurrences in the book of Acts (ch. 2, 10, 19) as normative for the church for all ages. Second, tongues are to be used in public worship for the edification of the body. These public tongues must be interpreted or translated, so that the edifying message can be understood by all. (In many Charismatic churches, people blurt out “tongues” which are never interpreted.) Charismatics differ over whether or not “tongues” in the assembly are a form of direct revelation from God. The third use of tongues is speaking in tongues for private edification. This is based on a false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:1-4. This form of tongues is considered a private prayer language to God.
There are a number of questions relating to tongues that we want to answer. What are biblical tongues? Are tongues real human languages or unintelligible, ecstatic gibberish? Are there two types of tongues in the Bible: one for the church and one for private prayer? Are tongues revelational in nature, like prophecy, or just another method of uninspired exhortation? (Several false binary choices are offered to us. We shall reject the author's attempts to prejudice the issue by reducing our choices.
"Uninspired exhortation?" What in the world is this?)
The only way to define tongues biblically is to study the usage of the term by biblical writers. The Greek word glossa, translated “tongue” (pl. glossais), when not referring to the actual bodily organ called the tongue, refers either to an ethnic group (that is, a group separated by language) or to actual human languages. “The word glossa is used some thirty times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and always its meaning is normal human language” [16] (This footnote is identified as Gromacki. We don't know who Gromacki is, since there are two footnotes that both mention only this name.
We would take issue with Gromacki's definition. Strong's does not define tongues this way, that is, to limit them only to known human languages.)
Our primary concern is what the term refers to when speaking of the New Testament spiritual gift of tongues. The Bible clearly teaches that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues always refers to real, known human languages. (Does it? We shall see...)
On the day of Pentecost, the disciples “began to speak in other tongues” (glossais, Ac. 2:4). Were they babbling unintelligible nonsense or speaking in real human languages? (The Scriptures answer this quite clearly. The author again supplies us with a false binary choice. So the question is puerile.)
Because this first instance serves as a paradigm or pattern for all subsequent tongue speaking, (Undocumented claim. In fact, we reject it as we shall demonstrate below.)
the Holy Spirit carefully defined the nature of tongues, It is clear that the disciples were speaking real, known languages. They even spoke different dialects of the same language (e.g., the Phrygians and Pamphylians spoke different dialects of Greek).
There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language (dialektos). Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language (dialektos) in which we were born?” (Acts 2:5-8).As if to emphasize that the disciples were speaking real languages and not gibberish, Luke even lists the peoples which heard their native tongues: “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues (glossais) the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:9-11). In Acts 2, glossais is used by Luke interchangeably with dialektos (“the tongue or language peculiar to any people,” J. H. Thayer). The biblical account records that on three occasions the multitude said that they heard their own language being spoken. Luke even records the different national languages and regional dialects which were spoken by the disciples.
In Acts, tongues are always real, human languages. (Yes, indeed. Because that's what Acts says happened. However, that fact does not speak to any requirement that there can be no other manifestations of tongues.)
This fact is confirmed when we examine the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles in Acts 10:44-48. Peter says that the Gentiles “received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (v. 47). He tells the Jerusalem church that “the Holy Spirit fell on them [the Gentiles], as upon us at the beginning” (Ac. 11:15). Peter says that God gave the Gentiles “the same gift as He did unto us” (v. 17). Peter is saying that the gentiles experienced the same thing as the Jewish disciples did at Pentecost, “This likeness of experience extends not only to the fact of receiving the Spirit but to the nature of tongue-speaking in foreign languages” [17] Thus, there is not a shred of evidence within the book of Acts that tongues-speaking is anything but real foreign languages. But what about 1 Corinthians? (We agree up to this point. It is quite true that tongues in Acts were real languages. But the tongues speaking in 1 Corinthians is not a manifestation of being filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time, or to demonstrate to the apostles that salvation has come to the gentiles.)
In 1 Corinthians, tongues are also real foreign languages. (We don't believe this is true.
First, as we have noted, the tongues in Acts served a quite different purpose than the tongues in 1 Corinthians. The tongues in Acts were signs for the apostles, to serve as one of the identifiers that the gentiles received the promise of salvation too. However, tongues in 1 Corinthians was inside the body of believers as part of the gatherings.
Second, tongues in 1 Corinthians required interpretation, Acts did not.
Third, interpretation is different than translation. And interpretation requires a person with the supernatural gift of interpretation, not a natural understanding of the language. That makes the 1 Corinthians gift of tongues different than the Acts tongues. It is a supernatural, prophetic language in operation in the meetings of the saints.)
Thursday, July 26, 2018
The charismatic movement, a biblical critique - By: Brian Schwertley (part 1 Baptism of the Holy Spirit)
Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------
This is a long article, so we will split it into sections for easier digestion. Part two here. Part three here. Part four here.
Even though we have covered many of the below arguments elsewhere in this blog, there is some new material contained in the author's presentation.
Before we start we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to a biblical argument. In fact, he barely manages to quote more than snippets of Scripture.
This is a long article, so we will split it into sections for easier digestion. Part two here. Part three here. Part four here.
Even though we have covered many of the below arguments elsewhere in this blog, there is some new material contained in the author's presentation.
Before we start we need to note that the author promises to give a biblical critique. But unfortunately he will not restrict his presentation to a biblical argument. In fact, he barely manages to quote more than snippets of Scripture.
We have previously set forth our requirements when considering the claims of cessationists. Any argument presented must
It is with a certain irony the we embrace the reformationist cry, "Sola Scriptura!" Let the cessationist make his case only from Scripture.
-----------------------
Introduction
The Charismatic movement is one of the most popular and growing forces within Christendom today. The major doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing and the emphasis on having a personal experience—are primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth-claims, because various cults (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g., Islam, Eastern mysticism) have also witnessed great popularity and growth. (The author attempts to insinuate that Charismatics are like cultists.)
The Charismatic movement is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Since the teachings and practices of the Charismatic movement are different than what orthodox Christians (That is, "Theologians with whom I agree.")
have taught for 19 centuries, (This is an appeal to history, not the Bible.
We would venture to guess the author is a premillenial dispensationalist, a doctrine which John Nelson Darby invented in the mid 1800s. We wonder if the eschatology of the 1800 years prior to Darby is similarly important to the author.)
we believe it is wise to examine these teachings under the light of Scripture. (His promise is restated. Let's see if he sticks with it.)
We are not saying that Charismatics are not Christians. And we are not examining their distinctives because we dislike Charismatics personally (the author was a Charismatic for over three years, and many of his friends are still Charismatic). God commands us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Th. 5:21 [1]). We are commanded to “hold fast the faithful word” and “refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9 NASB). Thus, we offer this booklet in the spirit of Christian love—love for our brethren, and above all, love for God’s truth. In examining any issue, the most important question is, “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30 KJV). (Indeed, we await the biblical case with bated breath.)
Baptism in the Holy Spirit
One of the hallmarks of the Charismatic movement is what is called Spirit-baptism or the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” The baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens after conversion. Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy Spirit. But only at the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit does the Christian receive the fullness of the Spirit, the full empowerment for Christian service. Many but not all Charismatics believe that Spirit-baptism is always accompanied with the gift of speaking in tongues as evidence for the baptism. Spirit-baptism is considered a second work of grace; that is, one can be a genuine Christian yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion is the cornerstone of Pentecostal theology. (Hmm. a different word. "Pentecostal" does not mean the same thing as "charismatic.")
If this doctrine is unbiblical, we should regard the Charismatic movement as unbiblical. (Well, no. This is tantamount to suggesting that any error in any belief by any Christians means all of their beliefs are in error. This of course is preposterous.)
The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Thus, our experiences, impressions and feelings must be subordinated to what the Bible teaches. (Which, ironically is a position held by charismatics as well.
But let's see how well the author's positions are subordinated to the Bible.)
Does the Bible teach that every Christian should seek the baptism in the Spirit? (The charismatic use of this language to describe their beliefs is impeding understanding. We shall refer to the event of receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit." We shall further refer to the need to have fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit as being "filled with the Holy Spirit."
Charismatics talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit are in fact really referring to being filled/refilled.)
Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a unique historical event related to Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God the Father? (The author offers us a false binary choice. Pentecost and being filled with the Spirit sometime after salvation are separate things.)
If the outpouring was a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the resurrection and ascension), then we must regard it as a non-repeatable, once-for-all event. (We should again like to offer that Pentecost is not the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. One is an event of history, the other is an individual continual occurrence.)
Pentecost marked “the final transition from the old era of shadows and types to the new era of fulfillment. Pentecost was the birthday of the Christian church, the beginning of the age of the Spirit. In this sense, therefore, Pentecost can never be repeated, and does not need to be repeated.” [2] (Agreed.)
The first reason that Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event in salvation history is the fact that the outpouring of the Spirit was a prophesied event. Peter specifically says that Pentecost is the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (Let's quote the entire passage. Ac. 2:17:
Aren't we still in the Last Days? Do we not yet await wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below at the end of the age? Doesn't all people mean all people, both at the moment of Pentecost as well as every succeeding generation of Christians? Shouldn't we also be expecting dreams and visions as a result of the poured out Spirit?
Therefore, how is it possible that the event of Pentecost restricts the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit in these last days?)
John the Baptist said of Christ, “This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; cf. Mk. 1:7-8, Lk. 3:16). Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would be poured out after His ascension: “It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (Jn. 16:7; cf. Ac. 1:5).
The second reason Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event is the way Scripture connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. Jesus Christ, as the divine-human mediator, humbled Himself, obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, and suffered and died as a vicarious atonement for the sins of His people. After His resurrection, God exalted Christ and glorified Him as the divine-human mediator (in His divine nature, Christ could not receive any more glory or exaltation, because He was God). An aspect of Christ’s glorification is His baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39). In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). The participles “being exalted” and “having received” are both aorist [3]; the verb “poured out” is also aorist. Thus it is evident that Peter was talking about a historical fact not an ongoing process. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the church are all treated in Scripture as historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated. (We of course agree that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God only once. We also agree that "having received" happened only once. But the quoted passage then proceeds further in sequence. That is, the two previous events are used to establish the reason for the what was currently happening: He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear.
- be biblically based
- not appeal to contemporary expressions of other believers
- not appeal to silence
- not appeal to events or practices of history
It is with a certain irony the we embrace the reformationist cry, "Sola Scriptura!" Let the cessationist make his case only from Scripture.
-----------------------
Introduction
The Charismatic movement is one of the most popular and growing forces within Christendom today. The major doctrinal distinctives of the Charismatic movement—the baptism in the Holy Spirit, tongues-speaking, prophecy, the gift of healing and the emphasis on having a personal experience—are primary reasons for the movement’s growth and popularity. While growth and popularity are certainly desirable, they cannot be used as a test for truth-claims, because various cults (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons) and false religions (e.g., Islam, Eastern mysticism) have also witnessed great popularity and growth. (The author attempts to insinuate that Charismatics are like cultists.)
The Charismatic movement is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Since the teachings and practices of the Charismatic movement are different than what orthodox Christians (That is, "Theologians with whom I agree.")
have taught for 19 centuries, (This is an appeal to history, not the Bible.
We would venture to guess the author is a premillenial dispensationalist, a doctrine which John Nelson Darby invented in the mid 1800s. We wonder if the eschatology of the 1800 years prior to Darby is similarly important to the author.)
we believe it is wise to examine these teachings under the light of Scripture. (His promise is restated. Let's see if he sticks with it.)
We are not saying that Charismatics are not Christians. And we are not examining their distinctives because we dislike Charismatics personally (the author was a Charismatic for over three years, and many of his friends are still Charismatic). God commands us to “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Th. 5:21 [1]). We are commanded to “hold fast the faithful word” and “refute those who contradict” (Tit. 1:9 NASB). Thus, we offer this booklet in the spirit of Christian love—love for our brethren, and above all, love for God’s truth. In examining any issue, the most important question is, “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30 KJV). (Indeed, we await the biblical case with bated breath.)
Baptism in the Holy Spirit
One of the hallmarks of the Charismatic movement is what is called Spirit-baptism or the “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” The baptism in the Holy Spirit is regarded as an experience that usually happens after conversion. Most Charismatics would say that at conversion a Christian receives the Holy Spirit. But only at the subsequent baptism in the Holy Spirit does the Christian receive the fullness of the Spirit, the full empowerment for Christian service. Many but not all Charismatics believe that Spirit-baptism is always accompanied with the gift of speaking in tongues as evidence for the baptism. Spirit-baptism is considered a second work of grace; that is, one can be a genuine Christian yet not be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace after conversion is the cornerstone of Pentecostal theology. (Hmm. a different word. "Pentecostal" does not mean the same thing as "charismatic.")
If this doctrine is unbiblical, we should regard the Charismatic movement as unbiblical. (Well, no. This is tantamount to suggesting that any error in any belief by any Christians means all of their beliefs are in error. This of course is preposterous.)
The Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Thus, our experiences, impressions and feelings must be subordinated to what the Bible teaches. (Which, ironically is a position held by charismatics as well.
But let's see how well the author's positions are subordinated to the Bible.)
Does the Bible teach that every Christian should seek the baptism in the Spirit? (The charismatic use of this language to describe their beliefs is impeding understanding. We shall refer to the event of receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation as the "baptism in the Holy Spirit." We shall further refer to the need to have fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit as being "filled with the Holy Spirit."
Charismatics talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit are in fact really referring to being filled/refilled.)
Or does the Bible teach that the outpouring of the Spirit was a unique historical event related to Christ’s enthronement at the right hand of God the Father? (The author offers us a false binary choice. Pentecost and being filled with the Spirit sometime after salvation are separate things.)
If the outpouring was a crucial aspect of salvation history (like the resurrection and ascension), then we must regard it as a non-repeatable, once-for-all event. (We should again like to offer that Pentecost is not the same as being filled with the Holy Spirit. One is an event of history, the other is an individual continual occurrence.)
Pentecost marked “the final transition from the old era of shadows and types to the new era of fulfillment. Pentecost was the birthday of the Christian church, the beginning of the age of the Spirit. In this sense, therefore, Pentecost can never be repeated, and does not need to be repeated.” [2] (Agreed.)
The first reason that Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event in salvation history is the fact that the outpouring of the Spirit was a prophesied event. Peter specifically says that Pentecost is the direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32: “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” (Let's quote the entire passage. Ac. 2:17:
“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."The author will later attempt to debunk prophecy and miracles. Can we suppose his omission of the balance of this passage is so he doesn't have to explain it?
Aren't we still in the Last Days? Do we not yet await wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below at the end of the age? Doesn't all people mean all people, both at the moment of Pentecost as well as every succeeding generation of Christians? Shouldn't we also be expecting dreams and visions as a result of the poured out Spirit?
Therefore, how is it possible that the event of Pentecost restricts the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit in these last days?)
John the Baptist said of Christ, “This is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33; cf. Mk. 1:7-8, Lk. 3:16). Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would be poured out after His ascension: “It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you” (Jn. 16:7; cf. Ac. 1:5).
The second reason Pentecost should be regarded as a unique historical event is the way Scripture connects Pentecost with Christ’s glorification or enthronement at the right hand of God. Jesus Christ, as the divine-human mediator, humbled Himself, obeyed the law in exhaustive detail, and suffered and died as a vicarious atonement for the sins of His people. After His resurrection, God exalted Christ and glorified Him as the divine-human mediator (in His divine nature, Christ could not receive any more glory or exaltation, because He was God). An aspect of Christ’s glorification is His baptizing His church with the Holy Spirit. “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (Jn. 7:39). In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter explains what occurred: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear” (Ac. 2:33). The participles “being exalted” and “having received” are both aorist [3]; the verb “poured out” is also aorist. Thus it is evident that Peter was talking about a historical fact not an ongoing process. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the church are all treated in Scripture as historical events in salvation-history, never to be repeated. (We of course agree that Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God only once. We also agree that "having received" happened only once. But the quoted passage then proceeds further in sequence. That is, the two previous events are used to establish the reason for the what was currently happening: He [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear.
"Now." Not in the past. This "pouring out" is brand new, something that hadn't happened before. It was happening right before their eyes.
Peter then tells us it was happening to fulfill Joel's prophecy. And as we have noted, it was for all people. Each generation, each born again believer, will personally experience Pentecost.)
The third reason Pentecost must be regarded as a unique historical event is the fact that after Pentecost (with the exception of Ac. 8:14-17, which will be discussed later) believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-48 reveals that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed. At the climax of Peter’s sermon, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That Peter equated their baptism in the Spirit with their salvation is clear from the fact that Peter immediately “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac. 10:48). “The norm is salvation and the Spirit at the same time. The Apostle Peter was present and therefore he could report to the church council (made up of Jews) that the Gentiles were true believers. At the same time, the Gentiles would recognize apostolic authority because Peter had been with them and indeed [was] the one who led them to Christ. And both groups knew they had the same Holy Spirit.” [4] Note that the focus of Acts 10 and 11 is not how to receive the Holy Spirit or how to receive a second blessing, for the Gentiles did not ask for or seek Spirit-baptism. The point of both chapters is to show that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Ac. 11:18). (The author never explains why Pentecost is the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit. It's puzzling indeed that the author insists that the historical Pentecost happened once [which we agree], but then proceeds to list various events when subsequent believers received the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was indeed poured out at Pentecost. But that does not mean the fullness of the Holy Spirit is received, or even retained, at salvation. The Holy Spirit is not a historical event, He's a indwelling presence.
We believe Scripture is clear in that each Christian can appropriate an increasing measure of the Holy Spirit, and that Scripture clearly commands us to seek more of Him.
Let's start with the testimony of Jesus. Lk. 11:13:
This collection of passages should be sufficient to refute the author's contention that the Holy Spirit is given once and there is nothing more to be had.)
Peter then tells us it was happening to fulfill Joel's prophecy. And as we have noted, it was for all people. Each generation, each born again believer, will personally experience Pentecost.)
The third reason Pentecost must be regarded as a unique historical event is the fact that after Pentecost (with the exception of Ac. 8:14-17, which will be discussed later) believing in Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-48 reveals that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed. At the climax of Peter’s sermon, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. That Peter equated their baptism in the Spirit with their salvation is clear from the fact that Peter immediately “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac. 10:48). “The norm is salvation and the Spirit at the same time. The Apostle Peter was present and therefore he could report to the church council (made up of Jews) that the Gentiles were true believers. At the same time, the Gentiles would recognize apostolic authority because Peter had been with them and indeed [was] the one who led them to Christ. And both groups knew they had the same Holy Spirit.” [4] Note that the focus of Acts 10 and 11 is not how to receive the Holy Spirit or how to receive a second blessing, for the Gentiles did not ask for or seek Spirit-baptism. The point of both chapters is to show that “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Ac. 11:18). (The author never explains why Pentecost is the same thing as being filled with the Holy Spirit. It's puzzling indeed that the author insists that the historical Pentecost happened once [which we agree], but then proceeds to list various events when subsequent believers received the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was indeed poured out at Pentecost. But that does not mean the fullness of the Holy Spirit is received, or even retained, at salvation. The Holy Spirit is not a historical event, He's a indwelling presence.
We believe Scripture is clear in that each Christian can appropriate an increasing measure of the Holy Spirit, and that Scripture clearly commands us to seek more of Him.
Let's start with the testimony of Jesus. Lk. 11:13:
If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!Therefore, we are to ask the Father for more of the good gift of the Holy Spirit. Now Ac. 4:31:
After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.Did they not have the Holy Spirit before? This sounds to me like a subsequent filling! Ac. 6:3:
Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom.It is interesting that the Twelve had a requirement that the specific brothers to be chosen should be full of the Holy Spirit, which implies that others among them might not be. Ac. 13:9:
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said...So there were times when even Paul was not filled with the Holy Spirit, since the verse tells us he was in a different state, that is, filled with the Holy Spirit. Ac. 13:52:
And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.Same thing with the disciples. There apparently were times when the Holy Spirit filled them more than other times. Ep. 1:17:
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.Did these believers for whom Paul was praying not have the Holy Spirit? Of course they did! Paul wants them to have more! Ep. 4:30:
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.So there are things we do that grieve the Holy Spirit, which suggests that His influence and power in us can be diminished. Ep. 5:18:
Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.Here's a plain statement from Paul. How can this be interpreted any other way than a command to have more of the Holy Spirit? 1Th. 5:19:
Do not put out the Spirit’s fire...Yes, the Holy Spirit can be quenched in our lives. He is likened to a fire, the embers of which can be fanned into flame in our lives. And finally, this sobering passage from He. 6:4-6:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance...What this passage means has been debated by better men than us. But can we imagine that having shared in the Holy Spirit that it is possible for us to fall away?
This collection of passages should be sufficient to refute the author's contention that the Holy Spirit is given once and there is nothing more to be had.)
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Only for a Time - by NICK BATZIG
Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------
My quest for a biblical argument on the cessation of the supernatural gifts continues. Mr. Batzig tries and fails. I should mention that this is not a defense of Matt Chandler. I know very little of him, and in fact heard him preach for the first time in the linked video.
-------------------
I was interested to see that the cessationism/continuitionism issue is surfacing again--due to Matt Chandler's recent sermon, "A Supernatural Community and a Personal Word." Matt's introductory argument is as follows: Many Christians do not experience the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (i.e. tongues, prophecy, knowledge, healings, etc.); therefore, they have wrongly concluded that the extraordinary gifts have ceased and that everything in the book of Acts is merely history. Without wanting to analyze and critique Matt's arguments here in any sort of detailed way, I do want to make a few important observations about the fallacy of that argument in particular, based on the biblical rationale for cessationism.
First, it is unfair and uncharitable for someone to insist that brothers and sisters in Christ have adopted a cessationist understanding of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit simply because they have not experienced them in their lives. (The author begins by putting a twist on Chandler's presentation. Chandler simply offers it as a possibility, and not that it's every cessationist's sole reason.)
In fact, all the cessationists I personally know are convinced by the teaching of Scripture that tongues, prophecy and mediated extraordinary healings have ceased. (First, "all the cessationists I personally know" is a subset of all cessationists, which is a subset of all Christians. Thus the author's personal experience is not representative of all cessationists or all Christians.
Second, the author's statement is an evasion. The author's rejoinder is not relevant to Chandler's statement.
Third, the author is himself "unfair and uncharitable" by implying that his side has done the studying of Scripture, while the likes of Chandler has not.)
-----------------------
My quest for a biblical argument on the cessation of the supernatural gifts continues. Mr. Batzig tries and fails. I should mention that this is not a defense of Matt Chandler. I know very little of him, and in fact heard him preach for the first time in the linked video.
-------------------
I was interested to see that the cessationism/continuitionism issue is surfacing again--due to Matt Chandler's recent sermon, "A Supernatural Community and a Personal Word." Matt's introductory argument is as follows: Many Christians do not experience the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (i.e. tongues, prophecy, knowledge, healings, etc.); therefore, they have wrongly concluded that the extraordinary gifts have ceased and that everything in the book of Acts is merely history. Without wanting to analyze and critique Matt's arguments here in any sort of detailed way, I do want to make a few important observations about the fallacy of that argument in particular, based on the biblical rationale for cessationism.
First, it is unfair and uncharitable for someone to insist that brothers and sisters in Christ have adopted a cessationist understanding of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit simply because they have not experienced them in their lives. (The author begins by putting a twist on Chandler's presentation. Chandler simply offers it as a possibility, and not that it's every cessationist's sole reason.)
In fact, all the cessationists I personally know are convinced by the teaching of Scripture that tongues, prophecy and mediated extraordinary healings have ceased. (First, "all the cessationists I personally know" is a subset of all cessationists, which is a subset of all Christians. Thus the author's personal experience is not representative of all cessationists or all Christians.
Second, the author's statement is an evasion. The author's rejoinder is not relevant to Chandler's statement.
Third, the author is himself "unfair and uncharitable" by implying that his side has done the studying of Scripture, while the likes of Chandler has not.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)