Joseph Prince -- How To Make the Lord's Supper About You - Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

The author continues his acerbic and congerous writing style.

He will suggest we keep our Bibles open, but never quotes or references a single verse besides the verse in question. 

We should note that we don't necessarily share Joseph's Prince's belief about communion, we are simply interested in the merit of the author's biblical case against him, if he has one.
-------------------

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. -- 1Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV)

https://www.charismanews.com/culture/78526-joseph-prince-there-is-supernatural-healing-power-in-taking-communion-daily

I have said for some time now that Joseph Prince is perhaps the most dangerous pastor alive today. Sure, no one has done more damage to the cause of Christ then Rick Warren through his purpose driven church but Prince's preaching style is so smooth and often difficult to perceive the heresy unless you keep your bible open when listening to him. That is because so much of what he says is biblical. (It seems to us that any Bible teacher is going to be mistaken about this or that. What we would like to know is, is Prince wrong about primary doctrines or tertiary ones? Does he teach wrongly about ancillary things, or rather, are they things that imperil salvation?)

Cessationism - Episode 13, The sufficiency of Scripture

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?
• Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts.

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. not appeal to silence
4. not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.
****

The Pastor as Hourly Employee?- BY ADAM PARKER

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------

Almost everything the author writes is wrong, unbiblical, or just plain bad counsel.

We have discussed at length the biblical description of church government, the points of which we will try not to rehash here.

In addition, the author will repeatedly reference the biblical position, but never quote a Bible verse. Never.

This is a long, faulty, ill-conceived article.
----------------

One of my favorite things is getting together with other pastors and asking them how their ministry is going. Most of the time a pastor will say that things are going great, and then he will share some of the joys of his ministry. However, occasionally a pastor will sigh deeply and tell me that things are getting difficult... and on more than one occasion, that the pastor goes on to tell me that he has a particular elder who demands to know how he spends his time. (The author presumes a grievous thing, but this is not automatically the case. Pastors and all leaders must be accountable, period. They don't get to define their own duties. An elder who "demands" this is not automatically wrong.)

There are few things that elicit a deeper groan of sympathy from my own heart than a fellow pastor of a smaller church who tells me that his elders are suspicious enough to resort to tracking how much time he spends "in the office." (Is there never a reason to be suspicious of a pastor?)

To me, it is an immediate sign of an unhealthy session (eldership) that distrusts the pastor when the elders want a man to keep track of his hours or when they take it upon themselves to do so. (This is not automatically a sign of distrust. The author implies that the eldership should not have the power to do this. He never explains why.

Further, the author will constantly focus on the accountability issue in terms of the hours spent. That is, scrutinizing the performance of a pastor, or having standards, or having the ability to evaluate a pastor, is akin to having him punch a time clock and accounting for every minute of his time. However, there is much more besides the pastor's schedule that is relevant here.

And frankly, we should not exclude the possibility that a pastor might be indeed wasting time.)

Continuationism is not a non-essential doctrinal issue [3] - Fred Butler

Found here. Part one found here. Part two here. Excerpt from part four here.

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

The author offers his third installment, but has yet to actually make an argument, let alone a biblical argument. 
------------------

I’ve been laying out my case as to how I believe continuationism is not a non-essential, second-tier doctrinal issue. (Now it's not "second-tier?" In his prior post the author confused the subject by interchanging a variety of non-synonymous descriptors [It's a primary issue. It's a core doctrine. It involves theological error. It's blasphemy. It's a false Gospel.]. The list of descriptors grows ever longer, with no additional clarity brought to the issue.

The author has yet to demonstrate, nor will he, biblically or otherwise, that holding continuationist views in any way impacts any primary doctrine or one's salvation.)

As I explained in two previous posts on this subject, see HERE and HERE, continuationism is a disastrous doctrine both in the church and with individuals because it has massive influence upon the way people think about God and practice their Christianity. The majority of the time, their faith and practice is sub-biblical, if at all, and out right frightening and pagan. ("Sub-biblical?" Add it to the list.

Again the author flings about casual accusations, not documented, and not even reasonable.)

In the first post, I explained how that if the Holy Spirit is manifesting Himself among the continuationist believers he will not lead continuationist pastors and their people to embrace theological heresy. (This is a tautology. The author also commits a non-sequitur. Whether or not  people are heretical [here's yet another new descriptor] does not speak to the Holy Spirit's manifestation at all. That is, there is no such equation as "Holy Spirit = No error." 

Every believer has the Holy Spirit, yet every believer at some time or other commits error [sin]. This ought to be self-evident to a supposed Bible teacher like the author.)

With the second post, I pointed out how numerous continuationist leaders, preachers, and conference speakers are known for telling grandiose, urban legend-like stories about spiritual encounters they allegedly had with God, angels, traveling to heaven, healing people, and other tales of fantastic spiritual adventure. (That is, the author recounted several anecdotal examples of excess, and uses them to characterize every single person as blasphemers. Notice he also dismisses these stories summarily, presuming a priori that they are false, without refutation or even analysis.)

As remarkable as they may be, those tales are never truly verifiable and the only conclusion one can draw is that the person telling it is lying. (Now the author deceives us. There is more than one conclusion. The person can be mistaken [#2]. The person can be exaggerating [#3]. The person can be deceived [#4]. The person can be telling the truth [#5].) 

I wanted to end my overview with considering a third area that I believe demonstrates that continuationism is not just a harmless and acceptable secondary, non-essential doctrinal issue. (More disparate descriptors to add to the list...

Will he make a case from the Bible? Nope. Not even a little bit of biblical exposition, let alone a logical refutation.)

More NAR Healing Idiocy on Display - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

The time has come to award a dubious distinction to Rev. Wade: His own tag. This is a sad event, which speaks to the persistent verbal incontinence of the author.

We find his articles to be errant at an alarming frequency. The below article is no exception.

 We shall edit out irrelevant tangents, as is our wont.
---------------

How should a pastor do the work of an evangelist? By Jim Savastio

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a perplexing article. The author takes many liberties with the concepts of "pastor," "teacher," and "evangelist." He blends these things into a pastor's job description, and exhorts his pastor-readers to add the work of an evangelist to their repertoires. 

The author has nothing to say to pastors about training and releasing people into service so that the pastor doesn't have to do it all. He doesn't exhort pastors to bring forth maturity in Christ so that his flock will go forth as evangelists, pastors, or teachers. He's not interested in establishing a healthy, biblical leadership model. 

He doesn't even seem to understand the great burden the Church errantly places on pastors, for the author is happy to pile more upon pastors himself.

We have taken many opportunities to comment on the mistaken role given to pastors. It has become a grave concern of ours as we have observed pastor after pastor blow up, fall away, or compromise the gospel. We believe a properly structured church would minimize these failures.

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

PASTORS MUST BE MEN WHO KNOW AND LOVE THE GOSPEL AND WHO PRESENT IT WITH CLARITY, LOVE, JOY, AND EXPECTATION. (This is our first hint at how the author misapprehends the biblical role of pastors. This sentence, which he applies to pastors, we would actually extend to all Christians.)

It is the desire of every true-hearted shepherd to one day hear the Chief Shepherd say to them:

“Well done, good and faithful servant.” (Again, every Christian would want to hear this.)

A faithful servant is one who has been found doing their master’s will. To that end, every pastor called by Christ will search the scriptures to find their duty and, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, strive to fulfill that duty. (That would be our hope as well. Unfortunately, the author leads pastors away from this, and into potential dysfunction and even failure, as we will see.)

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of pastors striving to expound faithfully and apply Scripture. (The author conflates pastors with teachers. The two are not the same. In fact, they are listed separately: 

Ep. 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers... 

This is the only use of the word Pastor in the NT. Every other mention of "shepherds" is connected to the eldership, not a top-of-the-pyramid pastor.)

Flashback Friday: How Do We Hear The Holy Spirit? by DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In honor of the Truth Matters Conference on the sufficiency of Scripture, I thought this article from August 31, 2017 might be appropriate:

Charismatics have claimed personal words from God for years. That figures, since the bulk of charismatic theology (despite their insistence to the contrary) depends on exalting experience over Scripture. (The author's summary contradiction of a summary claim is nothing more than an "is not, is to, is not, is to," lampooned by Monte Python. 

The author is not at liberty to make undocumented global claims, as if she knows every charismatic church. Indeed, it is preposterous on its face that the "bulk" of charismatic theology exalts experience over Scripture. We only need to open a browser page and check some charismatic doctrinal statements:

• The Assemblies of God was our first. Its first statement of doctrine is The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice. 

• Bethel's statement of faith begins, The Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative Word of God.

• IHOP opens with The Bible is the final authority for all we believe and how we are to live.

• T.D. Jakes' Potter's House doctrinal statement has this in bold letters at the top: The Bible, the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, and are the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

Remember the author's claim that the bulk of charismatic theology exalts experience over Scripture? We countered with actual evidence. The author will never cite any resource or document any claim she makes.)

RT Wright Explores His Imagination to Support Christo-Feminism - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1Timothy 2:13-14 (ESV)

https://charismamag.com/video/42914-nt-wright-why-more-women-should-be-church-leaders-preachers

NT Wright is theologian and former Anglican Bishop. Charisma News highlights a recent interview at the link above where he defends the notion of women in leadership positions over men in the church. I often read pieces like this in the hopes that someone would come up with something new to research but the arguments are always the same old tired recycled lines. They avoid what is clear instruction given by God in favor of wild interpretations and assumptions of what Paul really meant. (Rather than recycle what we have written in other posts, we shall simply direct you to our in-depth analysis of women in leadership in the context of 1 Ti. 2:13-15 to counter the author's bare assertions.)

The Next NAR Move? Destruction of the Role of Pastors Leading the Church (both parts) - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

This is a very long, pedantic, barely coherent presentation almost completely absent scriptural documentation. This is in keeping with the author's prior M.O.. 

We will be deleting several large sections from this as we slog through endless vagaries, non sequiturs, and random threads of thought. It will be exceedingly difficult, but we think we're up to the job.
--------------------

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.-- Ephesians 4:11-16 (ESV)

https://burton.tv/2013/04/13/the-coming-shift-in-the-church-away-from-senior-pastoral-leadership-the-coming-church/

(...) 

(Deleted a long, irrelevant rant. Go to the link at the top of the page if you wish to read it.

We have now arrived at the actual topic contained in the title. It finally arrives after thousands of words devoted to arcane and tangential things.

So how does the NAR destroy the role of pastors leading the church? He never really answers this. But in actual fact, we find ourselves agreeing with the "NAR," if their intent is to reform church structure to reflect the biblical model [1Pe. 5:1]. The current role of pastors as sole presiders over the local church is unbiblical and often toxic. 

Let's see if the author gives us the biblically-backed case to the contrary. Hint: He won't.) 

Just give me a sign - by Angus Martin

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

Asking for a sign is not the same thing as wanting information from God.

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

Sermon Review -- Joseph Prince -- A Transference of Wealth in the Last Days - by Reverend Anthony Wade

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

The author will not quote a single Scripture in his presentation, except for his introductory Scriptures.

The author's smug certainty combined with an incendiary presentation makes for adventurous if unedifying reading.

We note that we do not intend to defend Joseph Prince's teaching. We are here to examine the author's presentation.
---------------

THEY AREN’T HERETICS BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM - by Jared C. Wilson, and J.D.Hall's Response

Found here. Below this article is a response from a detractor, which we will evaluate.

We need to note that neither author offers a single Scripture or Scripture reference.
----------------

Have you ever seen someone say online or heard someone say in person, “She’s a false teacher,” or “He’s a heretic?”

I’ve seen the claim made on social media about Christian leaders and Bible teachers more times than I can count over the last few years. I’ve always just chalked it up to evangelicalism’s “taking all sorts.” But occasionally, when I see a friend or acquaintance echo an accusation, I lean in. Not long ago, I saw a link to a promised comprehensive catalog offering “definitive” proof of heresies. What I found was a list of various teachings or situations the compiler found problematic: a different view of women’s roles in the church, a different position on how the gifts of the Spirit are manifested today, friendship with—or sharing a platform with—people who teach wacky things. I will admit some of this raises my own eyebrow, and none of it is beyond biblical scrutiny, but in terms of proving a charge of false teaching, I should say I find these catalogs of alleged malfeasance a bit…lacking. And here’s why:

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor Says There Is No Housing Crisis: ‘It’s Just Housing Under Capitalism’ - By Nawal Arjini

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

This long article nothing more than an unbroken string of unsupported assertions, building one upon another. As such, we have deleted long portions of it so as to focus on the parts that interest us.
--------------------

(...)

NA: You quote [NAACP leader] Roy Wilkins’s testimony to Congress, where he says he thinks of education as a priority, and other people assume jobs are the most important issue, but when he talks to people on the street, they care most about housing.

KYT: This was a critical reason why I wrote the book. In books about civil rights, there’s very little written about housing—I think because we don’t have a happy ending. Housing more than any area shows the abject failure of capitalism to solve the problems of African Americans. (This statement speaks to the title of the article, finally, after thousands of words where she ironically discusses the many failures of government. 

This statement about capitalism is like a disconnected factoid, because there was absolutely no discussion about why the problems she has outlined are the fault of capitalism.)

What Cessationism Is Not - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

Two Types of Tongues? - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

Some Observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did You Go To Them Privately? - DEBBIELYNNE KESPERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, God Still Performs Miracles - by Josh Buice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third person: Speaks about someone not present

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

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

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?
• Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts.

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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