Home » 2016 (Page 7)

Yearly Archives: 2016

Getting Past Your Lying Eyes

People think they can look at the world in an objective way, totally impassive, unabated by bias, “just the facts, maam,” except that people are messed up.  One important value to the holiness of God is that He has remained  and remains separate from the mess.  His Word retains the same holy quality.   The Word of God continues outside-the-box so-to-speak.

1 Peter 2:2 calls the Word of God the “sincere milk,” which is unadulterated, pure milk.  For the person reading in Peter’s day, he knew the pure mother’s milk, as seen in the metaphor of the newborn babe.  The Bible isn’t affected by exposure to the world like the things of this world are.
You can compare this world to a trampled crime scene.  You are looking at evidence, but it isn’t pristine or unaffected.  First, there is you.  You can’t see straight.  Your heart is deceitful.  You are drawn away of your own lusts and enticed.  You retain your flesh, which distorts everything.  This is why a reliance on the Word of God through the Holy Spirit is necessary.  The Bible provides a prism or the necessary lemon juice to cut through the distortions to manifest the truth.
Second, there is the world itself.  It’s been ruined, corrupted, crying out for its day of redemption. Lies are everywhere.  Satan works through the world system to deceive.  And the world influences. It’s speeches, entertainment, music, leaders, institutions, education, government;  influences, more influences, corruption.  Sneezing, sheered sheep wool, steel baseball spike tracks everywhere thrashing the scene.  Nothing is pristine.  The world is an impenetrable maze without God’s intervention.
Then, third, there is divine intervention itself.  Whatever we’re looking at cannot fully comprehend or take into account all that God does in the world as He works providentially.  God is sovereign over all, and things do not continue as they are from the beginning until now.  God intervenes at an unknowable pace and extent.
Whatever you are looking at must be guided by God for you to understand it.  The way that occurs in this day is through scripture.  We have to live by faith.  We have to trust what God said occurred, is happening, and will take place in the future.
Every messed up doctrine and practice comes from not getting past our own lying eyes.  I’ve got plenty of examples.
What about a talking snake?  Yes, a snake talked.  God’s Word says so.  Lying eyes say, “No, snakes don’t talk.”  If God created the heaven and the earth, a snake can talk.  There are many far more amazing things than a snake talking.  There is supernatural intervention.  Remember the crime scene. You can’t interpret these events according to your lying eyes.  You have to rely on what God’s Word says.
You know at this point that we can go a lot of directions with this.  I could take you to God’s Word where lying eyes were circumvented by people who believed what God said.  Abraham is an example in many cases.
In recent discussions here, we’ve talked about perfect divine preservation of God’s Words for every generation of believers.  Scripture says that.  People’s lying eyes get in the way of believing that. They’ve got God’s Word saying it, but they can’t get past their lying eyes.  Stuff litters the crime scene, but they can’t trust what God said, the only way to interpret the scene in a successful way. On top of that, God is pleased when you believe Him.  When you don’t, you’re in trouble in some way. Every problem on earth relates to some way God’s Word was not believed and then practiced. 
When it comes to salvation, if you keep trusting your lying eyes, you’ll go to Hell for it.

Distinctions in Churches and Characteristics of Churches: I Know What Distinguishes Ours

When I talk to most others about our church, I characterize it with the Lord Jesus Christ, His identity. We deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Jesus.  I might explain the Trinity.  I could talk about a Christian worldview, where God is separate from and not part of His creation.  The world has been ruined by sin, but redemption is found in Jesus Christ and our lives and future are wrapped up in Him.  God is loving, but He is also holy and just, and sin must be punished.  Jesus died for us.  We can’t be saved by works, but through faith in Christ.

Our church has unity around the truth.  We love God and we love our neighbor.  We want to obey the Great Commission, making disciples, true worshipers of God.  We are a congregational form of church government with authoritative, not authoritarian leadership, building up the people in the faith through careful exposition of scripture.  The pastor leads, feeds, and protects.  We are historic Baptists.  We believe in the sufficiency of the Word of God. Those are what characterize our church, how our church could be described.

However, someone might park on what distinguishes our church from other churches.  Reformation era Baptists wrote the Schleitheim Confession in 1527 to distinguish themselves from the Protestants and the state church, not from other religions.  It is a short confession, because it is meant to distinguish.  It is a list of distinctions.  Those Baptists agreed a lot on certain matters with certain of the Protestants. They wouldn’t of argued on all of those things, but they found there were distinctions that didn’t characterize them, but distinguished them.  The Schleitheim Confession doesn’t make a statement about the deity of Christ.  Of course, Michael Sattler believed Jesus was God.

Baptists have also distinguished themselves by producing a list of historic “Baptist distinctives.”  Mark Dever started 9 Marks as a list of the distinctions of what they consider to be healthy churches.  I wrote several years ago that 9 Marks were not enough.  I like all 9 of them.  They are not enough though.  Several more should be included without which the merely 9 Marks is disobedient.

Many churches today distinguish themselves by their gimmicks.  In our area, three mega churches compete by pandering to people.  They distinguish themselves with their pragmatism.  All three of them know they are full of unsaved people.  When they lure people to their churches they use temporal and self-gratifying means.
What characterizes our church is that we are serious about the gospel.  We are serious about spreading it, explaining it, and defending it.  You would know that if you attended our church.  Our people testify of preaching the gospel to many people every week.  It is who we are.  We are serious about our precision with the gospel and how we deal with people using the gospel.  The gospel is at the forefront.  Even when we deal with someone’s Christian life, it centers on the gospel.  They love the life they live out of the gospel.
If you were in our church, you would know that preaching and worship are important to us.  Everything centers on the Word of God.  People actually do talk about and discuss the Bible all the time at our church.  That is a regular focus of our church.  We fulfill New Testament elements of worship with reverence toward God.
When someone is saved through the preaching of the gospel, we immediately begin discipleship.  We go at least thirty weeks.  It’s very doctrinal — practical too — but majors on doctrine.  It doesn’t even mention what others would say distinguishes me and our church.
Some churches are serious about a message that is different than the gospel, because they are mainly about methodology.  It is one new fangled thing after another.  You can tell that you are being handled the moment you walk in.  It is a type of club more so than it is a church.  Everything has some angle toward getting and keeping you.  They promote their programs and what would entice an unbelieving person in a fleshly way.
With everything that I’ve said so far, I know that certain beliefs and practices of our church distinguish us from a relatively small group to begin with.  I haven’t chosen what distinguishes our church.  Those distinctions have chosen us.  It is very much parallels the quotation in 1864 from Elizabeth Charles in her book, Chronicles of the Schonberg-Cotta Family (p. 276):

If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.

What distinguishes our church is the portion of the truth of God, which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking.  We are distinguished by what people attack us for. We answer.  They attack some more.  In those areas, other churches have folded.  They are biblical and historical teachings, but they are diminishing from the pressure of the world and the devil.  We stand out because we haven’t stopped believing and practicing in those very areas.

Our church separates from other churches. We practice ecclesiastical separation.  We practice it because the Bible teaches it, but many churches do not, so that distinguishes us.  Even though it doesn’t characterize us or describe us, it is what distinguishes us from other churches that might even be conservative in their theology.

Besides being separatists, I know that what really sets us apart are five or six other traits.  I have no control over these being distinctions.  They are distinctions.  As time goes on, others may be added to these because these are where the battle rages.  At one time, they would not have distinguished us at all.  Many believed and practiced in certain ways like we do.  That has changed.
You might just be a biologist, but if you believe in creation as a professor at a state university, that’s not what will distinguish you.  Biology is what describes you or characterizes you, but it is not a distinction.  Others are biologists, but you are a creationist too, so now it is creationism is how you are distinguished, because you don’t flinch at that one point.
I’ve been told very many times that we have a very loving, friendly, unified church.  People notice it. However, I’ve not been known for that in most places.  In other places, I’m known by what distinguishes us from other people closer to who we are.
The list is really pretty simple today, and not necessarily in this order.  We use the King James Version.  Our music is holy, reverent, and conservative.  We sing psalms out of a psalter.  We go door-to-door evangelizing and are aggressive at our evangelism.  Our people wear modest clothing, and we keep designed distinctions between men (pants) and women (skirts and dresses) in attire.  We are local only in our ecclesiology.  We are unaffiliated so we don’t support mission board missionaries or utilize parachurch organizations like Christian colleges, universities, or camps.  We practice personal separation.  We use no worldly methodology.  That’s about it.
You could probably shrink the above list as far as what people would call us.  Personally, I look for some other factors in a more serious way regarding others, but these are what people are serious about us.  They would say what characterizes us is that we’re hyper separatists, King James Onlyists, and probably legalists, the latter because of the dress and music.  One of the Rick Warren style churches would call us a “ball and chain” church (not to our face, only in the ads).  I believe we have true liberty in Christ and the ball and chain is around the people of that church.
I would say we are biblical in belief and practice.  If the Bible teaches it, that’s what we want to believe and practice.  We are open to change, if we see it in the Bible.  Besides that, we’re studying our Bible, preaching the gospel everywhere, and doing serious discipleship. 

Creationist and Jesus-Mythicist Videos, and a Blog for Women

Do you want a good resource for someone who thinks evolution is what all intelligent people believe in?  Have you ever run into someone who says Jesus Christ did not exist, but was a myth (a Jesus mythicist)? 

A Great Creationist Video

I am very pleased to let you know about Behind the MRI: The Testimony of Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanner.  In my experience, the most effective argument for evolution, by far, is “If you don’t believe in evolution, you are incredibly ignorant.”  I understand this argument, for that is where I was as an unconverted youth.  I thought that anyone who did not believe in evolution must have the intellect of a thimble.  Of course, there are huge numbers of scientists that reject Darwinian evolution, since the facts of science do not establish evolution, and many scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation, as it is the best explanation of the facts and is, of course, established by the testimony of the Creator Himself, the only One who was present at the creation.  Many people do not like to read, however, but will watch a video to take a brief break from their endless texts and tweets (LOL!).  Indeed, in our church there is a couple who came to Christ in significant part through watching creationist videos–often watching them while smoking marijuana, amazingly enough!  (Now that they are saved, they don’t smoke pot anymore–not even for medical purposes … in case you were wondering.  Also, for any potheads reading this post, please do not get high while watching the video.)  In any case, Behind the MRI gives the testimony of the scientist who invented the MRI.  It would be very difficult to argue that such a person as Dr. Damadian–one who won many awards for his scientific work, and who would have received the Nobel Prize had he been an evolutionist instead of an outspoken creationist Christian–is not intelligent.  Within a very professionally produced thirty minutes (not too long to lose the attention span of many, but not too short to have no content–actually, the content that the video manages to pack into those thirty minutes is excellent), the video discusses the nature of the MRI, interviews Dr. Damadian, so that watchers here some sound arguments against evolution and for creation from such a world-class scientist, and then proceeds to give a good gospel presentation that, unlike so many, both clearly explains the substitutionary work of Christ and includes repentance (Luke 13:3).  Furthermore, the video is free and may be shared with any lost person, Christian, secular college or high school campus ministry, church group, or with any other body that is willing to watch it.  I would encourage readers of What is Truth? to watch the video themselves, share it with their churches, and share it with lost people biased against Jesus Christ because of their unbiblical and unscientific belief in evolution.  Watch Behind the MRI today by clicking here

A Powerful Video Refutation of Jesus Mythicism in a Debate

James White, the Reformed Baptist apologist, is an excellent debater.  While I wish he would do as good a job dealing with Biblically-based King James Onlyism/perfect preservationism (which he strongly opposes, despite claiming to follow the 1689 Baptist Confession, in which he is very inconsistent; see the video here on Baptist confessions and preservation or the essay on Baptist confessions and preservation here) as he does with, say, Roman Catholicism or Mormonism, he can do a great job dealing with atheists.  (I would love to debate White myself on the topic:  “The Biblical doctrine of preservation is consistent with the Greek New Testament text underneath most modern English Bible versions,” where he would be in the affirmative and I would be in the negative.  If you are able to arrange such a debate, please contact me and we will, Lord willing, get it going.)  In the debate video “Was Jesus a Myth?” James White utterly destroys Dan Barker, President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (the largest atheist organization in the United States).  Dan Barker argues in his books and in the debate that the Lord Jesus never even existed, but was a figure copied from pagan mythology.  James White utterly destroys Barker’s argument.  Since both Barker and White have equal time, and Barker is such a prominent atheist (his books are endorsed by people like Richard Dawkins), people influenced by Dan Barker’s brand of militant atheism should be willing to watch the debate, and have their atheist hero melt before their eyes.  The debate is definitely worth watching.  This fact is, of course, by no means a recommendation of everything James White teaches, and things from his TULIP Calvinism, his universal church ecclesiology, his soft spot for Reformed false gospel-peddlers like Douglas Wilson, his very worldly music, and so on, are extremely dangerous errors.  Dealing with Barker’s Jesus mythicism, however, White does a fantastic job. Note also the “Comments on the Barker-White debate” below the video.
May these videos be a blessing.  Please feel free to provide any related comments or questions in the comment section below.

A Blog for Women

My wife has a blog called Reflections on Eternity which is designed for Christian women.  It might be edifying to women in your church; feel free to check it out.

Why I’m King James and the Contrast with a Dangerous King James Version Position

Like many English speaking people, I rely on the King James Version.  I have biblical reasons.  There are biblical reasons.  The number one biblical reason is the doctrine of divine, perfect preservation of the text of scripture in the language in which it was written.  The Bible teaches its own perfect preservation, including how it was to be and is preserved by God.  This is also the historical view. The view I believe is also the view, the only view, of believers for centuries.  The King James Version is translated from that text of scripture.  There is no other English translation from that text.  For that reason, I trust the King James Version.

Translation is good.  Jesus translated.  His translation was accepted as the Word of God.  The apostles translated.  God knew translation was necessary.  God’s Word isn’t lost through translation.  A major reason for this is that God created man in His image with the capacity of language.   God created language.  Adam and Eve spoke in the Garden of Eden from the get-go.  Languages can be translated into other languages, because God created it that way.  You can read Don Quixote in English and understand it, even though it was was originally written in Spanish.  You can read The Art of War in English even though it was written in Chinese.

The only biblical position is that God preserved His Words, all of them and every one of them, in the language in which they were written.  For purposes of this post, I’m focusing on “the language in which they were written.”  If you believe that God has preserved His Word in the English language, then you do not believe the biblical and historical position.  You don’t even believe in divine, perfect preservation.  There is no way that you could.  You deny preservation.  You deny the biblical doctrine. You take a strange, new doctrine not even passed down by His people in true churches.

First, preservation entails preserving something.  It preserves something that was there already.  If it wasn’t there, it isn’t preservation.  Translation itself is not preservation.  What is preserved existed already.  The English language didn’t exist in the first century.  The English language began with the arrival of three Germanic tribes, the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, crossing the North Sea from now Denmark to Britain during the 5th century AD.  I stress, “began,” because there was still no English for quite awhile, because the Angles and the Saxons still needed to combine to the degree that a hybrid, AngloSaxon, could become a different and new language.  That was Old English, which was English until 1100.  As you observe it below, you will see that you cannot read it, because it is so different in nature than even Middle English.

As you look at Old English, you don’t see Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, do you?  You can’t even read the above Old English.  It is a foreign language to you if you are English speaking.  You would have had to learn Old English to read it.  It isn’t spoken anymore.
God did not move holy men of God to write Old English.  The King James Version, however, wasn’t even written in Middle English, the language of Chaucer and Canterbury Tales.  The King James translators translated the Hebrew and Greek that was preserved by God into Modern English, the language of William Shakespeare.  The English of today is still Modern English, even though it is late Modern English.  God did not preserve His Word in Old, Middle, or Modern English.  The English Bible of Alfred the Great wasn’t the English Bible of Oliver Cromwell.
A person who believes that God preserved His Words in English in fact denies the preservation of scripture.  God preserves what He wrote.  He didn’t write English.  This is so simple that it should insult someone’s intelligence.  I’m hoping this insults your intelligence.  Yet, this that insults the intelligence is very common among independent Baptists among others.  They are insulted, but insulted because I’m saying God didn’t preserve scripture in English.
With a prescience of what would occur regarding His Word, God in the Bible says that He would preserve “jots and tittles,” which are letters in the Hebrew alphabet.  “Scripture” itself refers to the writings, the actual etchings or markings.  God would preserve the Words He inspired.  We should all be happy about that.  There are reasons God inspired His Words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The concepts of the New Testament come through the Greek language.  We translate into English, but the very Words of God are Greek ones in the New Testament.
Many independent Baptists do not believe in the preservation of scripture.  They say, “We do believe in it — it’s in the English.”  That is not preservation of scripture.  I’m saying that I don’t believe the same as many independent and unaffiliated Baptists.  They believe this novel and untenable English-preservation position.
I’ve noticed that a bunch of King James guys will get together and they’ll be together with the thought that they are all King James guys, so it’s all OK.  If you get past the idea that they all use the King James and look under the surface, you see something different.  Some believe in preservation of scripture and some do not.  Some King James guys don’t believe in preservation of scripture any more than a critical text guy.
My church, our church, separates over doctrine and practice.  The doctrine I believe isn’t the King James Version.  I rely on the King James Version because of the text from which it is translated.  That text is the one preserved.  The doctrine is the preservation of scripture.  We separate over the denial of that doctrine.  King James men who do not believe in preservation should not get a pass from me.  I know what I’m doing when I give them a pass.  I’m saying that the doctrine isn’t what matters, but that you have the approved translation.  I know I’m doing it.  It bothers me.  I know what I’m doing.  I’m starting by laying this out on the table.  It isn’t going to continue.  I’m not going to keep giving a pass here.  These men do not believe in the promises of God in His Word.  They are not living by faith. They are not pleasing God.
I’ve been questioned on my King James position as though I’m less King James than other men, who also use the King James.  These men talk or behave as though they have the more authentic, approved King James position.  To them the King James is the final authority for faith and practice.  English is the final authority to them.  If it isn’t the final authority to me, they see me as not suitably King James.  If that’s what they believe, they are right that we are different, so if they separate over doctrine, I would understand their questioning.  I don’t take offense at that.  I’m just saying that the very question itself manifests that they know there is a difference too.
Let me give an example that comes to mind.  1 Corinthians 13:8 says that “prophecies, they shall fail . . . . knowledge, it shall vanish away.”  “They shall fail” and “it shall vanish away” — those are different words, right?  Wrong.  They are the same Greek verb, kartargeo.  Those hearing this passage in the first century knew that Paul was using the same Greek word.  English speakers today might not know that, but it shouldn’t be denied once they know.  The first is a third person plural, because the referent is plural, prophecies, and the second is a third person singular, because the referent is singular, knowledge.  That’s the only difference, but it is the same exact Greek verb in both cases, both future tense, passive voice, from katargeo.  You don’t have to know Greek to figure that out.  You could find it in Strong’s Concordance.
On our missionary questionnaire that we give to potential missionaries to support, we have the following two multiple choice questions (all 34 questions are multiple choice):

The Bible has been perfectly preserved….
a.     Somewhere in the abundance of all the manuscripts, the hand copies from copies of the original                manuscripts.
b.     In the underlying Hebrew and Greek text behind the King James Version.
c.     In the English translation of the King James Version.

In studying the King James Version New Testament, I would primarily study the words by….
a. Finding what the underlying Greek word is and means.
b. Looking up the English word in the dictionary.

Missionaries who call or write to schedule a meeting with us will sometimes (often) answer “c” to the first question and “b” to the second.  These are the people I’m talking about.
Since there is no way that God preserved His Words in the English, what is the actual position being espoused here?  I would want to be as kind as possible to say that some have not thought this through all the way to the end.  I don’t know.  The position, however, must be something that has been called “double inspiration.”  If the English takes precedent over the original language, then the English has authority over the original language.  Something in the way of inspiration occurred with the translators, the Holy Spirit moving on them like He did with the human authors of the originals.
In translation work, the people who believe the above also believe that translations  to non-English languages should come from the King James Version.  They would support translators who go from the English to the receptor language.  It is no wonder that critical text supporters view this King James position like that of the Latin Vulgate with Roman Catholicism.  There are similarities.
The position I’m describing departs from the Bible and from historic Christian doctrine.  Some would call it “heresy,” and I would understand that.  It corrupts the true doctrine of inspiration and of preservation.  This position has taken on almost sacramental nature among some independent and unaffiliated Baptists.  They are more serious about that position than they are the gospel.
Very often, I’ve noticed that the ones with this advanced Holy Spirit revelation of the King James Version also look for the Holy Spirit to keep talking to them today.  It fits.  The double inspiration of the KJV would be a form of continuationism.  It is consistent with a position that the Holy Spirit is still talking.  The two go together and are very often both believed.  You will hear the same language, both positions.  The KJV translators must have received some special unction and these men are still receiving some special unction of the Spirit that tells them what to preach, who to preach to, and whether to build a building.
A very common position on the Bible among independent and unaffiliated Baptists is false and dangerous.

Erroneous Reliance on Circumstances as Evidence of the Holy Spirit’s Leading

Part One   Part Two   Part Three   Part Four   Part Five   Part Six

Very often through the years, I have witnessed or heard professing believers speak about “waiting on the leading of the Holy Spirit,” and what they meant actually was “waiting on circumstances that they interpreted as the leading of the Holy Spirit.”  The terminology, “waiting on the leading of the Holy Spirit,” is very ambiguous.  What does someone even mean when he is saying that?  When someone does say or write it, I’ve seen people nodding their heads with understanding, but I’m very sure that people don’t really understand.  It is almost utterly subjective and allows for a great many outcomes with ultimate interpretation being that God told someone to do what he was doing almost without question.

What are people expecting when they say, “I’m waiting on the leading of the Holy Spirit?” Sometimes they mean they are waiting for an impression or a feeling or a strong desire, some kind of nearly irresistible urge.  It isn’t much of a different experience than the LDS “burning in the bosom.”  It can’t be a burning in the bosom if the person isn’t Mormon, but it carries with it equal authority to the LDS experience.  The Mormons, however, use James 1:5 as a biblical basis for their experience, essentially saying that the feeling is the wisdom they were asking for.

The language of waiting on the Spirit isn’t in the Bible.  I’m not sure where it originated.  Spirit-filling isn’t waiting.  It is active, even as “be filled with the Spirit” is present tense, continuous action.  A believer is never to be waiting as it relates to his relationship to the Holy Spirit.  “Walk in the Spirit,” another biblical teaching, is to be continuous.  The biblical idea of waiting is to wait for our reward, wait for the coming of the Lord.  We don’t wait to start obeying what He said.

Sometimes the “leading of the Spirit” is a series of circumstances that form a picture to a person like a mosaic, a version of “reading the tea leaves” or “reading of the coffee grounds” in Middle Eastern tradition.   I admit, it is funny to me, but then I stop laughing, recognizing that it shouldn’t be funny because many people are deceived in this way.  I estimate that more than half, maybe three quarters, of independent or unaffiliated Baptists, and many more evangelicals and fundamentalists, label this kind of approach to decision making as “the leading of the Spirit.”

I recognize that people have instinct and gut feelings, but they shouldn’t call that “the leading of the Spirit.”  Gut feeling can’t rise to the level of God talking.  Some people have better instincts than others, for which they should be thankful.  I’ve driven along a road, trying to find some place for which I’m looking, and then see enough landmarks to know that I’ve arrived.  That isn’t the Holy Spirit. It is a combination of my own experience, thinking, knowledge of city planning, road design, and memory.  Police detectives use the same type of instincts for solving crimes.  They look at a body in a murder investigation and clues narrow their search to a set of specific individuals that they call suspects. You’ve heard someone say, “Follow the money.”  That isn’t the Holy Spirit.

I played little league and then high school baseball.  Baseball is a slow moving game that requires some focus and concentration that at times I did not either possess or practice.  In the middle of a practice, or even a game, while my mind was wandering, a shadow would move toward me in the field, and I would duck.  My instincts said, “duck,” because a ball was coming.  It wasn’t a ball, but a low flying bird.  People in the stands saw someone convulsing and wondered what was wrong, since a pitch hadn’t even been thrown.  My arm raised in self preservation.  I had this happen several times in my childhood.  What my mind interpreted as a baseball was actually the shadow of a bird flying over.  Some of you reading know what I’m talking about.  I shouldn’t call that a baseball just because of an impression I had.

I’m not saying that circumstances have nothing to do with decision making.  I’m not saying either that the Holy Spirit isn’t involved in circumstances.  The Bible teaches the providence of God.  I’m fine with someone calling circumstances the providence of God.  Everything that happens is either allowed or caused by God.  It wouldn’t happen without Him.  However, how someone reads circumstances should not be called “the Holy Spirit leading.”  The Holy Spirit leads through the Word of God.  When we practice scripture we are being led by the Spirit.

Circumstances can and should be read.  If the price goes up on a particular item, you might not buy it. It’s now too expensive.  You were going to take a trip, but you put the necessary money into a repair of your water heater or the car is acting up, so you can’t trust it to take you out of town.  When you are talking to someone in evangelism, he keeps looking at his watch or looking back over his shoulder.  You ask him if he wants you to continue.  He says, “No.”

Furthermore, you candidate as a pastor for a church.  The committee or the church members ask you what you believe and practice.  You tell them everything.  They believe and practice different than you do.  They don’t want you as pastor, so you don’t get the percentage of vote required by their church constitution.  Someone has a sign that says, “No soliciting.”  You don’t solicit.  You visit every house in town and no one receives the gospel.  You start on a different town. Jesus approaches a Samaritan town and they tell Him to leave.  He leaves. Are all of those the leading of the Spirit?   The Holy Spirit is not disconnected from the above decisions, because the Bible has something to say about all of them, but I know that isn’t what people mean when they say they are “waiting on the leading of the Spirit.”

I watched some Olympic pole vaulting on the internet.  Certain participants would skip a height to reduce their potential number of misses, since that is a tie break in the competition.  It also saves on energy to make less attempts.   Skipping heights isn’t a good decision by a pole vaulter if he can’t clear the height he has skipped to.  His decision should be based upon some knowledge that he can succeed at an attempted height.  Many Olympic events require strategy.  The Kenyan long distance runners unsuccessfully took the 10,000 meters out to a very fast pace to wear out Britain’s Mo Farah. He still had enough in the tank to pass them at the end and win despite even tripping and falling at one point in the race.  Decisions Christians make take in similar considerations for decision making in their lives and its good to give God credit for enabling a good decision, but these are not “waiting on the Spirit to lead.”

The people of Israel were to recognize the arrival of Jesus.  To do that, they needed to be sensitive to biblical cues from the Old Testament.  A lot of evidence existed to point to Him as the Messiah.  Jesus talked about this in Matthew 16, when he excoriated the Pharisees for their application of meteorological knowledge while failing at scriptural evidence.  He was saying they had the ability to make good decisions — they just were taking that ability and not using it where it counted most.  Judging the sky for good weather is appropriate decision making for a fisherman.  That is not “waiting on the Holy Spirit to lead.”

Jesus uses a similar illustration as the one in Matthew 16 in Luke 14, where He speaks of men calculating the cost of building a tower before they start to build it.  He uses the analogy for the consideration of following Him.  He doesn’t deride the basis of calculating cost.  He uses it as an illustration for the right way of making a decision.  Jesus did this all the time.  He said not to cast pearls before swine.  That’s a waste of time, so it’s a bad decision to do it.  You don’t need to “wait for” those to make a good decision.  They are the kind of basis one uses to make a right decision.

Charismatics among others often teach a concept they call “praying through.”  The idea, as I have read, is something like trying to get satellite radio while under an overpass.  Your prayers are being disrupted by demonic or Satanic activity, but they will get through or God will get the answer through to you if you go through enough sacrifice for that to occur.  The idea is that you might need to go without food and spend hours praying to get the leading of the Holy Spirit you need for a right decision.  God removes the disruption, but only if you pay the price.  Applying the “praying through” concept to purchasing a house would be to fast and pray, asking God to show whether you should buy the house, and then the Holy Spirit talks to you in your head, telling you what to do.  That is very often what people mean by “the leading of the Holy Spirit.”

What people will “pray through” to get in the way of “the Holy Spirit leading,” they already have. You don’t have to wait to find out if you are supposed to evangelize somewhere.  The next person is fine.  Just do it (my apologies to Nike).  It’s fine to talk to the first person in town like Paul did Lydia in Acts 16.  When we started here in the Bay Area in 1987, I went to the person closest to us, and my next person was the next closest person to us.  I didn’t skip those two to get to the third closest person, because of a feeling I had.  A huge part of the decision where we started was that there was no church in the entire town.  None.  No church.  It was a town that had no church (and no gas station).

We have the Holy Spirit’s leading.  We are led by the Spirit, if we are saved.  We don’t need to wait on it.  It’s already arrived.

If I buy a piece of furniture at IKEA, which requires assembly, I wait to read the instructions before I start putting it together.  I have to wait for certain supplies or tools to do a project.  Usually you don’t marry the first man or woman you meet.  I can talk to the first person I see in class, but that doesn’t mean he’s my new best friend.  Scriptural thinking precedes decisions about marriage, about friendship, and about many activities.  It doesn’t tell me how to put together IKEA furniture.

I could preach the gospel to several people a day for a month without anyone receiving Christ.  I’m not seeing any results, but I don’t give up.  I’m doing what God wants and I’m waiting on Him for the results.  God has put His love in my heart for these people.  That’s how you wait on the Lord.  You take fulfillment in your position in Christ, the hope of eternal reward, and enjoy the multifaceted and plenty of the goodness of God.  You don’t become impatient and do something unscriptural to speed up the results.  That’s how you wait on the Holy Spirit.  I waited until I had done all of the above.  I’m now ready to move on.  I waited until now to do that.

I take complete, thorough records.  I have knocked on every door in town and left literature three different times.  By following up, I have preached to someone at every door twice.  In addition, I have preached to all my neighbors who would listen and every person who would listen with whom I do business.  No one has received Christ.  That is legitimate waiting.  It’s up to the town now whether they will follow the Lord Jesus Christ or not.  I don’t feel guilty.  I don’t take the blame for their indifference.  They’ve got to do what they’ve got to do, and they haven’t done that.  I’ve waited for them the amount of time I’m supposed to wait and I have a biblical basis for moving on, which is how the Holy Spirit leads.

What people call “waiting on the Holy Spirit to lead” can be disobedience to God.  They shouldn’t be waiting.  Their waiting is not working or not serving or not loving.  It’s an excuse.  It can be spiritual pride.  Someone says he’s waiting on the Holy Spirit, so that people will think he’s got some type of elite channel to the Holy Spirit beyond others.  God talks to him directly unlike others, perhaps because he has sacrificed more.  The people saying they are receiving these messages from God operate out of a wrong understanding of scripture, making apostolic and prophetic activity normative for today.  They aren’t.

There is a kind of deniability to the described signs “evidence” of the Holy Spirit.  They aren’t the fraudulent tongues or healings of Charismaticism.  They are just not enough signs to deny they’re signs, at the same time being signs.  People are waiting for something.  This “leading” is something. They are a unique voice in the head, validated by some circumstances or series of circumstances, that are a sign that the voice is authentic.  Enough people believe in this kind of activity that they validate one another.  They point to each other as a confirmation of its reality.  They accept each other for saying they are getting these experiences.   It spreads to others.

When I confront Charismatics on their lies, they huff and puff with offense.  I’m unloving to doubt their experience.  I haven’t found it different with Baptists and their special means of advanced revelation. In addition, they throw down autonomy.  You think you’re the pope if you question them. It’s going to keep going and get worse at this rate.

I consider the “waiting on the Spirit” language to be verbal and theological gobbledygook, essentially erroneous reliance on circumstances.  Deny it.  Leave it.

Keswick’s Quakerism, Rejection of Doctrine and Rejection of Studying Scripture: in Keswick’s Errors–an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 3 of 17

The content of this post is now available at the link viewable by clicking here.  It combines all the parts of this series of blog posts in one file. Please view the material at that link. This part covers from the words: Keswick’s heavy Quaker influence … leads to serious error.”
 
 
 



The Means By Which God Does Talk Today

Part One   Part Two   Part Three   Part Four   Part Five

The Lord Jesus showed Himself to the Apostle Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration.  In 2 Peter, Peter reaffirmed that truth, but then he went on to say that scripture was more sure than that.  The apostates challenged or questioned supernatural divine intervention in 2 Peter 3:3-4.  Peter’s answer wasn’t, “No, God still talks to you.”  He didn’t bring that up.  If God was still talking to people other than through the written Word of God, what Peter said was superior in 2 Peter 1:19-21, why would he not bring that into the argument?  Peter didn’t want believers or unbelievers expecting God to talk to them directly.  That wasn’t going to happen.

In answer to uniformitarianism, a closed system, propagated by the apostates as a basis for rejection of Christ and scripture, Peter gives two types of divine intervention.  He doesn’t mention God speaking directly to individual believers.  He surely would have included that if it were to be expected.  Instead, Peter says, scripture (2 Pet 3:2).  When he said that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” he was referring to inspiration, such as Genesis, Isaiah, 1 Corinthians, etc., not, “God told me to go to France.”  God doesn’t intervene in that way.

Creation and Conscience

God communicates still through creation to a general audience, what is called “general revelation.” God still uses conscience to speak with “the law written in [men’s] hearts.”  Believers are free to be amazed and moved by God’s creation, the heavens declaring His glory.  They can tap into that multifaceted and complex expression of God’s handywork every moment without running out.  The conscience can do its part at accusing or excusing, as the Apostle Paul reveals in Romans 2.

The psalmists say a lot about God speaking through creation.  The old hymn writers wrote about God’s speaking through creation, testifying to the revelation of God to men through creation. Creation isn’t enough, but the Apostle Paul relied on it in his preaching on Mars Hill in Athens.  An ebb of creation proceeds from the attention on naturalism and uniformitarianism.  The founding fathers made their case based upon “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” an emphasis of a vastly different era.  The departure from creation brings chaos and confusion to individual, family, church, and government today.

Even though scripture says a lot about conscience and it was very important to the Apostle Paul with all his references to it, I heard very little about it growing up, almost nothing about it in high school, college, or even grad school.  I didn’t understand the conscience until I was a pastor.  I wasn’t clueless, but I didn’t understand the conscience enough to explain it right.  God does speak by means of the conscience through the law of God written in the heart.

Scripture

The Holy Spirit, God, speaks through scripture.  He inspired scripture, but He also continues to speak through it, even as Ephesians 6:17 says that the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit.  The Word of God is the instrument of the Holy Spirit.  Scripture doesn’t say, the voice in your head is the sword of the Spirit.  If God speaks in your head with authority, telling you specifics not found in scripture, then Ephesians 6:17 isn’t the full truth, thus not the truth.

When Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by the Word of God, it isn’t saying that faith comes through a voice in your head.  If that were the case, then a basis of faith is not just scripture.  If God can tell you to go to France in your head, and you can depend on that as an authority, then it is a basis of faith.   If it is God talking, you must believe the voice in your head.  You can also be sanctified by a voice in your head as a source of sanctification, even as Jesus said believers are sanctified by the Word of God.

Someone might ask, “What about being led by the Spirit?”  What is it to be “led by the Spirit?”

All believers are led by the Spirit of God.  Besides Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness for temptation by Satan, the only language of “led by the Spirit” is in Romans 8:4 and Galatians 5:18, which read: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” and “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.”  Both of those verses say that if someone is not led by the Spirit of God, he is being led by the world, the flesh, and the devil, and is under the condemnation of the law.  There is no middle ground there.

Being led by or of the Spirit is to be characteristically living a righteous life, living a life obedient to the Word of God, to have left the way of doing what one wants for doing what the Holy Spirit desires. I’ve heard people use the terminology, speaking of the voice in the head, as “following the leading of the Spirit.”  Following the leading of the Spirit is obedience to the Word of God as a practice or lifestyle moment by moment in one’s every day life.  It means we’re not in charge any more, but the Holy Spirit is.  Every time you sin, you are not being led by the Spirit, so that is how you are not led by the Spirit.  You were led by something other than the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Following the leading of the Spirit isn’t hearing a voice in your head that says, “Go to France,” so you go to France, because the Holy Spirit told you to go.  I’ve heard people saying that the Holy Spirit led them somewhere and He was doing that leading while that person was disobedient in numerous ways to the Word of God.  The leading of the Spirit looks like obedience to the Word of God, not the Holy Spirit telling someone chicken instead of beef.

You can fill your life up with the Word of God and you will be fine.  That is as personal as it can get. You can guide your life by biblical principles, depending on the Holy Spirit for that — that is to be guided by the Holy Spirit.  You are under His authority.  You don’t divert from the biblical path He has set.  You keep following everything He wants.  If someone does that, He is guided by, led by the Spirit.

Providence

Perhaps no other means by which God speaks today has been ignored by this generation more than the providence of God.  When Peter speaks of the prophets in 2 Peter 3, he also speaks of the fulfillment on earth in history of God’s Words.  God intervenes in history to fulfill the prophetic texts. Those fulfillments speak.

Providence also speaks through day by day and hour by hour events of the life of a believer.  Jesus looks to the providence of God in Matthew 6 when He references the notice of the care of the Lord for the sparrow and the grass of the fields.  God is in charge.  Men can trust in God.  God speaks that message through thousands and hundreds of messages anyone should notice through history and everyday events.

Consider the revelation that is God’s providence through the poetry of William Cowper:

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.
Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.
Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.
His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.
Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.

Paul writes in Romans 2:4 that the “goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.”  Men see God’s goodness in providence and that leads them to repentance.  Micah the prophet wrote (6:9), “Hear the rod.”  God speaks through judgment and chastisement, messages of His providence.  The psalmists said they learned through God’s affliction (Psalm 119:71).  The entire book of Esther provides a veritable travelogue of God’s providence, journeying through many of its sights and sounds.

All of the above are the means by which God still speaks to men today.   Even though God speaks through creation, conscience, and providence, His Word still stands as the final arbiter of those three. Any message contradictory to scripture cannot be God speaking.  We know they are God speaking, because God says they are when He speaks in His Word.  With that being said, men should depend on these and not, due to a kind of idolatrous discontent, upon other unscriptural means, such as a voice heard in one’s head, giving instruction outside of the truth of God’s Word.

Extra-Scriptural Divine Talk: A Common Ground for Almost All False Religion

Part One   Part Two   Part Three   Part Four

Last week out evangelizing door-to-door in the Carson River Valley in Nevada, I talked to a professing pagan, who confirmed her faith with inner divine messages from Mother Earth.  She referred to her god as “she.”  This might surprise you, but I’m open to the potential truthfulness of such people, which means that I’m open minded.  What I tried to do was understand whether such thinking could be validated as true.  I couldn’t.  There was no reason to believe it, because it was so entirely subjective.  The only way to believe it was to presuppose it and then invent it, afterward referring to its teachings like Mother Earth delivered them.  I believe that the teachings of Mother Earth are nothing but doctrines of demons, even as the Bible, which is confirmed as truth, tells us.

I also talked to a man, who one could characterize as a late fifty-something hippie, who has spun his own religion, which is a combination of what is called NLP, neuro-linguistic programming, and some form of Buddhism.  In this hybrid personal belief, no one can judge anything, because absolutely everything is only a perception.  No one can move outside of this perception, as NLP is the way by which everyone interprets what he encounters or doesn’t encounter, depending upon whether it is real. In common with me, this man accepted supernaturalism.  However, his “god” leaves everyone in a similar condition — assigning meaning based only upon his perception of reality.

As is fairly normal, I talked to a few Charismatics.  Charismatics hear God speaking to them, which is confirmed by their experiences.  I talked to a woman who was directed by a feeling in her intestines, which sent her messages she interpreted as divine.  That reminded me of the LDS “burning in the bosom.”  Both the signs and the voices Charismatics hear are lies.  Even if what someone “hears” is a true message, that does not authenticate it as God Himself.  We know it is a lie because the signs contradict scriptural signs, sign gifts have ceased, and God has concluded His special revelation with the last book of the New Testament.

Although I reject Mormonism, the Mormons attempt to impersonate witnesses by including them at the beginning of the Book of Mormon.  They say that Joseph Smith got that book from God and that they were there to validate it.  The inner voice of many, including independent Baptists, has no validation except for the person hearing the voice. When I have questioned Charismatics, they almost unanimously accuse me of lacking in love.  The only acceptable manifestation of love to them is acceptance of their experience as true.  That also contradicts scripture in a number of ways, but that is not different than independent Baptists, who think I deny their personal relationship with God, when I question the voice in their heads.

Independent Baptists, fundamentalists, and evangelicals will say that their experiences and the voices they hear line up with scripture, which validates them as true.  I have often found this not to be the case.  I hear messages preached that are unscriptural given to the Baptist by God through the inner voice.  It sometimes has the imprimatur of the “leading of the Spirit.”  I’ve heard it called “Holy Spirit preaching.”  If you doubt it, you are questioning the authority of the man of God or in my case intruding in the autonomy of a church.

The fraudulent signs of Charismaticism are lies.  They are not true.  God is the God of truth, Who does not lie.  True worship is characterized by truth, not lies.  It cannot be of God if it is a lie.  Saying that you hear the voice of God or are called by God in some type of inner voice is not true.  It is a lie. There is no basis for believing it.  Even if the teaching were to line up with scripture, the experience itself is a lie.

Normally, if someone has an experience, I tell that person to judge it based upon scripture.  He will believe right and do right if he does what God’s completed Word says.  However, there is still the matter of the experience itself.  A person perceives God speaking to him.  I recognize that some might be semantics here.  When someone says “God spoke to his heart,” he means that the Holy Spirit convicted him through the Word of God.  That’s fine.  However, there is such an overlap between these acceptable descriptions of God’s work and the untrue ones, that the untrue ones are given credence by the true ones.

Even if someone agrees with what I’ve been writing in this series, the theological and exegetical sloppiness harms discernment in many.  They do not confine themselves to scripture as divine, authoritative, and sufficient.  They open the door for people to add or take away from scripture, take more authority upon themselves than what God has given, and to validate false doctrine as being true. Even if you deny specific instances, you should admit that this happens on a regular basis in churches and in the world.  This is how Satan and his demons start false religions.

I was talking to a Roman Catholic lady this week, who said she wouldn’t leave the Catholic church, but she wished to continue in a parachurch Bible study led by one of her children’s mother-in-law. She feels comfortable in this study, she said, but she didn’t want to leave the Roman Catholic Church, even though she disagrees with a lot in and with it.  I asked her if she would reject Roman Catholicism where it contradicted the Bible.  She said that’s what she was trying to learn, that is, what the Bible taught and how it differed than her religion.  I also told her that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t say that the Bible is its authority.  It says that tradition is its authority.  Tradition alone, of course, if it is not scriptural, has no authority, so tradition itself has no authority.  There is a danger looking to something as an authority that is not authority.  The Roman Catholic Church became a false religion by depending on tradition instead of the Bible.

There is danger too for any Baptist, fundamentalist, evangelical, or where the former three will overlap to look to something as an authority that is not an authority.  A voice in the head is not an authority.  I know in fact that allowing for that as the possibility of God speaking has led to an abundance of false teaching and practice.  It is itself a false teaching and practice.

I surmise that many do not want to repudiate what I am exposing.  They might even characterize what I’m writing as false, perhaps with the designation of it as cold, intellectual, logical, or unspiritual.   They do not want to lose their doctrine of the voice in the head being God speaking to them.  If they say what I’m writing is true, they will have to admit that they have been at least less than precise in their speaking.  Often church leaders, who fear admission of at least their imprecision, think that admission will result in a diminishing of their authority and/or an exodus of a family or more that enjoy hearing from God directly in their heads.  They don’t know if either will happen, but they will continue embracing these “revelations” to avoid these two threats.

Part of church growth includes closer alignment to scripture.  Church leaders should lead their people to anticipate changes in light of biblical teaching.  If the Bible really is the sole authority for faith and practice, greater understanding of the Bible will bring changes that please God.  This is living by faith.  Living by faith is not a threat to the church.

The voice in the head takes less work than studying the Bible according to the ordinary means.  The voice in the head bypasses the labor and the accountability.  When someone depends on the voice in the head, at that moment he and those who agree have canonized the message of the voice.  They have agreed it is God talking, saying something not found in scripture.  Someone might say no new scripture has been written.  However, something given the authority of scripture has been practiced. This rejects the sole authority and the sufficiency of scripture.  That itself is a false doctrine.  It also rejects a biblical and historical doctrine of canonicity.  No one is allowed to continue to canonize new words from God on the spot and in this age since the completion of God’s Word.

A professing evangelist or missionary could go to Mexico or Brazil or Belize.  He goes to Brazil and he says that he went because God told him.  How did God tell him and how did he know it was God? What is the basis for knowing?  I contend there is no basis for knowing, except that the doctrine of God talking to a person individually is true.  He says God told him or called him.  That has become an acceptable means for discerning God’s will.  It should be repudiated.   God talks only through scripture.  He is free to go to Mexico or Brazil or Belize according to the liberty he receives from Christ and the ordinary scriptural means that God uses to direct people in a church.

Keswick’s Ecumenicalism #2, in Keswick’s Errors: an Analysis and Critique of So Great Salvation by Stephen Barabas, part 2 of 17

The content of this post is now available at the link viewable by clicking here.  It combines all the parts of this series of blog posts in one file. Please view the material at that link. This part covers from the words: Since at Broadlands communion with devils through spiritualism found an important place … without the special protection that Christ
provides as Head of His congregation.”
 
 


Scripture Talks To Us and It Says Everything We Need to Hear

Part One    Part Two    Part Three

In certain ways, I don’t want to write about this subject, because I think it should be obvious, but it obviously isn’t obvious.  People think God is still speaking to them, and those people aren’t just Charismatics.  They are also independent Baptists.  The latter say that hearing God speaking to them doesn’t make them Charismatics.  They don’t want to be considered Charismatic.  They just want to continue believing and saying that God is speaking to them.

There is a weasel type quality in my opinion to claiming not to be a Charismatic, but still receiving direct revelation from God like Charismatics believe.  If Charismatics took the same position, which they do, they just take the same belief to a different extreme in practice.  People who are Charismatic in belief and yet not Charismatic to the Charismatic extremes are still Charismatic.

This issue I’m addressing is a doctrinal and practical one.  God speaking to someone directly in his head is a doctrinal issue.  It is a belief about God’s revelation, under the doctrine of bibliology, that is a false belief.  Does that matter?  Should we just ignore it?  It is a practice, because someone is declaring that God spoke to him.  What he says that God has said to him is supposed to be taken as a message from God.  It can’t be doubted because it’s God’s Word.  That’s very practical too, because his practice will change based on that belief that God is speaking to him.  Should this difference in belief and practice matter to fellowship?

God spoke and continues to speak through scripture.  At the end of the book of Revelation, He told us not to add anything to that last book of the Bible.   God was done.  The faith was once and for all delivered unto the saints.  The Bible has everything in it that men need to be everything they need to be and to do everything they need to do.  It throughly furnishes for every good work.

The canon of scripture is closed.  God isn’t creating any more scripture.  He said He was done.  We don’t get to reopen the canon for 1st Kent and 2nd Kent, even Two Kent.  Revelation ends it.

When someone says that God speaks to him, he denies the last two paragraphs, that teaching.  He is not trusting God.  He is not pleasing God by faith.  He is discontent.  He covets more from God than what God has sufficiently and completely given to him.  He’s not being thankful for what God has given him.  He is doubting God.

When a person claims that he has heard directly from God, based on his testimony, that means that he is hearing from God.  What about those people who are not hearing from God?  Why are they not hearing from God?  Somehow those who do not hear from God are lacking in something spiritual.  They are a kind of spiritual have-not.  In truth, the man who says he hears from God doesn’t hear from God.  He says he does, either because he is deceived or is lying.  The person who doesn’t hear feels like a spiritual have-not because of someone deceived or lying.  You can see how that this affects greatly the judgment of true spirituality and spiritual discernment.

I could go further in describing the effects of this particular denial of the completion and sufficiency of scripture.  It hurts people and churches, and it dishonors God.  It should at least be discussed as to its veracity in a serious way or just eliminated from belief and practice.

I don’t know how people are taking this series.  Some are agreeing.  You can see that.  I know I have people reading, because the numbers are large on the statistics on my dashboard.  For some, I’m sure that they see this as a matter to “agree to disagree,” but “it shouldn’t affect fellowship.”  Some will disagree and say they don’t like it, but it isn’t a separating issue.  Others will throw down the autonomy card and say that they don’t like the intervening into their church belief and practice.  They want to keep their conviction that God is talking to them directly in their head, and they don’t want to be bothered with changing.  Changing will mean telling everyone that God hasn’t been doing this in numbers of different ways, a kind of repentance involved.  That might make a church and its leader look like it and he didn’t know what they were doing.  They think that will hurt credibility. Credibility loss will diminish success.

I’ve talked to people who say that what I’m writing is a separating issue, but not from the position I’m taking.  Churches won’t support a missionary if God hasn’t told him something.  He must report that God told him to be a missionary and told him to go to a field among other messages from God.  Men know that if they don’t say these things, they aren’t getting support.  If they said the position I’m espousing, they won’t’ get support.  Those churches make it a fellowship issue.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives