The Doctrine of the Trinity

 

In a pluralistic and relativistic age, Christians must stand firm in proclaiming the one living and true God who is revealed in Scripture. The one true God is one in being or essence and three in person: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Triune God is holy and sovereign. These biblical truths are often attacked, and Christians must, therefore, be diligent to defend them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proverbs 29:21

He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child  shall have him become his son at the length.

Proverbs 29:21

"Here is good advice for managers. Wise and careful treatment of an employee can lead to a relationship with him similar to a family member. There is a great distance in the Bible between masters and servants, approximating employers and employees today. This significant difference in ability and position is to be preserved. But prudent managers also win affectionate loyalty, in addition to diligent obedience, from their employees.

 

The Bible teaches, defends, and promotes authority more than any other philosophy or religion, for the foundation of all human relationships is the sovereign authority of a creator God. Jehovah ordained the five spheres of human authority – husband, parent, master, magistrate, and pastor. Therefore their offices are not to be compromised (Eccl 10:5-7; Rom 13:1-7; I Cor 11:9; Eph 6:1-9; Col 3:18-25; Heb 13:7,17; I Pet 2:13 – 3:7).

But the Bible also restricts and penalizes abuse of this God-ordained authority (Ps 12:5; Eccl 5:8). Masters are limited in their authority over servants, and they are bound to treat them with a minimum level of fairness, kindness, and consistency (Lev 19:13; 25:39-46; Deut 15:12-18; 24:14-15; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1). And the doctrine of God further teaches love of neighbor, including servants, by the standard you seek to be loved (Luke 6:31; 10:27).

The older conservative and evangelical commentators understood this proverb very differently. They believed it condemned treating a servant too well in his youth, for he would be spoiled by the luxury, forget his proper place, and later presume to be equal to the heir. Since most commentators generally follow one another, they agreed with each other here. Their interpretation and application are wrong for the following reasons.

First, an ironical or sarcastic use of words should be obvious to the reader, which is not obvious here. A straightforward reading of the proverb indicates positive instruction for the wise management of servants. To take the words in the opposite sense of a sarcastic rebuke is difficult indeed, for there are no words or contextual hints to do so.

 

Second, “delicately” does not require a definition of pampering luxury, for it also means careful and tactful treatment, as in Agag coming delicately to Samuel (I Sam 15:32).

 

Third, Solomon taught elsewhere in Proverbs that a wise servant would, and therefore should, be promoted over foolish sons and given an interest in the family inheritance (Pr 17:2). And he taught that kings recognize and promote wise servants (Pr 14:35). Jesus taught that a wise and faithful servant would be highly promoted (Luke 12:41-48).

 

Fourth, Scripture warns against abusive treatment of servants and requires kind treatment of them. Moses commanded regarding servants, “Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God” (Lev 25:43). Maidservants were to be treated as daughters and given food, clothing, and the duty of marriage – regular lovemaking, or be set free (Ex 21:9-11). Moses allowed for servants loving their masters and staying with them for life (Ex 21:1-6). And Solomon admitted masters and servants ate the same (Pr 27:27).

Consider Job’s holy and perfect attitude toward servants. He said, “If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:13-15). Though slaves had no legal rights, Job granted them the right to appeal to him!

 

Abraham had such a close relationship with one of his servants – Eliezer of Damascus – he planned on making him his heir (Gen 15:2-3). He later entrusted another servant to pick a bride for his son Isaac, which resulted in Rebekah being the mother of Israel (Gen 24:1-67). And Paul told Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother-servant (Phile 1:16)!

 

Fifth, Daniel, though a captive eunuch from Israel, was affectionately treated by Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus. Even Belshazzar promoted him to third in the kingdom (Dan 5:29). Though a war captive, he was promoted to the inner circle of several kings. Joseph was promoted over all Potiphar’s house and then over the land of Egypt by the wise management of Potiphar and Pharaoh (Gen 39:1-6; 41:38-45).

Sixth, the history of slavery in America and other nations includes examples of servants being treated like family members with deep and abiding affection and loyalty running in both directions. Paul did not admit much difference between young sons and servants (Gal 4:1-2). There were clearly masters that practiced the gentle wisdom of this proverb.

Seventh, those holding the other interpretation were a slave-owning generation that lost sight of this merciful possibility and gracious principle. Due to the outcry against slavery in 18th century England and 19th century America, greater rigor was required to keep servants in their place, so pulpit and pen were slanted to preserve domestic tranquility.

 

Beyond the proverb’s interpretation, what is the lesson for us? Considerate and tactful treatment of employees can result in a relationship with the affection and loyalty of a family member. A common proverb declares, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” You can attract greater devotion and effort with kindness than with meanness. Christian employers should conscientiously treat their employees with discreet and prudent care at all times. They should redress all grievances in a fair and equitable way, and they should communicate openly and honestly with those in their service.

 

“Might makes right” is a foolish invention of God-haters. Wise business owners and managers win the affection and loyalty of employees with careful and tactful treatment. Service from the heart is better than service from fear or a paycheck. Husbands, parents, magistrates, and pastors will also grasp that the principle applies to them as well. Right conduct is determined and defined by scripture, not by the might of those in authority.

 

You tempt the Lord your God, a very serious offence, if you seek to enforce your authority by power and privilege alone (Eccl 5:8; Eph 6:9; Col 3:19,21; 4:1). Let every Christian reader apply the same benevolent kindness to those under their authority as their heavenly Father does to even His enemies (Matt 5:43-48; Acts 14:17). Though He is Lord of all, He is also good to all and satisfies their desires (Ps 145:9-16).

**  Quote from : Let God be True –

Naming Names

Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce the article titled:  Naming Names by Martin and Deidre Bobgan, PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter -Issue - March-April 2015.  Visit the ministry website at: http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/mainpage.html   PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter is a free, bimonthly publication of PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries. 

Naming Names 

By Martin and Deidre Bobgan 

Some people have wondered why we don’t just expose the spiritual dangers of clinical psychology and its psychotherapies without naming names.  They evidently think that simply describing the unbiblical teachings would suffice.  But, would that be enough?  Why do we name names? 

We began naming names shortly after 1979, when our first of 21 books, The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way, was published.(1) In that book we described how psychological counseling theories and therapies were coming into the church, but did not identify by name those Christian leaders who were guilty of what we later called “psychoheresy.” We mistakenly thought that Christian readers would make the applications.(2)   However, without names attached to what we  saw happening in the church, very few Christians seemed to be able to connect what we were saying to the many pastors and church leaders who were guilty of replacing or supplementing the soul care ministry of the saints to one another with counseling psychology.  

As clear as we thought we were and as much as we naively believed that our book would stem the rising tide of counseling psychology in the church, it didn’t happen.  On the contrary, the problem grew rapidly and those whom we did not identify became more popular.  What puzzled us at the time was how some Christians could express agreement with us and yet support Gary Collins, Larry Crabb, James Dobson, Paul Meier, Frank Minirth, and other integrationists.  Therefore, we began naming Christian leaders who were guilty of psychoheresy and who were spiritually seducing those in the church with their false teachings. 

We do not take lightly the responsibility for naming names, but do so out of deep concern that psychoheresy has eroded a central belief of the church that existed until the rise of the psychological counseling movement less than 60 years ago. In their book The Practice of Psychology:  The Battle for Professionalism, the authors trace the history of the recent rise of the practice of psychotherapy.  They report: “The independent provision of psychological services was virtually nonexistent prior to and during World War II.” (3)  This is confirmed in the book The Romance of American Psychology, in which the author says, “Before World War II, professional healers and counselors were few; most individuals allied with psychology did work unrelated to “helping’” The author reveals: “Throughout the entire post war era, the United States has trained and employed more psychological experts, per capita, than any other country in the world.” (4)

Prior to this modern phenomenon of professional counseling and prevalent throughout church history, there was a ministry to suffering souls within the church.  John T. McNeill traces this history in his book  A History of the Cure of Souls.(5)  Then during the last century, the basis for the care of souls shifted from faith in the sufficiency of Scripture to faith in secular notions posing as science.  Like the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent, the clinical psychology that existed in the universities nosed itself into the church and shortly thereafter the whole camel came in and eclipsed a biblically-based care of souls. 

While one can read about what happened, there is almost no concern about the fact that it did happen and especially that there was no identifying by name those involved in the wholesale substitution of talk therapy for the almost 2000-year-old ministry of soul care. As we have often said and repeatedly demonstrated: The present-day church has strained at many theological gnats but swallowed the camel of psychotherapy to such an extent that the sufficiency of Scripture for the issues of life has been overlooked for “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1Tim. 6:20), which is an apt description of psychoheresy. 

When we wrote the original edition of our book Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity over 25 years ago we named many popular Christian leaders.  Dr. Jay Adams endorsed the book and said: 

Some people will say the Bobgans are hitting too hard--naming names and all that--but I don’t think so. Whenever someone writes for the Christian public he sets forth his views to the scrutiny of others, but if others think what he says is dangerous to the church they, like Paul (who named names too), have an obligation to say so. (6) 

In another place Adams said: 

Any Christian who sets himself up as a teacher in the church of Christ and publicly teaches anything thereby opens himself up for criticism by others (cf. James 3:1).  If they think what he is teaching is harmful to the church, they have an obligation to point it out just as widely as it was taught.  Such public warning or debate on a topic should not be considered a personal attack at all….  What a critic of a public teaching does in pointing out his disagreement with that teaching has nothing to do with personal affronts or lack of reconciliation;  he is simply disagreeing at the same public level as that on which the teaching was given in the first place. (7) 

Both in church history and in the Bible names were named, for example: Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, and Socinius.  All were named publicly and extensively.  History reveals that public critiquing was always part of the church.  In fact, the various church councils often included fiery debates between various men.  During the Reformation there was much public naming of names and open debates.  That’s what the 95 theses on the Wittenberg door were all about.  Luther named and debated men publicly so that others could judge. 

In the Bible itself we read that Jesus (Rev.2:20), Paul (Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 1:19-20;  2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17, 4:10, 4:14),  and John (3 John 1:9-10) all named names.  In Acts 7 the Bereans checked the apostle Paul’s teachings with the Scriptures.  In Galatians we read how the apostle Paul faced off with the apostle Peter.  Paul says,  “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11) and  “I said unto Peter before them all,  If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”  (Gal. 2:14).  

These naysayers on naming names, who say such things as “touch not God’s anointed” and “judge not that ye be judged,” need to learn a lesson from this one biblical interchange, unless they believe that the apostle Peter was not God’s anointed and that Paul was not judging!  What the Bible does speak out against, however, is division caused by elevating personalities (1 Corinthians 1); infighting not having to do with essential doctrine, but motivated by selfish desires--having one’s own way (3 John); and division caused by heresy (Galatians 1 and 2 Peter 2).  

Following biblical examples and church history, one should name names publicly regarding public teachings and examples when they are in serious conflict with Scripture. Moreover, Scripture directs us to name names: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them”  (Romans 16:17).  How else can one mark those whose teachings and practices are “offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” without naming names?  And, how serious are these psychological counseling theories and therapies as “offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned”?  The denial of the sufficiency of Scripture for living the Christian life is a serious violation of both Scripture and the historic care of souls that is based upon the Word of God!  Psychotherapy is not based upon the Word of God; psychotherapy is based upon the fallen and failing words of men after the flesh.  Thus, we need to heed Paul’s final instruction in Romans 16:17: “avoid them”!  Have nothing to do with them!  Quit looking for something that might appear to be useful in their teaching.  

Some have suggested, on the basis of Matthew 18, that all criticism of teachings should be done on a one to one basis.  However, Matthew 18 applies to personal offenses rather than important doctrinal problems that affect the lives of many believers.  Matthew 18 does not apply to warning the sheep of serious doctrinal error.  For us there was no personal offense.  Moreover, pointing out doctrinal error privately will not protect the sheep if the perpetrator of that teaching does not repent publicly and effectually.

Instead of questioning those of us who name names, one should question why there is not more questioning by name those popular pastors and organizations that are in serious violation of the very Word of God that they claim to follow.  The most loving thing to do for the Body of Christ is to warn believers of those who propagate false teachings, and the most loving thing to do for the perpetrators of psychoheresy is to continue to speak forth in hopes that they will repent.  As we often say, we should never replace the God of the anointing with the present-day “anointed of God” by showering them with unwholesome adoration and unnecessary protection.  

While some Christian leaders are speaking out and condemning what we call psychoheresy, they typically refrain from speaking out specifically by naming names.  Rarely do we hear even those Christian leaders who agree with us name the names of individuals or organizations that are guilty. Where are the pastors, theologians, and church leaders who are willing to speak out against psychoheresy specifically by naming names? 

Not only must we name the names of leaders and organizations that condone and promote psycho heresy, we need to examine ourselves to see if we are allowing psycho heresy to creep into our thinking and living. The more secularly minded Christians are in their day-to-day thoughts and activities, the more apt they will be to succumb to the psychological wisdom of men.  Therefore we challenge our readers to examine themselves, for if you believe that the clinical psychological wisdom of man and its resulting psychotherapies can complement or augment the Word of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in believers’ lives, you are guilty of psychoheresy! 

© Copyright 2015 Martin and Deidre Bobgan 

PsychoHeresy Awareness Letter 

Endnotes
1. Martin and Deidre Bobgan. The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1979.
2. We coined the term psychoheresy later to describe what we saw happening in the church at the time of our first book.
3. Roger Wright and Nicholas Cummings, eds. The practice of Psychology : The Battle for Professionalism.  Phoenix, AZ : Zieg, Tucker & Theisen, Inc, 2001, p.2
4.  Ellen Herman. The Romance of American Psychology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 1996, p.3
5. John T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers 1951.
6. Jay E. Adams, “About this book…,” Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity, Santa Barbara, CA. : EastGate Publishers, 1987, endorsement page.
7. Jay E. Adams. Grist from Adams’ Mill. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983,p. 69.

Beware the Greed Mongers / 2015 Bible Conference Globe...

How Satan's Rebellion Serves God's Purposes - Erwin Lutzer

MORALOPHOBIC

This article is from Midwest Christian Outreach Journal - Fall 2013 /Winter 2014 - Volume 19 No 2,. The article is written by L.L. (Don) Veinot, Jr. & Dr. Jerry Buckner. Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission to reproduce the article. Please see MCO’s website for additional helpful articles and resources.

MORALOPHOBIC

In the 1930s, Roman Catholic priest and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin discovered a very effective way of discrediting people he considered political threats. He would appeal to the anti-Semitism and isolationism shared by much of his audience by denouncing various individuals as “atheistic Jews” or “imported radicals.” It mattered little to Coughlin that the sources of his “information” were often untrustworthy. He know that once he used the power of the broadcast medium to slap labels on people, those people would find them very difficult to remove from their reputations.

 

In the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph P. McCarthy used the new medium of television to boost his political career by taking advantage of Americans fear of Communism. No evidence was too slight, no testimony too tainted, no logic too specious for him to use it to label various individuals as “Communists” of “subversives.” Reputations were destroyed. Careers were ruined. For decades after McCarthy himself was discredited and died, his victims struggled to rebuild their shattered lives. McCarthyism has come to be synonymous with intimidation through labeling and blacklisting and has often been mistakenly portrayed as a “right-wing” tactic. The fact is, however, that McCarthyism is equally useful to demagogues of all political persuasions. In fact, it has become a favorite tool of the Left for stifling opposition to their agenda today.

Conservatives are often labeled “Uncle Toms,” if they are black, or “racists” if they are white, for daring to voice opposition to any aspect of the Left’s “civil rights” agenda. People who oppose gay “marriage” are labeled “homophobic.” Men and women who oppose abortion on moral grounds are dangerous “extremists,” and so it goes. Thus, opposes are allegedly motivated by “hate” or “fear” rather than rational disagreement. Name-calling, then, becomes a very effective substitute for rationally defending one’s case-- legitimate viewpoints are summarily de-legitimized and thinking is short-circuited by knee-jerk reaction to an emotional appeal. Whenever you hear someone slap a label on someone else without providing careful definitions and clear evidence, you are more than justified if you suspect you may be listening to a propagandist rather than someone who truly desires to inform the pubic. (1)

These words penned in 2003 and published in our book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life are just as relevant today as they were than. The art of name-calling can often be a useful tool to marginalize or even silence those with opposing views. It masquerades as defending the rightness of a position without actually ever defending the position itself with clear, logical and actual precision. If done well, name-calling keeps those with another view so busy trying to demonstrate they have been maligned, that they rarely have the opportunity to address the actual original issue.

This is true in the area of religion, where groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs aka Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) write about “The Whore of Babylon, World Empire of False Religions” as a description of all groups which claim to be Christian., but who are not JWs. At times when confronting false teaching, I am accused of being mean, narrow-minded or even bigoted. But since I am aware of the gamesmanship here, I elect not to begin defending myself from the accusations, but instead I respond with something like; “You might be right, I might be mean. I might even be short and perhaps even fat. All of those things can be true, and we certainly can discuss them, but the question we need to answer first is: Where am I wrong?” I am often met with a blank expression at that point.
 

You Are Homophobic

In the current cultural battle, name-calling really has replaced reasoned debate and discussion. If someone holds to historic Judeo/Christian moral values--the values which have been central in the founding and history of our nation--they often find themselves or their group the object of name-calling and character assassination. Anyone who is opposed to “same-gender marriage” is labeled “homophobic.” Those opposed to abortion are “misogynists.” Is it really true those who oppose abortion hate women? I clearly remember in the days leading up to the Gore vs. Bush election in 2000 watching a woman in tears at the local Post Office begging the postal clerk to vote for Gore because, according to her, “Bush wants to kill women!!” I suppose I missed Bush’s plan for the mass extermination of women.

Is opposition to same-gender marriage actually “homophobic?” The definition of phobia is fairly straightforward and simple:

…usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. (2)

 

Of all of the people I know and with whom I have spoken, including some homosexuals, “fear” of homosexuals--much less “irrational” “fear” -- simply is not present. But many people are often cowed by the accusation; because like Br’er Rabbit fighting the Tar-Baby, (3) the more they fight to defend themselves against name-calling, the more stuck they become.

I have wondered: Are those who support abortion, same-gender marriage, and other “Progressive” social issues “moralphobic?” That is, do they have an irrational” “fear” of morals, or would using that term just be name-calling instead of sound, reasoned debate as well? I have come to two conclusions on this question. First, it would be name-calling and, as tempting as it may be to me, it comes across as a playground squabble ending with “So is your mother!” The accusations that Progressives and Liberals are moral phobic lacks reasoned debate and comment on the issues at hand. Second, it is actually not true. They don’t have an “irrational” “fear” of the morals which have been the fabric of our nation since its inception--the ones contained in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. Rather, they have a rational fear and hatred of those morals. They are not opposed to morality per se, but they are working to change morals to accommodate the way they desire to live rather than how God says we ought to live. Fear of condemnation can be assuaged--if not eliminated altogether--by making the change. It is being accomplished a little at a time.

The big push now is to normalize same-gender, sexual relationships. The line from married to non-married sexual relations had been shifted a few decades ago. Now that unmarried sex is more acceptable, there is just a small shift in cultural thinking to embrace same-gender sexual relationships. “How can you deny someone sexual satisfaction solely because they are attracted to others of the same gender?” we are asked. The highest moral values in this area today: Personal Satisfaction. Legitimizing same-gender sex happens simply by moving the martial requirements one (albeit huge) step to include these homosexual relationships. But then, why not include polygamy or eliminate the age of consent and include children in the mix? Well, that would absolutely be met with near-complete cultural rejection …right now. However, by moving the boundaries one-step-at-a-time, it is easier to change morals. The new morality becomes, “How could you deny the right of two people who love each other ‘the right’ to marry.” Once that is accepted, it then becomes immoral to oppose same-sex marriage. The next part of the process is to create peer pressure to conform to the new morality.

 

Thought-Shapers and Peer Pressure

Changing morals across culture is perhaps an easier task than one might think. For many, the change appears to be sudden and drastic but that is really only because they have just noticed. This has been in the works for the last century as the battle between Progressives (in the early twentieth century Marxists/Socialists) and Conservatives has been waged. As we have pointed out in numerous articles in the past, those who believed in the fundamentals of the faith abandoned the colleges and universities in the 1920s and 30s, while Marxists/Socialists used those institutions to spread their philosophy pretty much unchallenged. The college student rebellion of the late 1960s and 1970s were the fruition successfully reeducating the children of the “Builder Generation.” (4) The abandoning of the faith and changing of national morals was already well underway, but we still had a Christian hangover. Many still live by Judeo/Christian morality, but it was not attached to any foundation. It would give way to the morals of self. Self-centeredness would become the guide for determining the shape of national and individual morality. What we are now witnessing is the clearing away of the hangover of Judeo/Christian morality and the codifying of the new moral expectations.

Most of the population are followers. It is not that they are unintelligent or uncaring, but they are mostly focused on the day-to-day aspects of their lives. Their opinions on big issues in life are informed mostly by the media to which they are exposed, the organizations in which they participate, and friends with whom they interact regularly. It is falsely assumed that news organizations are philosophically neutral and simply reporting the facts. Church leaders, it is believed, are there to be caretakers of the soul and guide their followers with the wisdom God has imparted whether directly from the Scriptures or not. The combination of these influences set up guidelines as to what someone should believe; and the peer pressure follows from it and enforces how one ought to behave. As our culture has made what are now substantial shifts away from Judeo/Christian values, that shift has been guided by those thought-shapers who have the biggest public voice.

The news media and government officials have been near giddy with the elevation of acceptance of the homosexual practices, and they vilify anyone who publicly expresses a contrary view. In 2012, Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, was quoted as supporting the biblical definition of marriage: One man and one woman. When asked, he said he was “guilty as charged.” It became a media circus as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that these are “not Chicago’s values.” When Emmanuel made that assertion, I wondered how many Chicagoans in a one-man,-one woman marriage realized their marriage did not fall within the bounds of “Chicago values?” It wasn’t that Chick-fil-A, as a company, discriminated against homosexuals. They did not and do not ask about sexual orientation in hiring. In fact, how one is sexually satisfied is not a concern with the company as long as it isn’t being pursued on the job. It doesn’t impact promotions or in any way impact one’s employment. Chick-fil-A also does not ask customers about their preferred sexual encounters before taking their order. How someone has sex has nothing to do with whether or not they can purchase a sandwich and fries. But here is where the media and government ban together to bring peer pressure to bear: Dan Cathy and others who looked on were bullied--in no uncertain terms--that no one may have an opinion which is different than the news media and government, or they will be punished.

　

The “new morality” was forced into the military. Sexual relations between non-married troops have always been discouraged. Males and females, even if they want to have relations, are segregated when it comes to sleeping and showering arrangements. The reason is fairly understandable. It is a practical way to diminish sexual tension, as well as to protect those who would be the objects of sexual advances from potential predators. Now, it is politically correct to force the military not only to allow but to endorse those who prefer same-gender relations to publicly advertise their preferences. However, there is no segregation to alley sexual tensions from those with whom they may want to have relations. The result?

More military men than women are sexually abused in the ranks each year, a Pentagon survey shows, highlighting the underreporting of male-on-male assaults. (5)

 

In 2004, roughly 12% of sexual assaults were against males. In 2012, approximately 54% of sexual assault victims were male. (6) Now, it should be noted that there are far more males in the military than females, but that was also the case back in 2004. The basic change has the implementation of the new morality by Federal fiat. In reality, if the military were to be truly fair and liberated about this social experiment, they would eliminate any reference to gender or sexual orientation and make all facilities--barracks etc, --gender-neutral. Anything less is discrimination. 

The legalization and recognition of same-gender marriage as no different than opposite-gender marriage will not be the end of the changing morals I the nation. As Denny Burke points out in “The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper,” polygamists and polyamorists are just waiting in the wings for the door to be open by same-gender marriage.

The redefinition of legal marriage in our culture will not end with same sex “marriage.” The polygamists are waiting in the wings for the opportunity to make their case--a case that will be all the more compelling as arguments for gay “marriage” take hold across the country. If marriage becomes defined as legal recognition of whoever it is that you love, on what basis will the polygamists be excluded?

But redefinition won’t end with polygamous marriage either. The polyamorists are beginning to make their case as well. In an article for Slate magazine, Jillian Keenan argues that polyamorous unions should be on an equal footing with all other marriages. The polyamorous “family” featured in the article includes two men and two women, all of whom share one another sexually. Their relationship is defined as “consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy.” (7)

Where is The Church in All Of This?

Of course, there are many solid, biblically based churches which are horrified by what they are seeing. They receive the brunt of the name-calling and bullying by the high priests of the new morality. But there are segments of the church which are being unduly influenced and have become supporters of the new morality even though those who attend the churches--and, perhaps, even the leadership--do not agree with abortion, homosexuality or other elements of the new morality. They have become accessories to facilitating the change through their political allegiances.

 

Our friend, Advisory Board member, and co-author of the article, addresses the issue of how the Black church has been captured by what he calls, “The Cult of Black Liberation Theology.” Over 90% of the Black vote for President went to Barack Obama. Barack and Michelle Obama had been members of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, Illinois. Trinity United Church of Christ not only embraced Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (8) under the leadership of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, but it was a flagship church of Black Liberation Theology. BLT was central to the teaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and it promotes Marxist idea of class warfare between “oppressed groups” and “established groups.” The United Church of Christ is the first denomination in America to ordain gays/homosexuals as ministers. The influence of BLT on the Black church along with Obama’s views on homosexuality have had a big impact upon the Black church and the Black community. Even though Black churches may lean toward being theologically conservative, they tend to be socially liberal through the influence of Black Liberation Theology. It is very difficult to be of African-American descent and go against the tide here. Those who do are called, “Uncle Tom” or are labeled as being not really Black. In this setting, one’s race is no longer a matter of ancestry, but rather one of political affiliation. The recent stand for same-gender marriage by Black pastors in Chicago claiming it is “about civil rights, not religion” (9) is a demonstration of the effective power of peer pressure to achieve the implementation of the new morality.

There is a similar assault on the White church. It is coming from the Emerging Church movement. Brian McLaren made slow moves away from affirming biblical views on sex and marriage. In 2006, he called for a five-year moratorium on asserting firm views about homosexuality:

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When dicisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing refection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course. (10)

　

Six years later, McLaren affirmed the rightness of same-gender marriage by leading the “Commitment Ceremony at Son’s Same-Sex Wedding.” (11) Rob Bell, another well-known and widely read luminary, also came out in favor of homosexual relationships and was fairly unhappy at the questions directed at his position:

“Do you believe that this is an area where actually God is ahead of the church, that affirming same-sex partnerships is actually a God thing and that we will eventually all get to see that in the course of time. Brierley asked Bell of comments he made in March.

The former Mars Hill Bible Church pastor revealed in March his acceptance of gay marriage, having said, “I believe God [is] pulling us ahead into greater and greater affirmation and acceptance of our gay brothers and sisters and pastors and friends and neighbors and coworkers.” Previously Bell had also stated that he was for “marriage….for fidelity…for love” whether it was with homosexual or heterosexual relationships. (12)

 

The young adults and teenagers within the Evangelical, Fundamental and Confessing church read and are greatly influenced by these and other well-known leaders who are going down the same path. They are--whether intentionally or unintentionally--thumbing their noses at God. The moral code god handed to Moses (the Ten Commandments) does condemn all of us. Paul calls it “the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones.” (2 Corinthians 3:7a) and writes the “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) The moral code reflects God’s holiness and is not able to make us live holy lives, but rather, it was given to teach us how sinful all of us really are and to point us to the solution to our sin:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:23-25)

 

If we get to write our own moral standards, we can do it in such a way that we can come out looking righteous and those who disagree and regarded as immoral by the standards of the newly defined morality. This is not a new issue; it has been the pattern of humanity nearly since The Creation. Noah’s descendant, Nimrod, established a kingdom “in the land of Shinar” (Gen10) and his descendants turned from God to create their own religion (Gen. 11) The plan to build a tower to heaven and make a name for themselves (rather than hallow God’s name) would obviously include their new moral code. We see examples of this in the leaders of the Nation of Israel when Jesus walked among them. For example, sons created a way not to have to assist parents(s) in need by keeping the money that should go to assist them, and employing it for their own use, while maintaining the appearance of being righteous. How? They developed a doctrine called Corban which means dedicated to God. As long as it was “dedicated to God,” they couldn’t give it to someone else; but they, themselves, could use it as they wished. Jesus spoke to this issue as, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:8). He went on to say:

…”You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God,’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”    (Mark 7:9-12)

 

Notice the common thread of self-centeredness as regarding the Tower of Babel. In Genesis 11:4 they say, “…let us make a name for ourselves.” We find Lucifer weighing in similarly in Isaiah 4:14 as he asserts, “I will make myself like the Most High.” In Mark, the Hebrew concept of “Corban” was a demonstration of self-centeredness. Today’s equivalent of working to redefine morality is also based on self-centeredness. It comes from the now-pervasive idea that “God wants me to be happy.” Let me say for the record, God is more concerned about our holiness than He is about our happiness. For unbelievers, His focus is on their being clothed with His holiness by being redeemed by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. For believers, He is more concerned they practice the holiness to which they have been called rather than whether they are happy or not. That doesn’t mean He is unconcerned about our happiness, but He has other priorities. An example from the life of an earthly father may be helpful here. I love my son, daughter and grandchildren. There have been times when each of them have fixated on doing something which they convinced themselves would make them happy. For reasons they didn’t understand, but was in their best interests, I would prevent them from carrying out their intentions. Sometimes their response was, “I hate you,” or “You must hate me.” Neither was true. I just had something better for them. It is the same with God. He has something better for us which our self-centeredness will never fulfill. 

Is There Hope?

There is hope, but the hope should be focused toward the Lord. Left to ourselves, we will manage to spiral into the abyss of the immoral. The task of Christian leaders is to train and to shepherd their flock in understanding and living out the Word of God. Church is the place for equipping, binding up the wounds of living in a fallen world, being examples to the flock of selfless lives in service to the Master who bought us. In turn, the flock goes into the world as missionaries, or as Paul put it, “…we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”    (2 Cor. 5:20)

© 2013 Midwest Christian Outreach Inc.

　

LL (Don) Veinot, Jr. is co-founder and president of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Wonder Lake, IL with offices in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio. He and Joy, his wife of 42 years, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to New Religious Movements since 1987. He is a frequent guest on various radio and television broadcasts including The John Ankerberg Show. He is a staff researcher and writer for the Midwest Christian Outreach Inc. Journal and is co-author of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, contributing author of Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in Non-Essentials as well as author of articles featured in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. He was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Community Church of Lombard, IL at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997. Don is a charter member of ISCA (International Society of Christian Apologetics) and is also the current President of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of counter-cult/apologetics and discernment ministries from around the country.


 

 

　

Dr. Jerry L. Buckner graduated from California Baptist College in Riverside and earned his Master’s at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary where he is currently an adjunct professor. He earned his Doctorate at San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, CA.

 

Dr. Buckner lives in the San Francisco Bay Area where he serves as pastor of Tiburon Christian Fellowship hosts Contending for the Faith a live call-in-radio program that airs on KFAX (AM 1100), one of the largest Christian radio stations in Northern California.

Midwest Christian Outreach

Website Link: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/

 

 

 

ENDNOTES:

1. Don Veinot, Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, (Midwest Christian Outreach, inc, 2003) 175-176

2. Phobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobic

3. The Tar-Baby is a fictional character in the second of the Uncle Remus stories published in 1881; it is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Be’er Rabbit. The more that Be’er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes.

In modern usage, “tar baby” refers to any “stickly” situation” that is only aggravated by add ional contact.”

Tar-Baby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

4. Generations in our Nation; http://aimysgeneration.blogspot.com/p/buiders.html

5. Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men, Rowan Scarborough, http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all

6. Ibid

7. The Case for Plural Marriage: The slippery slope gets slicker and steeper” Denny Burke http//www.dennyburk.com/the-case-for-plural-marriage-the-slippery-slope-gets-slicker-and-steeper/

8. We discussed this in the Fall 2009 Issue of the MCOI Journal article “Barack and the Borg.” http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2010/Fall%202009%20FINAL

9. Chicago-Sun-Times April 4, 2013 , ‘Gay Marriage support about civil right, not religion, pastors say’ http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/19274300-418/gay-marriage-support-about-civil-rights-not-religion-pastors-say.html

10. Brian MaLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response; Brian McLaren; Out of UK. Christianity Today, http://www.outofur.com/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

11. Brian McLaren Leads Commitment Ceremony At Son’s Same-Sex Wedding. Melissa Steffan, Christianity Today, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/09/brian_mclaren_l.html

12. Rob Bell Grows Frustrated Amid Questions on Sinfulness of Homosexuality; Nicola Menzie; The Christian Post; http://www.christianpost.com/news/rob-bell-grows-frustrated-amid-questions-on-sinfulness-of-homosexuality-95209/

 

More Bible Answers

This radio program can be heard at the Olive Tree Ministries Radio archives page.  Listen to the Radio program at this Link:
http://www.olivetreeviews.org/radio/complete-archives/817-more-bible-answers

 
Dr. Ron Rhodes returns for the entire hour to interact with hosts Jan Markell, Eric Barger and Jill Martin Rische. The three hosts fire Bible questions at him including angelology, fallen angels, end-times, Heaven and related eternity issues, and even suicide. Rhodes was the "Bible Answerman" on radio for a number of years sponsored by CRI. Find Rhodes' book, "The Big Book of Bible Answers: A Guide to Understanding the Most Challenging Questions," here

Falling on Deaf Ears?

In a recent article by Albert Mohler called “Falling on Deaf Ears? Why So Many Churches Hear so Little of the Bible“ which focused on and quoted from an article from Christianity Today magazine , highlighting concern that contemporary Christianity has become “impatience with and resistant to the reading and preaching of the Bible.” Please read Albert Mohler’s Article Here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/10/14/falling-on-deaf-ears-why-so-many-churches-hear-so-little-of-the-bible-2/

Below are a few quotes from the article:

“The fixation on our own sense of need and interest looms as the most significant factor in this marginalization and silencing of the Word.”

“How can so many of today’s churches demonstrate what can only be described as an impatience with the Word of God? The biblical formula is clear: the neglect of the Word can only lead to disaster, disobedience, and death. “

“In the end, an impatience with the Word of God can be explained only by an impatience with God. We all, both individually and congregationally, neglect God’s Word to our own ruin. As Jesus himself declared, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

STAND FIRM - OVERCOME AND RESIST

As we stand firm in the Faith we must take up the full armor of God. Below is quoted from Charles Spurgeon. Here he instructs us with the verse from 1 Peter 5:9 : But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.”   

HOW WE MAY OVERCOME THIS ADVERSARY

“Whom resist steadfast in the faith.” This is our first means of defense. When Satan attacks us as an angel of light, we need not so much resist by open antagonism as by flight. There are some temptations that are to be overcome only by running away from them, but when Satan roars, we must raise the shout and the war cry. To run then would be cowardice and must entail certain destruction.

 

Suppose now that Satan roars with persecution, or suppose you are slandered, vilified, abused---will you give way? Then are you undone. Will you say, “No, never. By Him who called me to this work, I will see this battle out.” You have done well: you have resisted, and you will win the day. Has he assailed you with some temptation obnoxious to your spirit? Yield an inch, and you are undone, but become more watchful and vigilant over yourself in that particular sin, and resistance must certainly bring victory. Or has he injected blasphemy? Resist. Be more prayerful every time he is more active. He will soon give it up if you find that his attacks drive you to Christ. Often has Satan been nothing but a big black dog to drive Christ’s sheep nearer to the Master. Match Satan by turning his temptations to good account, and he will soon give up that method of warfare.

Resist him. But how? “Steadfast in the faith” Seek to obtain a clear knowledge of the doctrines of the gospel and then get a good grip of them. Be ready to die rather than give up a particle of God’s revealed truth. This will make you strong. Then take hold of the promises of God which are yea and amen in Christ Jesus. Know that to every doctrine there is some opposite promise. Have ready for every attack some strong word commencing with “It is written.”

All the water outside a ship cannot sink it. It is the water inside that perils the ship’s safety. So if your faith can keep its hold and you can say, “Though he slay me yet will I trust in him,” Satan may batter your shield, but he has not wounded your flesh. The conflict may be long, but the victory is absolutely sure. Keep near to the cross, and you are safe. Throw your arms around the dying Savior. Let the droppings of His blood fall on your sins, and even if you cannot see Him, still believe in Him. Then let Satan roar, he cannot hurt; let him rage, his fury is vain; he may only show his teeth, for he certainly cannot bite. “Whom resist, steadfast in the faith.”

 

 

Discernment and Revelation

Stand Firm in the Faith has been given permission by Pastor Gary E. Gilley to reproduce this article below: Discernment and Revelation from the Feb/March 2013 - Think on these things Newsletter. He is pastor of Southern View Chapel, in Springfield, IL. Please refer to the links below to visit the website.

Dr. Gary E. Gilley has been pastoring at Southern View Chapel for more than 37 years. He is author of five books, and has also contributed to four other books, including Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond, a Tribute to Charles Ryrie.

Pastor Gilley received his B. A. from Moody Bible Institute and his M.B.S and Th.D from Cambridge Graduate School. He is a frequent speaker at Bible conferences and writes the monthly study paper, Think on These Things and is the Book Review Editor for the Journal of Dispensational Theology. He is also a board member of Brazil Gospel Fellowship Mission, Personal Freedom Outreach and New Tribes Missions.


Think on These Things Articles
Discernment and Revelation February/March 2013 - Volume 19, Issue 6

Discernment, one would think, is an extremely positive quality. In a world in which there are incalculable numbers of voices calling us to travel many different directions, discernment is invaluable. However, when used by those involved in spiritual formation, discernment is defined as the discipline that enables one to know when a person has supposedly heard the voice of God. Spiritual formation leaders do not question that God speaks to us today apart from Scripture, but they do believe that since God is speaking there has to be a means whereby we can discern the voice of God from our own thoughts. Adele Ahlberg Calhoun writes in her Spiritual Disciplines Handbook, “Discernment opens us up to listen to and recognize the voice and patterns of God’s direction in our lives.” [1] Ruth Barton further explains,

Discernment is a quality of attentiveness to God that is so intimate that over time we develop an intuitive sense of God’s heart and purpose in any given moment. We become familiar with God’s voice – the tone, quality and content—just as we become familiar with the voice of a human being we know well. [2]

Christian psychologist Larry Crabb believes he has learned the art of listening to God and proposes to let us in on what he has discovered in his book The Papa Prayer, “Sometime, though never audibly, I hear the Father speak more clearly than I hear the voice of a human friend.” [3] And influential pastor John Ortberg adds, “It is one thing to speak to God. It is another thing to listen. When we listen to God, we receive guidance from the Holy Spirit.” [4]

As we contemplate the subject of discernment it is important that we determine whether or not God does speak to Christians today outside of the Scriptures themselves. This is hardly an issue pertinent only to the Spiritual Formation Movement. As a matter of fact modern day revelations (or lack thereof) from God are one of the most hotly debated topics within evangelicalism today.
 

Despite the fact that the majority of conservative evangelical Christians since the Reformation have held to a cessationist (that present day revelations from God no longer take place) position with regard to Divine revelation, true cessationists are rapidly disappearing. In the articles and books I have written nothing has evoked as much criticism and anger as my position that God is speaking to His people today exclusively through Scripture. Due to the influence of a multitude of popular authors, theologians and conference speakers, cessationism is barely treading water, even within the most biblically solid churches and organizations. As a matter of fact, among those who claim to be evangelicals there are five identifiable views prevalent today on the matter of revelation:

Identifiable views:

Pentecostal/Charismatic/Thirdwave: All miraculous gifts exist today, including the gift of prophecy. God speaks through prophets and to His people both audibly (through dreams, visions, words of knowledge), and inwardly (inaudibly in the mind or heart). Representatives of this position are Jack Deere, John Wimber, the Kansas City Prophets, the Assemblies of God and the Word of Faith movement. Charismatic author Tommy Tenney, in his popular book The God Chasers, writes, “God chasers…are not interested in camping out on some dusty truth known to everyone. They are after the fresh presence of the Almighty…A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth; he must have present truth. God chasers don’t want to just study the moldy pages of what God has done; they are anxious to see what God is doing.” [5]

Classical Mysticism/Spiritual Formation: Through the use of various disciplines and spiritual exercises, God will speak to us both audibly and inaudibly. Dallas Willard and Richard Foster are two such examples. Willard, a leader within the Spiritual Formation Movement, recently updated a previous book renaming it Hearing God, Developing a Conversational Relationship with God. The thrust of his book is that we can live “the kind of life where hearing God is not an uncommon occurrence, [for] hearing God is but one dimension of a richly interactive relationship and obtaining guidance is but one facet of hearing God.” [6] In other words, the maturing Christian should expect to hear the voice of God on a regular basis, independent from Scripture, and that voice will reveal God’s individual, specific will for his life. Such personal communication from the Lord, we are told, is absolutely essential because without it there can be no intimate walk with God. [7] And it is those who are hearing from God today, in this way, who will redefine “Christian spirituality for our time.” [8]

　

Evangelical Mysticism: God is speaking to Christians regularly, mostly inaudibly through inner voices, hunches, promptings, feelings and circumstances (examples: Henry Blackaby and Beth Moore). Southern Baptists ministers Henry and Richard Blackaby wrote Hearing God’s Voice to “teach God’s people not only to recognize his voice but also immediately to obey his voice when they heard it.” [9] They promise that “as you spend time with Jesus, you will gradually come to recognize his voice more readily than you did at first…You won’t be fooled by other voices because you know your Lord’s voice so well.” [10] And, once you have figured out when God is speaking to you, “write it down in a journal so you can refer back to it as you follow him.” [11]

In this category could be placed the New Calvinists or Calvinistic Charismatics such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll and C. J. Mahaney. Their followers are sometimes called the young, restless, and Reformed. Mark Driscoll, who often claims extra-biblical revelation, dreams, and visions from the Lord, documented four such events in his recent book Real Marriage. He writes, “…when God spoke to me, I had never experienced anything like that moment. God told me to devote my life to four things. He told me to marry Grace, preach the Bible, train men, and plant churches. Since that day in 1990, that’s what I have been pursuing by God’s grace.” [12] Matt Chandler would be on page with this idea. In his popular book The Explicit Gospel Chandler writes, “He [God] speaks to us in dreams and in visions and in words of knowledge—but in no way that runs contrary to Scripture.” [13] Long time Southern Baptist pastor, Charles Stanley is of the same opinion. In a recent interview with Christianity Today he is asked about his frequent references to God speaking to Him. He responded by mentioning a time that very week when God said to him, “Don’t do that.” He claims that he does not hear an audible voice “but it’s so crystal sharp and clear to me, I know not to disobey that.” [14]

Cessationist: All miraculous gifts, including prophecy, have ceased (examples: the IFCA International, John MacArthur and Charles Ryrie). The Westminster Confession states well the historic cessationist position,
　 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. [15]
 

Cautious, but Open: Those holding this position are skeptical of prophetic claims and the majority of inaudible experiences. But they do not want to “put God in a box” and therefore are cautiously open to the possibility of additional revelation from the Lord today, although they are not certain how this works or how to identify God’s voice. Nevertheless, they are afraid to limit the power of God and fear that they might be missing out on a close personal relationship with the Lord if they do not allow for the possibility of God speaking today apart from Scripture (examples: most Christians).

Modern Revelations

Continuationists, those who believe that the miraculous sign gifts, including prophecy, are still available to believers today, define their supposed revelations in different ways. There are two broad categories that could be acknowledged, the first of which claims prophetic messages from the Lord. Such messages would be direct, clear words from God or angels, perhaps in dreams or visions or through audible voices. Such claims have long been common in Pentecostal and charismatic circles and are increasing among non-charismatic evangelicals. Extremely popular conference speaker and author Beth Moore is well known for her claims of hearing from God. In a DVD she states, "Boy, this is the heart of our study. This is the heart of our study. Listen carefully. What God began to say to me about five years ago, and I'm telling you it sent me on such a trek with Him, that my head is still whirling over it. He began to say to me, 'I'm going to tell you something right now, Beth, and boy you write this one down and you say it as often as I give you utterance to say it.” [16] Such statements coming from evangelicals are far too common to need much documentation. Moore is claiming a direct word from the Lord that sets the future agenda for her ministry. The source of authority is her own experience.

From a more doctrinal base we turn to theologian Wayne Grudem, who has had a massive impact on the evangelical world concerning modern prophecies. Grudem has written the definitive book on the subject, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, in which he claims that church age prophecy is different than Old Testament prophecy. While the Old Testament prophet was held to the standard of infallibility when speaking a word from the Lord (Deut 18:20-24), prophecies beginning with Pentecost are fallible and imperfect. He writes, “Prophecy in ordinary New Testament churches was not equal to Scripture in authority, but simply a very human—and sometimes partially mistaken—report of something the Holy Spirit brought to someone’s mind.” [17]  Modern prophecy then is impure and imperfect. By way of example and documentation Grudem quotes the Anglican charismatic leaders Dennis and Rita Bennet who claim
　

We are not expected to accept every word spoken through the gifts of utterance…but we are only to accept what is quickened to us by the Holy Spirit and is in agreement with the Bible…one manifestation may be 75% God, but 25% the person’s own thoughts. We must discern between the two. [18]

One of the most disconcerting aspects of Grudem’s position is his uncertainty as to how we can distinguish between our own thoughts and those supposedly from God. This is such an important and disturbing feature of the conservative continuationist’s system that I will quote Grudem at length.

But how would a person know if what came to mind was a “revelation” from the Holy Spirit? Paul did not write specific instructions; nonetheless, we may suppose that in practice such a decision would include both an objective and subjective element. Objectively, did the revelation conform with what the prophet knew of the Old Testament Scriptures and with apostolic teaching? [19]

With this quote cessationists partially agree. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself and anything allegedly spoken by the Holy Spirit which is in disagreement with Scripture is naturally spurious. The continuationists, however, are rarely claiming new doctrines that supplement Scripture; they are claiming specific, personal words that guide them in decision making or knowledge of the future. It should be mentioned in passing that contrary to what is often stated by continuationists, many espousing modern prophecies do in fact add numerous doctrines not found or taught in the Bible such as specific demonic warfare techniques, insights on heaven or hell, “word of faith” authority that releases the power of God, dominion theology, novel views on the atonement, inspiration and ecclesiology. While more conservative continuationists such as Grudem, Piper, and Mahaney would not be guilty of such theological additions, many others are.

Turning back to Grudem we read of his subjective element of prophecy
　

But there was no doubt also a subjective element of personal judgment: did the revelation “seem like” something from the Holy Spirit; did it seem to be similar to other experiences of the Holy Spirit which he had known previously in worship…Beyond this it is difficult to specify much further, except to say that over time a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations of prophecies, and individual prophets would also benefit from those evaluations and become more adept at recognizing a genuine revelation from the Holy Spirit and distinguishing it from their own thoughts. [20]

When we contrast Grudem’s view of prophecy with Scripture we find nothing remotely resembling what Grudem teaches. Nowhere in the Bible is one receiving a message from God left to wonder if God is speaking to him (with the temporary exception of the young boy Samuel). No one had to ask if what they were hearing “seemed like” the Holy Spirit or matched previous subjective experiences that also “seemed like” the Holy Spirit. They knew without question when God was speaking to them. This is essentially the same teaching that Dallas Willard exerts in Hearing God: “How can you be sure God is speaking to you? The answer is that we learn by experience.” [21] Therefore subjective experience becomes the test of authority concerning revelation from God. This is a far cry from what we find in Scripture.
 

The second half of Grudem’s quote moves into the realm of the incredible. After 2000 years of church history, the best this world-class theologian can offer is that “over time a congregation would probably become more adept at making evaluations of prophecies…” This is a statement of speculation and hope that at some point the church will begin to figure out when a word of revelation is actually coming from the Holy Spirit and when it is the imagination of the speaker.

 

Let’s put Grudem’s hypothesis to a test. Sister Sally stands up in church and says the Holy Spirit has just revealed to her that an earthquake will flatten much of the city sometime within the next eight weeks. The congregation needs to add earthquake insurance to their properties, pack all their belongings, leave their jobs behind and head to the countryside. What is to be done? Given Grudem’s theory, the congregation knows that at best this prophecy is impure and most likely contains elements that are not from God. The people are then left to evaluate the validity of the revelation just received based on their own experience or other purely subjective means. In the Bible, if a true prophet of God warned of an impending earthquake there would be no doubt as to what to do, but Grudem’s New Testament prophet is unreliable. I have to ask, of what value is such a prophecy? It has no authority or certainty, and may actually lead to bad and even disastrous decisions. These modern prophecies do not have the ring of “thus says the Lord.”

When the different views on modern revelation and prophecies collide, continuationists attempt to pacify cessationists by assuring them that their messages from the Lord are not on par with Scripture. Grudem quotes George Mallone saying,
　
Prophecy today, although it may be helpful and on occasion overwhelmingly specific, is not in the category of the revelation given to us in the Holy Scripture…A person may hear the voice of the Lord and be compelled to speak, but there is no assurance that it is pollutant-free. There will be a mixture of flesh and spirit. [22]
　

Since almost no one within Christianity (save the cults) is claiming revelation that is equivalent to the Bible, we are left with a dilemma. Is it possible for God to speak in a non-authoritative way? Is it possible for Him to speak something less than His inspired word? The continuationists seem to have invented a novel type of divine revelation; one that contradicts Scripture and defies reason. In the Bible, and logically, either God is speaking or He is not. There is no such thing as partially inspired revelation or the true words from the Lord polluted by the misunderstanding or imagination of the prophet. This is not to say that all of God’s divine words are found in Scripture. John is careful to inform us that Jesus did many things, and certainly said many things, that are not recorded in his Gospel (John 20:30) , or the other New Testament books for that matter. Yet all that Jesus said were the words of God. He never expressed an impure or untruthful thought. He spoke with authority. Undoubtedly the Spirit also spoke through various men and women in biblical times whose words were not recorded in the Bible. The point, however, is that, while the Holy Spirit has not included every prophecy that He spoke through humans in Scripture, everything that He inspired people to say carries with it the infallible authority of the Word of God. Nothing that He said through people is less than God’s word. A polluted or partial revelation from the Holy Spirit has never been uttered.

This means that modern prophecies, words of knowledge, and other claims to hearing the voice of the Lord, if they are truly from the Holy Spirit, must be equal to the Scriptures in both inspiration and authority. God cannot speak with other than purity and inerrancy. Modern claims of the Lord speaking but with a “mixture of flesh and spirit” simply are not possible and are never attested to in Scripture. Those who are claiming divine revelation today must wrestle with the fact that what they are supposedly hearing must carry the same authority of the divinely inspired authors of Scripture.

　

A Case for Cessationism

 

With all of this as a backdrop, the question is reduced to this: Is God giving authoritative revelation on par with that which He has given in the past, much of which has been inscripturated, or is He not? If He is, then the church of Christ needs to take note and come into compliance with the modern prophecy movement, following its revelations as it would Scripture. But if the Lord is not revealing His inspired word today, then we need to reject the claims of the modern prophets and expose these supposed revelations for what they are. This means the position taken by most on prophecy – cautious but open – is untenable. The cautious but open crowd is skeptical of the claims coming from the prophetic movement and they are suspicious of the many “words from God” that so many evangelicals are claiming. Still they hesitate to embrace cessationism. They are concerned about limiting God or, as it was mentioned above, “putting God in a box.” To this let me make two replies:

It is okay to put God in a box if God, in fact, is the One who put Himself in that box. In other words, God can do anything He wants to do, but we expect God to do what He says He will do. If God has put Himself in the cessationist box we can embrace and proclaim it.

 

 Taking the open but cautious view really does not hold up. Either God is speaking today apart from His Word or He is not. If He is speaking, how do we determine which of the multitude of messages people claim are from Him and which are bogus? If, with Grudem, we have eliminated the tests of Deuteronomy 13 and 18, how are we to evaluate all these revelations? How do we know to whom we should listen and whom we should ignore?

On such an important area as divine revelation it is indefensible to believe that God’s people cannot know with certainty whether such is taking place. Surely we should expect that the Scriptures themselves would lay out the guidelines for us to determine if divine, authoritative, inspired revelation is being given today. I believe it does and that we can be confident, from the witness of Scripture itself, that God has ceased speaking to mankind during this age apart from the Bible. Let’s take a quick look at what the Word has to say.

 

A cessationist view begins with a careful look at what God actually did in Scripture. We find, when we search carefully, that God was not speaking to everyone all the time. His revelation, even in biblical times, was rare and when He did speak it was always supernaturally with an audible voice, never through inner voices or impressions. The assumption held by many that God spoke to most of His children in biblical times is simply not true. The average believer in either Testament never received a personal word from God and even the majority of key players never heard the voice of God personally. When God did speak in Scripture it almost always dealt with the big picture of what He was doing in the outworking of His redemptive program or the life of His people in general. You will search in vain to find God instructing someone to take a job, purchase a number of donkeys, or buy a house – except as it related to the bigger issue of God’s dealings with His people. Beyond a few individuals, finding a non-prophetic person in Scripture who heard directly from God becomes a difficult task. The contention that God spoke to almost everyone all the time, leading, guiding and directing, simply does not stand the test of careful examination of the Scriptures. Even those to whom God spoke in the Old Testament, to only Noah, Abraham, Moses (considered to be a prophet), Jacob, Aaron, Joshua, David and Solomon, did He speak more than twice in their lifetimes.

But what about the New Testament? We find that most records of God speaking to individuals after Pentecost are found in the book of Acts. But even here we find only thirteen distinct times in which God spoke directly to individuals (two of these through angels), (8:26-29; 9:4, 10; 10:3, 11-16; 12:7-8; 13:2-4; 16:6,9-10; 18:9; 21:4, 11; 22:17-21; 23:11). Eight of these occasions were to Paul or Peter, leaving a total of five other individuals or groups to whom God spoke directly in the first 30 years of church history.

 

So far, we have examined what might be called negative evidence. That is, if we are looking for a pattern of how God spoke to individuals in scriptural times, that pattern reveals a scarcity of individual revelations. The Lord chose to speak primarily through His prophets and the apostles. Following that pattern we should expect the same today. Let’s now move to more positive evidence that the Lord has ceased speaking today apart from Scripture.

Beginning with Ephesians 2:20, we find that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Since Christ is the cornerstone of the church, this verse has to be speaking of the witness concerning Christ that the apostles and prophets provided to the church. It is only to be expected that this witness would be passed along to the future generations of believers via the instrument of Scriptures that those men were inspired to write. As Ephesians 3:5 tells us, the “mystery of Christ” has been “made known to the sons of men through the revelation given to Christ’s holy apostles and prophets.” In the next chapter, Paul teaches that the Lord has provided gifted men to the church for its perfection or maturity. The apostles’ and prophets’ role in that process was laying the foundation of the church, as we have seen (Eph. 2:20; 3:5) . How? Through the teaching of New Testament truth, the apostles’ doctrine. The early church gathered together to devote “themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) , for it was the apostles who would provide New Testament revelation.

The book of Hebrews enhances our understanding by detailing two periods in human history in which the Lord has spoken to mankind. Hebrews 1:1 proclaims that the first period was “long ago to the fathers and prophets in many portions and in many ways.” This is an obvious reference to the revelations given during the times of the Old Testament. In verse two the author of Hebrews cites the second period of divine revelation by simply saying that “in these last days [God] has spoken through His Son.” But as we know Jesus Himself did not write down anything that He said. That was left to His followers and so, the author of Hebrews adds: “After it was first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard” (Heb 2:3) i.e. the apostles. This however raises a practical problem. How did the people know that the communication they were receiving from the apostles was true? After all, many individuals made claim to being an apostle during the first century. The Lord would authenticate His true apostles by giving them the ability to perform “signs and wonders, and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb 2:4). When the Corinthians challenged Paul’s apostleship and authority, he pointed them to the “signs of a true apostle…[which were] signs and wonders and miracles” (2 Cor. 12:12 ), just as the author of Hebrews confirmed. The book of Acts verifies repeatedly that miraculous gifts were taking place through the apostles for this very reason (Acts 2:42; 5:12,13; 9:38-41; 14:3, 8-9; 15:12; 19:11; 20:10; 28:8,9) . The only exceptions were Stephen (6:8), Philip (8:6-7) and possibly Barnabas (15:12), all very closely associated with the apostles. We find no examples of the average Christian in the New Testament either performing miracles or receiving authoritative revelation. Miracles were for the purpose of authenticating the office of the men who would lay the foundation of the church. Once the foundation of the church was in place, the role of the apostles was no longer needed. With the death of John, the last of the apostles, gifts authenticating the apostles were no longer necessary and they ceased.

　

But did that necessarily mean revelation ceased as well? I believe the evidence of Scripture would indicate that it did. We start with 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, which clearly tells us that the day comes when prophecy and supernatural knowledge will be done away, and tongues will cease. Specifically Paul writes that “when the perfect comes the partial will be done away.” All Bible believers are ultimately cessationists for this passage is clear that revelatory knowledge will cease at some point; that point being when the perfect comes. Many believe that the “perfect” refers to the coming of Christ or the eternal kingdom. That is a possible interpretation but the context is contrasting partial knowledge and revelatory gifts with that which is perfect. The best explanation in such a context would be that the perfect (or complete) would be the completion of Scripture. In other words, when the revelation for this dispensation as recorded in the New Testament is completed the need for partial words of knowledge and prophecies would cease. That is, because the final, full revelation of the Lord for this dispensation has arrived, there is no need for additional messages from God. This seems reasonable, but did it happen?

 

This understanding of the perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 is reinforced later in the New Testament by Peter, Jude, Paul and John. When the apostle Peter pens the inspired epistle we call Second Peter, he is desirous of reminding them of many things, especially that they “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (3:2). Peter did not point his readers to new or fresh revelation but to the words spoken previously by the prophets and apostles. Jude offers similar understanding when in verse three he urges his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” A message had been given, a foundation laid once for all that had to be defended. How did they know what that message was? In verse 17 Jude answers, “But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The faith in verse three that was handed down to them, the faith that was to be defended and proclaimed, had been given to them by none other than the apostles.

　

As the apostle Paul writes virtually his last inspired words to his friend Timothy he points him to the Scriptures that are able to make the people of God “adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). In light of this lofty claim for the God-breathed Scriptures, Paul gives Timothy a final charge – “to preach the word…” (4:1-5). There is no hint in Paul’s charge that Timothy is to seek additional revelation, listen to the prophecies or words of knowledge of fellow believers or preach his own dreams or visions. He is to preach the Word handed down to the saints through the apostles. As the New Testament canon nears its close the divinely inspired authors unite in pointing their readers to the apostles as the inspired human source of New Testament truth.

The apostle John joins the chorus as he closes down the New Testament with a solemn warning against adding to or subtracting from this final revelation from God. He writes, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev 22:18,19). Since this is the last chapter in the last book of the last Testament it is only reasonable to deduce that from that point on any addition of any prophecy would be adding to Scripture. With the death of John shortly thereafter, the last of the apostles had faded from the scene and with him the final word of revelation for this age. In addition there is no indication either the twelve apostles or the New Testament prophets were ever replaced (Rev 21:14).

 

The witness emerging from the Scriptures themselves is that God has chosen to communicate with mankind throughout history in specific and unique ways. He has chosen certain men at certain times to be prophets and apostles to speak and record divine revelation (Heb 1:1-2; 2:3-4). When God’s revelation was complete for this age, the ministry of the prophets and apostles was finished and we would expect no further communication at this time. This expectation is verified through the statements found in the Bible itself. What we are seeing today is not new revelation from God but subjective experiences and, at times, deception. Let us cling tenaciously to “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) rather than chasing the inferior, inadequate imaginations of those who claim a new word from the Lord today.

Copyright © 2013 Gary E. Gilley

　

[1] Adele Ahleberg Calhoun, Spiritual Disciplines Handbook, Practices That Transform Us, (Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 99 (emphasis mine).

[2] Ruth Haley Barton, Sacred Rhythms, Arranging Our Lives for Spiritual Transformation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 111.

[3] Larry Crabb, The Papa Prayer, the Prayer You’ve Never Prayed, (Brentwood, TN: Integrity Publisher, 2006), p. 8.

[4] John Ortberg, The Life You’ve Always Wanted, Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140.

[5] Tommy Tenney, The God Chasers (Shippensburg, Pa: Destiny Image, 2000), unnumbered pages in introduction (emphasis his).

[6] Dallas Willard, Hearing God, Developing a Conversational Relationship With God, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), pp. 12, 13.

[7] Ibid., pp. 26, 31, 67.

[8] Ibid., p. 15.

[9] Henry and Richard Blackaby, Hearing God’s Voice (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers), 2002, p. 234.

[10] Ibid., p. 235.

[11] Ibid., p. 236.

[12] Mark and Grace Driscoll, Real Marriage, the Truth about Sex, Friendship and Life Together (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), p. 8. For more of Mark Driscoll’s claims of extrabiblical revelations see his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Hard Lesson from an Emerging Missional Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), pp. 39, 74-75, 97, 99, 128, 130.

[13] Matt Chandler, The Explicit Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), p. 30.

[14] Mark Galli, “The Mystic Baptist,” Christianity Today, Nov 2012, p. 54.

[15] The Westminster Confession , chapter 1, section 6.

[16] Quoted from Beth Moore's DVD “Believing God.”

[17] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988), p. 14.

[18] Ibid., p. 110.

[19] Ibid., p. 120.

[20] Ibid., pp. 120, 121 (emphasis mine).

[21] Dallas Willard, p. 9 (emphasis mine).

[22] Wayne Grudem., p. 111.