Many have called or written to inquire what our position is regarding Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries, and the Lakeland "Revival."
While Dave and T.A. have not written specifically to critique Mr. Bentley's ministry or address the current phenomenon in Lakeland, Florida, they have written extensively on the matters that directly relate to the foundation of Todd's techniques and source of inspiration.
Topics they have addressed repeatedly since the 1980s include: charismatic and evangelical mysticism, the incursion of New Age metaphysics and mind-science occultism into the church, New Spirituality, spiritism, divination, visualization, inner healing techniques, false signs and wonders, false christs, false prophets, false teachers, humanistic psychology, contemplative spirituality, the fallacies of so-called "strategic level spiritual warfare," Kingdom-Now and Kingdom-Dominion theology, false revivals, and other related concerns.
These terms and topics may be researched on our website, and are also found in many books by Dave Hunt and/or T.A. McMahon, including The Seduction of Christianity, which explores and explains the roots of mind-science occultism (illumination and mysticism) prevalent in both charismatic and postmodern teachings; and Occult Invasion, which includes chapters on "Charismatic/Evangelical Occultism," and "Spiritual Warfare and Revival." The former has been in print by Harvest House publishers since 1985; the latter is scheduled for re-release this fall from TBC.
Our general assessment of the events and reported phenomena now occuring in Lakeland--and wherever Todd Bentley and a host of associated neo-prophetic and neo-apostolic "revivalists" gather--is that while the human containers have changed, the ancient doctrines dispensed from these containers have not. What we are witnessing is nothing "new" but simply a perpetuation and expansion of the "Toronto Blessing" and the "Pensacola Outpouring" that is partly fueled by viral marketing (aided greatly by the internet) and self-fulfilling predictions that encourage "hungry" sign-seeking believers to mass-migrate to Benny Hinn-style events.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
What Is In The Closet Reveals What Is In The Heart
What Is In The Closet Reveals What Is In The Heart
Jim Van Gelderen
If you want to live dangerously, open a teenager's closet in their absence. It may be the last thing you do on earth! You might find yourself buried alive. On a more serious note, if want to live dangerously, figuratively open a teenager's closet. Take next Sunday morning to teach a lesson or preach a message on dress and get specific in your application from the Bible. The truth is not only teens, but adults as well, need this kind of message, but can at times react to it. Why? Because someone's clothes is a part of who they are. Proverbs 4:23 warns, "Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." One of those "issues of life" is the clothes one buys and wears. One's wardrobe really does reflect who they are. Let's note a couple of things one's clothes can reveal about what is in their heart.
UNFAITHFULNESS
My father was born in 1924 in Miami, FL. I remember his describing the typical swim attire of his day. The swimming suit would blouse over the shoulder and go down to the elbow. The suit would also go over the torso and down to the knees. Obviously this swimming suit was very modest compared to today. A couple of years ago, I was perusing through a "reminisce type" magazine when I noticed a black and white photo of a crowded beach. I am assuming it came from the early part of the 1900s. I was amazed at how I could look at the photo and there not be temptation by provocative or immodest dress. My point is this, we've changed and the change reveals a change in the hearts Americans.
Every person is either nurturing faithfulness to a present or future spouse or they are nurturing unfaithfulness to a present or future spouse. This can often be discerned by a young ladies deportment and dress. I Timothy 2:8,9 says, "I will therefore . . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness . . ." According to Ralph Earle on the word "apparel", "Arndt and Gingrich furnish this definition: ' Deportment, outward, as it expresses itself in clothing . . . as well as inward . . . and probably both at the same time.' " This means that God is not only concerned about the clothes a young lady puts on, but how she carries herself. I have traveled for eighteen years with young men on the Minutemen Evangelistic Team. Why is it that we could go into a Christian school and one of the team members would remark about how he was going to stay away from a young lady because she was "loose"? Christian schools have dress codes. Obviously this kind of girl dresses on the edge, but the issue is also her deportment. Christian young ladies should carry themselves in a manner that is discreet, modest, appropriate and not at all forward or seductive. I wonder where flirting fits in? Maybe this verse of Scripture teaches us it doesn't!
This Scripture also teaches us that women are to dress "in modest apparel, with shamefacedness." John MacArthur* in his commentary on I Timothy gave this definition for "shamefacedness". "At its core is the idea of shame. A godly woman would be ashamed and feel guilt if she . . . contributed to someone's lustful thought." For the female readers this question is in order. How do you react if a man whistled at you in a way that was inappropriate and sensual? Does that cause you to blush or do you like that kind of attention? I remember one day my mother received an obscene phone call while I was listening. As soon as she knew what was going on, she roasted the guy and closed with, "Don't you ever call here again!" With that she slammed down the phone and then stewed in disgust about it for awhile. My mother was shamefaced.
Spiros Zodiahtes defined "shamefacedness as "an innate moral repugnance to a dishonorable act or fashion." What do you do when you see immodest models or advertisements? Do you wish you could dress that way or do you have a repugnance for the provocative dress? What do you do when you come across a picture of Brittany Spears? Do you blush and turn away or do you think that would be great to dress that way? Do you shop at stores that cater to sensual clothing (like Abercombie and Fitch)? Shamefaced Christians have a innate moral repugnance to a dishonorable fashion.
A woman who is nurturing faithfulness will not want to dress or carry herself in a way that causes men to be drawn to her in an inappropriate manner. She is keeping herself for one. She is shamefaced. Her clothes reveal it. Tragically this inner quality is becoming increasing rare even in our Bible believing churches. Men, if we let our daughters and wives watch these night time "slops" (They are not "soaps". There is nothing clean about them.), they are going to get an appetite to dress like the Hollywood harlots do. It is a man's responsibility to protect the women (wife and daughters) God has given him. Modesty is a great protection from wicked men. Immodestly leaves women vulnerable to wicked men and teaches them to nurture unfaithfulness.
For the men the issue is not as much dress which reveals a faithful or unfaithful heart (though it can be), but what kind of dress are you attracted to. James 4:8 is in a passage that is exhorting the one who has fallen into spiritual adultery because of "friendship with the world" to get right with God. This spiritual "two timer" is challenged with these words, "Cleanse your hands ye sinners and purify your hearts ye doubleminded." If you are doubleminded and you purify your heart, you would no longer be doubleminded but singleminded. This teaches us that the essence of purity is singlemindedness. A man is to keep his mind for his wife entirely. A man who let his mind wander to sensual or immodest images is not nurturing singlemindedness, but multimindedness. That is why defeat in what you watch on the TV, or what Internet sites you visit, or what movies you watch, or what magazines you look at, reveals that you are nurturing unfaithfulness in your heart and are destroying the foundation for a solid marriage (whether or not you are married). It is a big deal!
Are you nurturing faithfulness or unfaithfulness for your future or present spouse? Check your closet, ma'am. Check what fashions your looking at, sir. Why? Because what is in your closet reveals what is in your heart.
WORLDLINESS
A few years ago Abercombie and Fitch changed their marketing plan and began to market on teenage sensuality. Unfortunately it was a huge success (which is an indictment on our culture). It seems though that many Christian kids don't get it, because in the average youth group, Abercombie and Fitch is commonly seen. What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? I have noticed certain styles that are associated with worldly subcultures become prevalent on youth group members. What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? About the mid 90's grunge and alternative rock brought a new wave a hair styles that have not left us. Recently I have seen many youth group kids who look like they are trying to win a Backstreet Boys look a like contest? What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? I have noticed far too many of our Christian college students who look more interested in looking like NSync than looking like "strangers and pilgrims." What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? Some of the new breed of youth pastor has fallen into this as well. If a young man is more interested in looking like the latest pop rock group, he is living in direct opposition to The Word of God.
Romans 12:2 says, "Be not conformed to this world." Kenneth Wuest defines the word, "conformed" as "the act of assuming an outward appearance patterned after some certain thing, an appearance or expression which does not conform and is not representative of one's inmost and true nature. It refers here to the act of a child of God assuming as an outward expression the habits, mannerisms, dress, speech expressions, and behavior of the world out from which God saved him, thus not giving a true expression of what he is …" Conformity is looking on the outside what you are not on the inside. In other words, God is saying if you are saved child of God on the inside, it should be reflected on the outside. The world should not be, as I heard one preacher say, "pressing you into its mold". This is not only dealing with dress but, as Wuest says, also "habits, mannerisms" and "speech expressions." Why is it some Christian always have the latest worldly lingo? Could it be they are more interested in what Hollywood has to say than the Holy Word?
Do you have a love for the world and its look? Check your closet. Because what is in the closet reveals what is in your heart.
CONCLUSION
Although this article may seem to be more geared for teenagers, I would like to challenge the preachers reading this article with this thought. How are the teenagers in church doing? Does the outside reflect the "saved" inside? Perhaps God would use a bold, Scriptural, Spirit-filled message or two to help. A few years ago I heard a well respected Fundamentalist evangelist talk about sitting on the platform of church in the 60s or 70s where he periodically held meetings. He looked out and noticed long hair on some of the men and boys and short skirts on some of the teen girls and adult women. He leaned over to the pastor who was his good friend and pointed out his observation. The pastor had evidently become desensitized to it, but nobly said to the evangelist, "Go after it." At the end of the meeting, men had been to barber shop and the women had been to sewing machine. Spirit led, Scriptural, empowered preaching changes lives!
Obviously we are after a change of heart, but a change of heart will reveal itself in a change of life. Inward transformation is seen in external change. That is why a visit to our closet may reveal what is in our heart.
________________________
*I am not giving a blanket endorsement on John McArthur. I am
quoting him as a Greek scholar.
from ptwm.org
Jim Van Gelderen
If you want to live dangerously, open a teenager's closet in their absence. It may be the last thing you do on earth! You might find yourself buried alive. On a more serious note, if want to live dangerously, figuratively open a teenager's closet. Take next Sunday morning to teach a lesson or preach a message on dress and get specific in your application from the Bible. The truth is not only teens, but adults as well, need this kind of message, but can at times react to it. Why? Because someone's clothes is a part of who they are. Proverbs 4:23 warns, "Keep your heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." One of those "issues of life" is the clothes one buys and wears. One's wardrobe really does reflect who they are. Let's note a couple of things one's clothes can reveal about what is in their heart.
UNFAITHFULNESS
My father was born in 1924 in Miami, FL. I remember his describing the typical swim attire of his day. The swimming suit would blouse over the shoulder and go down to the elbow. The suit would also go over the torso and down to the knees. Obviously this swimming suit was very modest compared to today. A couple of years ago, I was perusing through a "reminisce type" magazine when I noticed a black and white photo of a crowded beach. I am assuming it came from the early part of the 1900s. I was amazed at how I could look at the photo and there not be temptation by provocative or immodest dress. My point is this, we've changed and the change reveals a change in the hearts Americans.
Every person is either nurturing faithfulness to a present or future spouse or they are nurturing unfaithfulness to a present or future spouse. This can often be discerned by a young ladies deportment and dress. I Timothy 2:8,9 says, "I will therefore . . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness . . ." According to Ralph Earle on the word "apparel", "Arndt and Gingrich furnish this definition: ' Deportment, outward, as it expresses itself in clothing . . . as well as inward . . . and probably both at the same time.' " This means that God is not only concerned about the clothes a young lady puts on, but how she carries herself. I have traveled for eighteen years with young men on the Minutemen Evangelistic Team. Why is it that we could go into a Christian school and one of the team members would remark about how he was going to stay away from a young lady because she was "loose"? Christian schools have dress codes. Obviously this kind of girl dresses on the edge, but the issue is also her deportment. Christian young ladies should carry themselves in a manner that is discreet, modest, appropriate and not at all forward or seductive. I wonder where flirting fits in? Maybe this verse of Scripture teaches us it doesn't!
This Scripture also teaches us that women are to dress "in modest apparel, with shamefacedness." John MacArthur* in his commentary on I Timothy gave this definition for "shamefacedness". "At its core is the idea of shame. A godly woman would be ashamed and feel guilt if she . . . contributed to someone's lustful thought." For the female readers this question is in order. How do you react if a man whistled at you in a way that was inappropriate and sensual? Does that cause you to blush or do you like that kind of attention? I remember one day my mother received an obscene phone call while I was listening. As soon as she knew what was going on, she roasted the guy and closed with, "Don't you ever call here again!" With that she slammed down the phone and then stewed in disgust about it for awhile. My mother was shamefaced.
Spiros Zodiahtes defined "shamefacedness as "an innate moral repugnance to a dishonorable act or fashion." What do you do when you see immodest models or advertisements? Do you wish you could dress that way or do you have a repugnance for the provocative dress? What do you do when you come across a picture of Brittany Spears? Do you blush and turn away or do you think that would be great to dress that way? Do you shop at stores that cater to sensual clothing (like Abercombie and Fitch)? Shamefaced Christians have a innate moral repugnance to a dishonorable fashion.
A woman who is nurturing faithfulness will not want to dress or carry herself in a way that causes men to be drawn to her in an inappropriate manner. She is keeping herself for one. She is shamefaced. Her clothes reveal it. Tragically this inner quality is becoming increasing rare even in our Bible believing churches. Men, if we let our daughters and wives watch these night time "slops" (They are not "soaps". There is nothing clean about them.), they are going to get an appetite to dress like the Hollywood harlots do. It is a man's responsibility to protect the women (wife and daughters) God has given him. Modesty is a great protection from wicked men. Immodestly leaves women vulnerable to wicked men and teaches them to nurture unfaithfulness.
For the men the issue is not as much dress which reveals a faithful or unfaithful heart (though it can be), but what kind of dress are you attracted to. James 4:8 is in a passage that is exhorting the one who has fallen into spiritual adultery because of "friendship with the world" to get right with God. This spiritual "two timer" is challenged with these words, "Cleanse your hands ye sinners and purify your hearts ye doubleminded." If you are doubleminded and you purify your heart, you would no longer be doubleminded but singleminded. This teaches us that the essence of purity is singlemindedness. A man is to keep his mind for his wife entirely. A man who let his mind wander to sensual or immodest images is not nurturing singlemindedness, but multimindedness. That is why defeat in what you watch on the TV, or what Internet sites you visit, or what movies you watch, or what magazines you look at, reveals that you are nurturing unfaithfulness in your heart and are destroying the foundation for a solid marriage (whether or not you are married). It is a big deal!
Are you nurturing faithfulness or unfaithfulness for your future or present spouse? Check your closet, ma'am. Check what fashions your looking at, sir. Why? Because what is in your closet reveals what is in your heart.
WORLDLINESS
A few years ago Abercombie and Fitch changed their marketing plan and began to market on teenage sensuality. Unfortunately it was a huge success (which is an indictment on our culture). It seems though that many Christian kids don't get it, because in the average youth group, Abercombie and Fitch is commonly seen. What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? I have noticed certain styles that are associated with worldly subcultures become prevalent on youth group members. What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? About the mid 90's grunge and alternative rock brought a new wave a hair styles that have not left us. Recently I have seen many youth group kids who look like they are trying to win a Backstreet Boys look a like contest? What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? I have noticed far too many of our Christian college students who look more interested in looking like NSync than looking like "strangers and pilgrims." What ever happened to Romans 12:1 and 2? Some of the new breed of youth pastor has fallen into this as well. If a young man is more interested in looking like the latest pop rock group, he is living in direct opposition to The Word of God.
Romans 12:2 says, "Be not conformed to this world." Kenneth Wuest defines the word, "conformed" as "the act of assuming an outward appearance patterned after some certain thing, an appearance or expression which does not conform and is not representative of one's inmost and true nature. It refers here to the act of a child of God assuming as an outward expression the habits, mannerisms, dress, speech expressions, and behavior of the world out from which God saved him, thus not giving a true expression of what he is …" Conformity is looking on the outside what you are not on the inside. In other words, God is saying if you are saved child of God on the inside, it should be reflected on the outside. The world should not be, as I heard one preacher say, "pressing you into its mold". This is not only dealing with dress but, as Wuest says, also "habits, mannerisms" and "speech expressions." Why is it some Christian always have the latest worldly lingo? Could it be they are more interested in what Hollywood has to say than the Holy Word?
Do you have a love for the world and its look? Check your closet. Because what is in the closet reveals what is in your heart.
CONCLUSION
Although this article may seem to be more geared for teenagers, I would like to challenge the preachers reading this article with this thought. How are the teenagers in church doing? Does the outside reflect the "saved" inside? Perhaps God would use a bold, Scriptural, Spirit-filled message or two to help. A few years ago I heard a well respected Fundamentalist evangelist talk about sitting on the platform of church in the 60s or 70s where he periodically held meetings. He looked out and noticed long hair on some of the men and boys and short skirts on some of the teen girls and adult women. He leaned over to the pastor who was his good friend and pointed out his observation. The pastor had evidently become desensitized to it, but nobly said to the evangelist, "Go after it." At the end of the meeting, men had been to barber shop and the women had been to sewing machine. Spirit led, Scriptural, empowered preaching changes lives!
Obviously we are after a change of heart, but a change of heart will reveal itself in a change of life. Inward transformation is seen in external change. That is why a visit to our closet may reveal what is in our heart.
________________________
*I am not giving a blanket endorsement on John McArthur. I am
quoting him as a Greek scholar.
from ptwm.org
You Can’t Judge Someone’s Spirituality
You Can’t Judge Someone’s Spirituality
Jim Van Gelderen
Recently, I was at a meeting where some preachers were discussing a coming ministry project. When the conversation turned to music, the comment was made, “You can’t judge someone’s spirituality by their music.” Although the statement didn’t seem quite right, it wasn’t until a bit later that I was struck with how wanting the statement was when matched up against the Scripture.
All of us are familiar with the command God has given each one of us to “be filled with the Spirit.” What we may not readily remember is that this mandate is followed by five participles. Each of these participles hinges off the verb “be filled.” There is a language like here. I believe they are participles of result. Perhaps a Greek scholar would argue for another usage, but that is not the point. The action of “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” is related to being “filled with the Spirit.” In other words, Spirit-filled believers are involved with “spiritual songs.”
One of the earmarks of a Spirit-filled believer is that his music is spiritual and not carnal. Often in the New Testament the word “spiritual” is contrasted with the word “carnal.” Obviously when God by inspiration put the adjective “spiritual” on the noun “songs,” it was for a reason. Spirit-filled people are not involved with carnal, fleshly or sensual songs especially in a worship context. They are involved in singing “spiritual songs.” Someone might well ask, “What is spiritual music and what is fleshly music?” Simply put, spiritual music appeals to the spirit and fleshly music appeals to the flesh. Why does a barroom use the music it does? It is because that music is consistent with its appeal to the flesh. Why does a nightclub use the music it does? It is for the same reason. Think how humorous it is to imagine John Phillips Souza playing in a barroom. The music is obviously inconsistent with the atmosphere. In 1975 Time magazine did a poll of 1,000 unmarried girls in North Florida. The poll “revealed 984 of the 1,000 unmarried girls sampled had become pregnant listening to pop songs -during fornication, of course.” That is astounding! The tragedy is the pop style of the 70’s is what is being played in our churches. And as a result the flesh is being fed right in our churches. Of course this is not new. In Exodus 32 you find the golden calf incident. The New Testament calls it idolatry. Why was it called idolatry? I Corinthians 10:7 answers that question. “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Note what God called idolatry. It was not the making of the golden calf. It was their sensuality in the context of worship. “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Remember, this was “a feast to the Lord.” Folks, when we bring the flesh and sensuality into so-called worship, it is idolatry!
That means if one is involved in listening to or performing or singing sensual, carnal music, he is not Spirit filled. That is God’s Word. People “filled with the Spirit” use “spiritual songs.” One might say, “Well, I went to this Christian concert and 100 teens were saved. How can that be wrong?” Or, “I feel so close to God after listening to this music. How can it be wrong?” And the answer is obvious. It does not matter how we feel or what are the visible results. Objective truth of God’s Word supersedes the vacillating subjective experiences of man.
One may be sincere. He may be genuine. But if he is involved with carnal songs, he is not filled with the Spirit, and therefore he is not spiritual. You see, you can judge a person’s spirituality by their music. Ephesians 5:18-19 tells us so.
from www.ptwm.org
Jim Van Gelderen
Recently, I was at a meeting where some preachers were discussing a coming ministry project. When the conversation turned to music, the comment was made, “You can’t judge someone’s spirituality by their music.” Although the statement didn’t seem quite right, it wasn’t until a bit later that I was struck with how wanting the statement was when matched up against the Scripture.
All of us are familiar with the command God has given each one of us to “be filled with the Spirit.” What we may not readily remember is that this mandate is followed by five participles. Each of these participles hinges off the verb “be filled.” There is a language like here. I believe they are participles of result. Perhaps a Greek scholar would argue for another usage, but that is not the point. The action of “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” is related to being “filled with the Spirit.” In other words, Spirit-filled believers are involved with “spiritual songs.”
One of the earmarks of a Spirit-filled believer is that his music is spiritual and not carnal. Often in the New Testament the word “spiritual” is contrasted with the word “carnal.” Obviously when God by inspiration put the adjective “spiritual” on the noun “songs,” it was for a reason. Spirit-filled people are not involved with carnal, fleshly or sensual songs especially in a worship context. They are involved in singing “spiritual songs.” Someone might well ask, “What is spiritual music and what is fleshly music?” Simply put, spiritual music appeals to the spirit and fleshly music appeals to the flesh. Why does a barroom use the music it does? It is because that music is consistent with its appeal to the flesh. Why does a nightclub use the music it does? It is for the same reason. Think how humorous it is to imagine John Phillips Souza playing in a barroom. The music is obviously inconsistent with the atmosphere. In 1975 Time magazine did a poll of 1,000 unmarried girls in North Florida. The poll “revealed 984 of the 1,000 unmarried girls sampled had become pregnant listening to pop songs -during fornication, of course.” That is astounding! The tragedy is the pop style of the 70’s is what is being played in our churches. And as a result the flesh is being fed right in our churches. Of course this is not new. In Exodus 32 you find the golden calf incident. The New Testament calls it idolatry. Why was it called idolatry? I Corinthians 10:7 answers that question. “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Note what God called idolatry. It was not the making of the golden calf. It was their sensuality in the context of worship. “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Remember, this was “a feast to the Lord.” Folks, when we bring the flesh and sensuality into so-called worship, it is idolatry!
That means if one is involved in listening to or performing or singing sensual, carnal music, he is not Spirit filled. That is God’s Word. People “filled with the Spirit” use “spiritual songs.” One might say, “Well, I went to this Christian concert and 100 teens were saved. How can that be wrong?” Or, “I feel so close to God after listening to this music. How can it be wrong?” And the answer is obvious. It does not matter how we feel or what are the visible results. Objective truth of God’s Word supersedes the vacillating subjective experiences of man.
One may be sincere. He may be genuine. But if he is involved with carnal songs, he is not filled with the Spirit, and therefore he is not spiritual. You see, you can judge a person’s spirituality by their music. Ephesians 5:18-19 tells us so.
from www.ptwm.org
Is CCM Idolatry?
Is CCM Idolatry?
Jim Van Gelderen
The scene must have been awesome –Moses coming down from the mount with the dew of heaven on his brow. The awe of the presence of the Almighty surely filled his heart. If he was ever walking with God, would it have not been then? The prophet comes upon a scene of utter debauchery. Not only does he see a graven image, he sees dancing, sensual dancing at that. Righteous indignation wells within his breast. His nostrils flare as he takes the tablets and casts them down. Why such a response? Moses had just witness idolatry.
What was it about the golden calf incident that made it idolatry? Was it because the children of Israel were worshipping a heathen deity? At first glance one may think so, but a closer investigation reveals that in their thinking they were worshipping Jehovah God. Aaron said in Exodus 32:5, “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord.” Some may ask, “What about the comment, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’ Doesn’t this comment prove they were worshipping a heathen deity?” The answer is an emphatic “no!” The word for “gods” is Elohim. This is the same word translated “God.” In fact Nehemiah 9:18 recounting this incident says, “Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt…” Notice the singular demonstrative pronoun. This passage reveals that the people were calling the golden calf, “God.”
So what made the golden calf incident idolatry? The best commentary on this is found in I Cor. 10:7 “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Note what Scripture Paul cites to prove they were idolaters. It was not a quotation that talks of the golden calf or a graven image. It is a text that talks about their sensuality in the context of “worship” of Jehovah God. “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” The commentator Bush calls this conduct “wanton.” Davis comments, “The nakedness of the people (v. 25) further substantiates the fact that the activity associated with the worship of the golden calf included sensuous fertility practices common to the people about Israel.” As Davis mentions, the word “naked” does make the sensuality aspect clear. A quick word study validates this claim even more. Also, remember that “Moses’ anger waxed hot” when “he saw the calf, and the dancing.” Given the context this “worship” dancing had to have been sensual. And it caused God’s man to burn with righteous indignation.
When you include sensuality in your “worship” you have stepped into idolatry. You have changed your concept of God to condone something the God of the Bible condemns. The golden calf incident included music. Not only was there “dancing,” but also there was music. Did not Moses say, “It is…the noise of them that sing do I hear”? Thus it follows, when you allow sensual music into your “worship” you have stepped into idolatry. You have changed your concept of God. You may call your god “Jehovah,” but if he winks at what God hates, he is false.
Years ago I was talking to some unsaved young men I was trying to reach with the gospel. Their music was blaring so I asked them, “Why do you like this stuff?” One young man quickly responded, “It’s great for picking up the girls.” He was honest about the sensual aspects of his music. When you use this kind of music to “worship,” you have stepped into idolatry.
Some will say, “Well I don’t think sensual thoughts when I listen to CCM. It doesn’t bother me that way.” The question I would then ask is this: “What would you tell a Ted Bundy, who said that he could look at soft-core pornography, and it would not even bother him?” If you’re thinking, your response would be something like this: “Well, he obviously has been desensitized to the pornography.” Exactly, and that is the problem with the response, “It doesn’t bother me that way.” That kind of person has so listened to that style of music that it doesn’t bother him anymore. I personally find it grossly offensive to hear sensual music in church. Some will say, “Well, that’s your problem.” If we could take a fourteen-year-old boy from Puritan New England, and put him on the average American beach during the summer, would he have a problem. Yes, he would. Is that his problem? Obviously not. He has never been exposed to that kind of sensual dress before. He has not become desensitized. He should be protected not mocked. I plead for the same kind of sane thinking for those who are bothered by the sensual beat of CCM. There have been times where I have been very uncomfortable with the sensuality of so-called Christian music in church services. The problem is not mine, but those who have brought the sensuality into the church. My contention is this. CCM has changed their “God” so he not only winks at sensual music, he desires it in “worship.” CCM’s “God” is not the Holy One of the sacred page. Some will say that such a thing has not happened to CCM. Over a decade ago I picked up a CCM newspaper produced by WORD. One of the articles was by John Fischer. The newspaper described Fischer this way: “John Fischer is probably the most well-known pioneer of what is now called ‘contemporary Christian music’ –pop music of various genres with pro-Christian and pro-moral lyrics.” Fischer gives a testimony of how contemporary Christian music began. His concept of God should leave you aching.
“For me, and in some ways for you too, contemporary Christian
music began in that car. It was a warm night, and I had been to
church enjoying by friends. I remember feeling particularly close
to God when I got in the car and started up the engine to drive
home. As I turned the key, the radio blared right where I had left
it, and the energy of Beatlemania filled the car.
“My first impression was embarrassment for God; He was certainly
not interested in listening to this. But as I reached to turn off the
radio, He had a surprise for me. The closest I can come to expressing
what happened in the next instant would be for you to imagine God
appearing next to me in the car as George Burns in the movie ‘Oh God!’
“‘Wait a minute, kid,’ He said dryly. ‘Leave it on. You know, I kind of
like this stuff.’ I watched in shock as He smiled at me through a
casual puff of cigar smoke and swayed His head ever so slightly with
the music…‘She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah.’
“He leaned toward me so He could speak more carefully and still be
heard over the music. ‘Do you really think all I want to hear are the
funeral dirges they play for Me in church every Sunday? Really. Who
made the music in the first place? Who gave these guys the ability
to do what they do? Look kid, if four mop heads from Liverpool can
capture the world for their own glory and a good time, imagine what
you can do for My sake. Think about it.’ I drive home half crying, half
laughing, knowing my life and future would be greatly affected by that
moment in my Dad’s ’57 Ford.”
Folks, that is idolatry. It is blasphemy to use George Burns as a caricature of the Almighty. This picture of “God” is not the God of the Bible. If this is the beginning of CCM, maybe it should tell us something about its “God.”
Is CCM idolatry? If it changes its concept of God to include the sensual in “worship,” the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to that of a carnal lover the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to that of George Burns, the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to anything that is not biblical, the answer is yes.
Jim Van Gelderen
The scene must have been awesome –Moses coming down from the mount with the dew of heaven on his brow. The awe of the presence of the Almighty surely filled his heart. If he was ever walking with God, would it have not been then? The prophet comes upon a scene of utter debauchery. Not only does he see a graven image, he sees dancing, sensual dancing at that. Righteous indignation wells within his breast. His nostrils flare as he takes the tablets and casts them down. Why such a response? Moses had just witness idolatry.
What was it about the golden calf incident that made it idolatry? Was it because the children of Israel were worshipping a heathen deity? At first glance one may think so, but a closer investigation reveals that in their thinking they were worshipping Jehovah God. Aaron said in Exodus 32:5, “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord.” Some may ask, “What about the comment, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’ Doesn’t this comment prove they were worshipping a heathen deity?” The answer is an emphatic “no!” The word for “gods” is Elohim. This is the same word translated “God.” In fact Nehemiah 9:18 recounting this incident says, “Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt…” Notice the singular demonstrative pronoun. This passage reveals that the people were calling the golden calf, “God.”
So what made the golden calf incident idolatry? The best commentary on this is found in I Cor. 10:7 “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Note what Scripture Paul cites to prove they were idolaters. It was not a quotation that talks of the golden calf or a graven image. It is a text that talks about their sensuality in the context of “worship” of Jehovah God. “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” The commentator Bush calls this conduct “wanton.” Davis comments, “The nakedness of the people (v. 25) further substantiates the fact that the activity associated with the worship of the golden calf included sensuous fertility practices common to the people about Israel.” As Davis mentions, the word “naked” does make the sensuality aspect clear. A quick word study validates this claim even more. Also, remember that “Moses’ anger waxed hot” when “he saw the calf, and the dancing.” Given the context this “worship” dancing had to have been sensual. And it caused God’s man to burn with righteous indignation.
When you include sensuality in your “worship” you have stepped into idolatry. You have changed your concept of God to condone something the God of the Bible condemns. The golden calf incident included music. Not only was there “dancing,” but also there was music. Did not Moses say, “It is…the noise of them that sing do I hear”? Thus it follows, when you allow sensual music into your “worship” you have stepped into idolatry. You have changed your concept of God. You may call your god “Jehovah,” but if he winks at what God hates, he is false.
Years ago I was talking to some unsaved young men I was trying to reach with the gospel. Their music was blaring so I asked them, “Why do you like this stuff?” One young man quickly responded, “It’s great for picking up the girls.” He was honest about the sensual aspects of his music. When you use this kind of music to “worship,” you have stepped into idolatry.
Some will say, “Well I don’t think sensual thoughts when I listen to CCM. It doesn’t bother me that way.” The question I would then ask is this: “What would you tell a Ted Bundy, who said that he could look at soft-core pornography, and it would not even bother him?” If you’re thinking, your response would be something like this: “Well, he obviously has been desensitized to the pornography.” Exactly, and that is the problem with the response, “It doesn’t bother me that way.” That kind of person has so listened to that style of music that it doesn’t bother him anymore. I personally find it grossly offensive to hear sensual music in church. Some will say, “Well, that’s your problem.” If we could take a fourteen-year-old boy from Puritan New England, and put him on the average American beach during the summer, would he have a problem. Yes, he would. Is that his problem? Obviously not. He has never been exposed to that kind of sensual dress before. He has not become desensitized. He should be protected not mocked. I plead for the same kind of sane thinking for those who are bothered by the sensual beat of CCM. There have been times where I have been very uncomfortable with the sensuality of so-called Christian music in church services. The problem is not mine, but those who have brought the sensuality into the church. My contention is this. CCM has changed their “God” so he not only winks at sensual music, he desires it in “worship.” CCM’s “God” is not the Holy One of the sacred page. Some will say that such a thing has not happened to CCM. Over a decade ago I picked up a CCM newspaper produced by WORD. One of the articles was by John Fischer. The newspaper described Fischer this way: “John Fischer is probably the most well-known pioneer of what is now called ‘contemporary Christian music’ –pop music of various genres with pro-Christian and pro-moral lyrics.” Fischer gives a testimony of how contemporary Christian music began. His concept of God should leave you aching.
“For me, and in some ways for you too, contemporary Christian
music began in that car. It was a warm night, and I had been to
church enjoying by friends. I remember feeling particularly close
to God when I got in the car and started up the engine to drive
home. As I turned the key, the radio blared right where I had left
it, and the energy of Beatlemania filled the car.
“My first impression was embarrassment for God; He was certainly
not interested in listening to this. But as I reached to turn off the
radio, He had a surprise for me. The closest I can come to expressing
what happened in the next instant would be for you to imagine God
appearing next to me in the car as George Burns in the movie ‘Oh God!’
“‘Wait a minute, kid,’ He said dryly. ‘Leave it on. You know, I kind of
like this stuff.’ I watched in shock as He smiled at me through a
casual puff of cigar smoke and swayed His head ever so slightly with
the music…‘She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah.’
“He leaned toward me so He could speak more carefully and still be
heard over the music. ‘Do you really think all I want to hear are the
funeral dirges they play for Me in church every Sunday? Really. Who
made the music in the first place? Who gave these guys the ability
to do what they do? Look kid, if four mop heads from Liverpool can
capture the world for their own glory and a good time, imagine what
you can do for My sake. Think about it.’ I drive home half crying, half
laughing, knowing my life and future would be greatly affected by that
moment in my Dad’s ’57 Ford.”
Folks, that is idolatry. It is blasphemy to use George Burns as a caricature of the Almighty. This picture of “God” is not the God of the Bible. If this is the beginning of CCM, maybe it should tell us something about its “God.”
Is CCM idolatry? If it changes its concept of God to include the sensual in “worship,” the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to that of a carnal lover the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to that of George Burns, the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to anything that is not biblical, the answer is yes.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Rules for Daily Life
Begin the day with God;
Kneel down to Him in prayer;
Lift up thy heart to His abode.
And seek his love to share.
Open the Book of God,
And read a portion there;
That it may hallow all thy thoughts,
And sweeten all they care.
Ho through the day with God,
Whate'er thy work may be;
Where'er thou art--at home, abroad,
He still is near to thee.
Converse in mind with God,
Thy spirit heavenward raise:
Acknowledge every good bestowed,
And offer grateful praise.
Conclude the day with God,
Thy sins to him confess;
Trust in the Lord's atoning blood,
And plead His righteousness.
Lie down at night with God
Who gives His servants sleep;
And when thou tread'st the vale of death,
He will thee gaurd and keep.
Kneel down to Him in prayer;
Lift up thy heart to His abode.
And seek his love to share.
Open the Book of God,
And read a portion there;
That it may hallow all thy thoughts,
And sweeten all they care.
Ho through the day with God,
Whate'er thy work may be;
Where'er thou art--at home, abroad,
He still is near to thee.
Converse in mind with God,
Thy spirit heavenward raise:
Acknowledge every good bestowed,
And offer grateful praise.
Conclude the day with God,
Thy sins to him confess;
Trust in the Lord's atoning blood,
And plead His righteousness.
Lie down at night with God
Who gives His servants sleep;
And when thou tread'st the vale of death,
He will thee gaurd and keep.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
KJVO Questions
I'm not talkin about folks who prefer KJV, I'm talkin about the folks who say it's the ONLY right English version.
1. If the KJV is perfect, why did they have to revise it four times?
2.Why do KJV only folks reject the apocrypha seeing it was in the original 1611 version?
3.If the KJV was perfect, why did the original translators put in alternate readings in the margins? If you said the printers did it, how in the world would printers get the learnin to know of such differences in the greek?
4. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
5.In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? If you're answer is that people just need to ask God for revelation, then why not just hand someone a greek and hebrew copy of the bible and expect God to reveal that too?
6.Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
7.If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
8.Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
9.Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
10.If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
11.How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
12.Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
13.WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
14.Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
15.Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
1. If the KJV is perfect, why did they have to revise it four times?
2.Why do KJV only folks reject the apocrypha seeing it was in the original 1611 version?
3.If the KJV was perfect, why did the original translators put in alternate readings in the margins? If you said the printers did it, how in the world would printers get the learnin to know of such differences in the greek?
4. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
5.In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? If you're answer is that people just need to ask God for revelation, then why not just hand someone a greek and hebrew copy of the bible and expect God to reveal that too?
6.Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
7.If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
8.Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
9.Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
10.If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
11.How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
12.Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
13.WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
14.Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
15.Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Three Questions About Speaking In Tongues
Three Questions About Speaking In Tongues
Many people say they are able to speak in tongues today as some in New Testament times did. They claim this power is given by the Holy Spirit. By looking at three questions about tongue speaking we can know whether or not this miraculous gift is still available today.
Question #1. What was tongue speaking as we read of it in the New Testament? This is an important question. As we answer it from the Bible we will see that tongue speaking in New Testament times was something totally different from the so-called tongue speaking today. Look at the second chapter of Acts to see the difference. First of all notice verses 1-4: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
These verses refer to the apostles who had been promised the power of the Holy Spirit by Jesus (Acts 1:8). They had been waiting for that power which enabled them to speak in other tongues. Now, what is meant by "tongues?" The answer is seen by looking at other verses.
In verse 6 of Acts 2, we read, "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Notice the words "in his own language." What was called "tongues" in verse 4 is referred to as "language" in verse 6. But it was a language known to some of those who were in the audience. Then in verses 7 and 8 we read "And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, where in we were born?" Notice the expression "in our own tongue." Can we not see that the words "tongue" and "language" mean the same thing? These people heard the apostles preaching to them in their native tongues or languages. The miracle was upon the apostles. The Holy Spirit gave them the power to speak languages they had never studied!
Today, those who claim to be "Pentecostal" in their practice of tongue speaking are not doing what was done on Pentecost at all. On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit gave the apostles the power to communicate the gospel to people in the native languages of those people. Such is not being done today.
Question #2. "Who was able to speak in tongues during New Testament times?" There were three groups in the New Testament who could speak in tongues, or languages they had never studied. The first group was the apostles, as we have already noted. They received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost which gave them this power. The second group included those people to whom the apostles gave this power by laying their hands on them. This is the way this miraculous gift was given. One example of this is seen in Acts 19. There certain disciples were given this power by the laying on of the Apostle Paul's hands. Notice verses 5 and:. "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
Is there an apostle still living today? No. So there is no one who can give this power to anyone else. And no one is still alive today who was given this power by an apostle. Therefore, the gift of tongue speaking is not available today.
"But what about Cornelius and his household?" someone asks. They spoke in tongues without an apostle laying his hands on them. This is true, but this third group which spoke in tongues in the New Testament was a special group. Cornelius spoke in tongues as a sign that the Gentiles were to receive the gospel along with the Jews. You see, until the events recorded in Acts 10 and 11 occurred, only the Jews had received the gospel. But here God was making it clear that the Gentiles were also to hear the gospel. To make this clear to the Christians (former Jews) who were present at the house of Cornelius, God gave the Holy Spirit directly to these Gentiles. By doing so, no one who saw it could deny that this was the work of God. It was a special event for a special purpose. It happened only one time. The gospel is still being preached to the Gentiles, but no person is receiving the Holy Spirit as Cornelius did. Therefore, no person is speaking in tongues as he did.
So we see the three groups in the New Testament who spoke in tongues. Each did so for a specific and special purpose. Those purposes do not exist today, and no one is speaking in tongues today.
Question #3. Was the gift of tongue speaking to cease, and if so, when? The answer is "Yes." This gift of the Holy Spirit was to end when the New Testament was completed. This was clearly stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. The verses tell us: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
Paul refers to "that which is perfect." The word "perfect" means complete or whole. At the time Paul wrote, the revelation from God was not in its final written form. Now it is complete. "That which is perfect" (the New Testament) has come and that which was "in part" (miraculous gifts) has been done away. So we can see that Paul's inspired prediction has come true.
Tongue speaking in the New Testament referred to speaking in foreign languages not known to the speaker. There were three groups in the New Testament able to speak in tongues miraculously. None of these groups is present today. The miraculous gift of tongue speaking was limited in time to the period before the New Testament was completed. That time has come and gone, and so has the ability to speak in tongues, along with all other miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We have the Word of God. Let us follow it in all things and teach only the truth.
Many people say they are able to speak in tongues today as some in New Testament times did. They claim this power is given by the Holy Spirit. By looking at three questions about tongue speaking we can know whether or not this miraculous gift is still available today.
Question #1. What was tongue speaking as we read of it in the New Testament? This is an important question. As we answer it from the Bible we will see that tongue speaking in New Testament times was something totally different from the so-called tongue speaking today. Look at the second chapter of Acts to see the difference. First of all notice verses 1-4: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
These verses refer to the apostles who had been promised the power of the Holy Spirit by Jesus (Acts 1:8). They had been waiting for that power which enabled them to speak in other tongues. Now, what is meant by "tongues?" The answer is seen by looking at other verses.
In verse 6 of Acts 2, we read, "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Notice the words "in his own language." What was called "tongues" in verse 4 is referred to as "language" in verse 6. But it was a language known to some of those who were in the audience. Then in verses 7 and 8 we read "And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, where in we were born?" Notice the expression "in our own tongue." Can we not see that the words "tongue" and "language" mean the same thing? These people heard the apostles preaching to them in their native tongues or languages. The miracle was upon the apostles. The Holy Spirit gave them the power to speak languages they had never studied!
Today, those who claim to be "Pentecostal" in their practice of tongue speaking are not doing what was done on Pentecost at all. On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit gave the apostles the power to communicate the gospel to people in the native languages of those people. Such is not being done today.
Question #2. "Who was able to speak in tongues during New Testament times?" There were three groups in the New Testament who could speak in tongues, or languages they had never studied. The first group was the apostles, as we have already noted. They received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost which gave them this power. The second group included those people to whom the apostles gave this power by laying their hands on them. This is the way this miraculous gift was given. One example of this is seen in Acts 19. There certain disciples were given this power by the laying on of the Apostle Paul's hands. Notice verses 5 and:. "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
Is there an apostle still living today? No. So there is no one who can give this power to anyone else. And no one is still alive today who was given this power by an apostle. Therefore, the gift of tongue speaking is not available today.
"But what about Cornelius and his household?" someone asks. They spoke in tongues without an apostle laying his hands on them. This is true, but this third group which spoke in tongues in the New Testament was a special group. Cornelius spoke in tongues as a sign that the Gentiles were to receive the gospel along with the Jews. You see, until the events recorded in Acts 10 and 11 occurred, only the Jews had received the gospel. But here God was making it clear that the Gentiles were also to hear the gospel. To make this clear to the Christians (former Jews) who were present at the house of Cornelius, God gave the Holy Spirit directly to these Gentiles. By doing so, no one who saw it could deny that this was the work of God. It was a special event for a special purpose. It happened only one time. The gospel is still being preached to the Gentiles, but no person is receiving the Holy Spirit as Cornelius did. Therefore, no person is speaking in tongues as he did.
So we see the three groups in the New Testament who spoke in tongues. Each did so for a specific and special purpose. Those purposes do not exist today, and no one is speaking in tongues today.
Question #3. Was the gift of tongue speaking to cease, and if so, when? The answer is "Yes." This gift of the Holy Spirit was to end when the New Testament was completed. This was clearly stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. The verses tell us: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
Paul refers to "that which is perfect." The word "perfect" means complete or whole. At the time Paul wrote, the revelation from God was not in its final written form. Now it is complete. "That which is perfect" (the New Testament) has come and that which was "in part" (miraculous gifts) has been done away. So we can see that Paul's inspired prediction has come true.
Tongue speaking in the New Testament referred to speaking in foreign languages not known to the speaker. There were three groups in the New Testament able to speak in tongues miraculously. None of these groups is present today. The miraculous gift of tongue speaking was limited in time to the period before the New Testament was completed. That time has come and gone, and so has the ability to speak in tongues, along with all other miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We have the Word of God. Let us follow it in all things and teach only the truth.
Monday, January 7, 2008
8 Dating Tips for Christians
1. Establish for yourself standards. Don't ever compromise them. You may choose to modify them, as a reslut of time in prayer and Bible study, but never in response to pressure from a significant other. This includes time with God, and with godly people, asking for a clear knowledge of what you can and cannot deal with in a romantic partner. An example would be something as mundane as teasing: will your boyfriend's/girlfirend's sense of humor be a sore-spot? If you can't get over it, find someone else.
2. Look for someone whose faith is visible in the Fruit of the Spirit. No one will be perfect, but when the guy/gal occasionally hurts your feelings, as they inevitably will, is he man enough/is she woman enough to grovel in humble apology? Does he/she get around to asking forgiveness in a reasonable amount of time? Further, does he/she do those small kindnesses, give you those compliments, out of the blue? Finally, is he/she like that with most people in the first place? There are other virtues as well. If you don't see at least the beginning of such things, you can be sure that you will be taken for granted.
3. The one most worth having is the one who doesn't need you. Desperate longing is a short step from obsession. If they need something we have (aside from Christ), then they will feel compelled to do things to control that supply. If they see that need as being supplied by God through you, they have no need to control you. This applies to ourselves as well. Romance as God's gift to us is an extension of Christian fellowship. They shouldn't need you, but should want you anyway. They should find your company pleasant, not just enjoy holding you. Have you ever just sat and talked about things?
4. Focus on being, not on finding. Seek the Lord first, and He will take care of the details. Be the godly woman/man He called you to be, and His choice will find you. Turn off the radar. Don't get so wrapped up in romance that it monopolizes your waking hours. Further, any romance that is God's choice for today is subject to recall when it has served His purpose. Keep your eyes on the Giver, not the gift. I'm still friends with some former girlfriends because of this. I've never suffered an emotional break-up since putting this in practice.
5. You can always walk away. Don't become addicted. When it's no longer right, He will give you the strength to follow His will. That says nothing of the possible pain, only that you can deal with it. This is connected to the image of God's promise to generously supply all we could ever have use for. He said that it was already there, waiting for our use. The problem is that we all too often look for it in the wrong place. If you refuse to stand under the umbrella of God's protection, don't complain if you get wet.
6.Date your friends; never date a stranger. You should choose to date someone because you believe it is plausible to marry them. This requires, of course, that you hang out with fellow-believers. Remember the Principle of Propinquity. Your best chance of finding someone worthy is to be often in the company of God's people. Go out with someone you can trust to at least want to follow His will.
7. Missionary dating doesn't work. You can't change someone while you are dating them. Any changes they seem to make at your request are likely to be superficial. Further, you cannot join Jesus with Satan. Anyone not devoted to Jesus is, by default, serving Satan.
8. Cultivate a confessor. This is a basic principle of Christian living. It's a matter of having someone to whom you are accountable, someone who has proven capable of accepting you uncritically. If there is no one with whom you can share your deepest, darkest secrets and fears, you already have tremendous spiritual problems. This confessor can help you keep a clear head in the turmoil of dating.
Why do many Christians accept evolution? (from AiG)
Unfortunately, many Christians—in fact, many pastors—accept some form of evolution and try to add it to the Bible. They say that God could have used evolutionary processes over millions of years to bring about plants, animals, and finally man. Many accept molecule-to-man evolution because they believe that science has “proven” that the earth is millions of years old, so they simply attach God to the process.
But this view, called “theistic evolution,” is actually destructive to the gospel message. Of course, this does not mean that people who believe in theistic evolution aren’t Christians, since the Bible teaches that believing in and confessing Christ’s death and resurrection is the key to salvation. However, they are being very inconsistent in their faith.
The Bible clearly teaches that when God created Adam and Eve, the world was perfect (i.e., “very good”). There was no death and bloodshed. But because of the sin of Adam, God brought death as a judgment into the world. Of course, He also provided a means by which man could be reconciled to his Creator.
But a Christian who believes in evolution over eons as told by evolutionists must also believe that God used death and bloodshed over millions of years as a way to bring man into existence. For them, the fossil record is not a sign of God’s judgment in the Flood, but of the cruel nature of the world they believe God created. However, if death is not a result of the Fall, then why would God need to send His Son to save us from death? In this view, cancer, pain, and death would simply be part of the original plan.
But thank God this is not the true history of the world. Death came into the world because of sin, but Christ came to the earth and died to save us from sin and death. There is no room for death before sin, and no room for the evolutionary myth in the Bible.
But this view, called “theistic evolution,” is actually destructive to the gospel message. Of course, this does not mean that people who believe in theistic evolution aren’t Christians, since the Bible teaches that believing in and confessing Christ’s death and resurrection is the key to salvation. However, they are being very inconsistent in their faith.
The Bible clearly teaches that when God created Adam and Eve, the world was perfect (i.e., “very good”). There was no death and bloodshed. But because of the sin of Adam, God brought death as a judgment into the world. Of course, He also provided a means by which man could be reconciled to his Creator.
But a Christian who believes in evolution over eons as told by evolutionists must also believe that God used death and bloodshed over millions of years as a way to bring man into existence. For them, the fossil record is not a sign of God’s judgment in the Flood, but of the cruel nature of the world they believe God created. However, if death is not a result of the Fall, then why would God need to send His Son to save us from death? In this view, cancer, pain, and death would simply be part of the original plan.
But thank God this is not the true history of the world. Death came into the world because of sin, but Christ came to the earth and died to save us from sin and death. There is no room for death before sin, and no room for the evolutionary myth in the Bible.
Christian Humor
There was a very gracious lady who was mailing an old family Bible to her brother in another part of the country. "Is thereanything breakable in here?" asked the postal clerk. "Only the Ten Commandments." Answered the lady.
Somebody has said there are only two kinds of people in theworld. There are those who wake up in the morning and say,"Good morning, Lord," and there are those who wake up in the morning and say, "Good Lord, it's morning."
A preacher parked his car in a no-parking zone in a large city because he was short of time and couldn't find a space with a meter. Then he put a note under the windshield wiper that read: "I have circled the block 10 times. If I don't park here, I'll miss my appointment. Forgive us our trespasses." When he returned, he found a citation from a police officer along with this note "I've circled this block for 10 years. If I don'tgive you a ticket I'll lose my job. "Lead us not into temptation.
"There is the story of a pastor who got up one Sunday andannounced to his congregation: "I have good news and badnews. The good news is, we have enough money to pay for ournew building program. The bad news is, it's still out there inyour pockets."
While driving in Pennsylvania, a family caught up to an Amish carriage. The owner of the carriage obviously had a sense of humor, because attached to the back of the carriage was a hand printed sign... "Energy efficient vehicle: Runs on oats and grass. Caution: Do not step in exhaust."
A Sunday School teacher began her lesson with a question, "Boys and girls, what do we know about God?" A hand shot up in the air. "He is an artist!" said the kindergarten boy. "Really? How do you know?" the teacher asked. "You know -Our Father, who does art in Heaven...
"A minister waited in line to have his car filled with gas just before a long holiday weekend. The attendant worked quickly, but there were many cars ahead of him. Finally, the attendant motioned him toward a vacant pump. "Reverend," said the young man, "I'm so sorry about the delay. It seems as if everyone waits until the last minute to get ready for a long trip." The minister chuckled, "I know what you mean. It's the same in my business."
A father was approached by his small son who told him proudly, "I know what the Bible means!" His father smiled and replied,"What do you mean, you 'know' what the Bible means?" The son replied, "I do know!" "Okay," said his father. "What does the Bible mean?" "That's easy, Daddy." The young boy replied excitedly, "It stands for 'Basic Information Before Leaving Earth.'
"Sunday after church, a Mom asked her very young daughter what the lesson was about. The daughter answered, "Don't be scared, you'll get your quilt." Needless to say, the Mom was perplexed. Later in the day, thePastor stopped by for tea and the Mom asked him what that morning's Sunday school lesson was about. He said "Be not afraid, thy comforter is coming."
Somebody has said there are only two kinds of people in theworld. There are those who wake up in the morning and say,"Good morning, Lord," and there are those who wake up in the morning and say, "Good Lord, it's morning."
A preacher parked his car in a no-parking zone in a large city because he was short of time and couldn't find a space with a meter. Then he put a note under the windshield wiper that read: "I have circled the block 10 times. If I don't park here, I'll miss my appointment. Forgive us our trespasses." When he returned, he found a citation from a police officer along with this note "I've circled this block for 10 years. If I don'tgive you a ticket I'll lose my job. "Lead us not into temptation.
"There is the story of a pastor who got up one Sunday andannounced to his congregation: "I have good news and badnews. The good news is, we have enough money to pay for ournew building program. The bad news is, it's still out there inyour pockets."
While driving in Pennsylvania, a family caught up to an Amish carriage. The owner of the carriage obviously had a sense of humor, because attached to the back of the carriage was a hand printed sign... "Energy efficient vehicle: Runs on oats and grass. Caution: Do not step in exhaust."
A Sunday School teacher began her lesson with a question, "Boys and girls, what do we know about God?" A hand shot up in the air. "He is an artist!" said the kindergarten boy. "Really? How do you know?" the teacher asked. "You know -Our Father, who does art in Heaven...
"A minister waited in line to have his car filled with gas just before a long holiday weekend. The attendant worked quickly, but there were many cars ahead of him. Finally, the attendant motioned him toward a vacant pump. "Reverend," said the young man, "I'm so sorry about the delay. It seems as if everyone waits until the last minute to get ready for a long trip." The minister chuckled, "I know what you mean. It's the same in my business."
A father was approached by his small son who told him proudly, "I know what the Bible means!" His father smiled and replied,"What do you mean, you 'know' what the Bible means?" The son replied, "I do know!" "Okay," said his father. "What does the Bible mean?" "That's easy, Daddy." The young boy replied excitedly, "It stands for 'Basic Information Before Leaving Earth.'
"Sunday after church, a Mom asked her very young daughter what the lesson was about. The daughter answered, "Don't be scared, you'll get your quilt." Needless to say, the Mom was perplexed. Later in the day, thePastor stopped by for tea and the Mom asked him what that morning's Sunday school lesson was about. He said "Be not afraid, thy comforter is coming."
Wine in the Bible
A lot of people think that the Bible condones drinking of alcohol because it talks about wine. They say, "Didn't Jesus make wine for a wedding?"
What many people don't know is that the word "wine" in the Bible is a generic term. The context (words before and after the word wine) in each case indicates whether it was fermented or not.
In, Isaiah 16:10b, grape juice is called "wine" (yayin) when it is still in the press, saying, "No treaders will tread out wine in the presses" where it clearly cannot be fermented yet.
Now, "Did Jesus make alcohol for the wedding in Cana? We find the story in, John 2:1-11, in the New Testament.
The person in charge of the wedding, after he had tasted the wine Jesus had just made, commented…"you have kept the good wine until now." Good wine was fresh grape juice, the fermented grape juice was considered inferior.
Another way we know that this was not an alcoholic drink is because Jesus always obeyed the Father. In, Proverbs 23:31 and 32 it commands, "Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper." No, Jesus did NOT make a fermented wine at this wedding, but rather He gave a wedding gift of at least 120 gallons of fresh unfermented grape juice.
In another place in the Bible, Deuteronomy 32:33, it says fermented wine is poison. Alcohol is a toxic mind-altering drug. Alcohol causes ill effects on the digestive, muscular, skeletal, nervous and circulatory systems. It causes cirrhosis of the liver, jaundice, pancreatitis, and blackouts along with many other sicknesses.
The Bible says wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink arouses fights, whoever is led astray by it is not wise! Proverbs 20:1
We need to trust God's Word, God does not lie. The misunderstanding is with us; because in our culture all wine is fermented, but not in the Bible.
Some people also think the Bible encourages drinking of a little alcohol because Paul told Timothy, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your often infirmities." Paul was telling Timothy to drink grape juice for medicinal purposes. Remember the Bible does not use the word "grape juice", but always the word "wine" which can be either fermented or unfermented depending on the context.
Getting drunk should not be taken lightly because the Bible says: "Don't you know that those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals-will have no share in His Kingdom. Neither thieves or greedy people, 'drunkards', slanderers, or robbers." 1 Cor. 6:10.
Many young people today drink to get drunk. God's Word has something to say about this also: "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on their nakedness!" Habakkuk 2:15.
What many people don't know is that the word "wine" in the Bible is a generic term. The context (words before and after the word wine) in each case indicates whether it was fermented or not.
In, Isaiah 16:10b, grape juice is called "wine" (yayin) when it is still in the press, saying, "No treaders will tread out wine in the presses" where it clearly cannot be fermented yet.
Now, "Did Jesus make alcohol for the wedding in Cana? We find the story in, John 2:1-11, in the New Testament.
The person in charge of the wedding, after he had tasted the wine Jesus had just made, commented…"you have kept the good wine until now." Good wine was fresh grape juice, the fermented grape juice was considered inferior.
Another way we know that this was not an alcoholic drink is because Jesus always obeyed the Father. In, Proverbs 23:31 and 32 it commands, "Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper." No, Jesus did NOT make a fermented wine at this wedding, but rather He gave a wedding gift of at least 120 gallons of fresh unfermented grape juice.
In another place in the Bible, Deuteronomy 32:33, it says fermented wine is poison. Alcohol is a toxic mind-altering drug. Alcohol causes ill effects on the digestive, muscular, skeletal, nervous and circulatory systems. It causes cirrhosis of the liver, jaundice, pancreatitis, and blackouts along with many other sicknesses.
The Bible says wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink arouses fights, whoever is led astray by it is not wise! Proverbs 20:1
We need to trust God's Word, God does not lie. The misunderstanding is with us; because in our culture all wine is fermented, but not in the Bible.
Some people also think the Bible encourages drinking of a little alcohol because Paul told Timothy, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your often infirmities." Paul was telling Timothy to drink grape juice for medicinal purposes. Remember the Bible does not use the word "grape juice", but always the word "wine" which can be either fermented or unfermented depending on the context.
Getting drunk should not be taken lightly because the Bible says: "Don't you know that those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals-will have no share in His Kingdom. Neither thieves or greedy people, 'drunkards', slanderers, or robbers." 1 Cor. 6:10.
Many young people today drink to get drunk. God's Word has something to say about this also: "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on their nakedness!" Habakkuk 2:15.
How Many Christians Does It Take to Screw in a Lightbulb?
How Many Christians Does It Take to Screw in a Lightbulb
Charismatics: Only one. Hands are already in the air.
Pentecostal: Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.
Presbyterians: None. Lights will come on and go off at predestined times.
Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.
Baptists: At least 15. One to change the bulb and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.
Episcopalians: Three. One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old one was.
Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.
Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light! bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incadescent, flourescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.
Methodists: Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Church wide lighting service is planned for Sunday. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.
Nazarene: Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.
Lutherans: None. Lutherans don't believe in change.
Amish: What's a light bulb?
Charismatics: Only one. Hands are already in the air.
Pentecostal: Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.
Presbyterians: None. Lights will come on and go off at predestined times.
Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.
Baptists: At least 15. One to change the bulb and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.
Episcopalians: Three. One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old one was.
Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.
Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light! bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incadescent, flourescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.
Methodists: Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Church wide lighting service is planned for Sunday. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.
Nazarene: Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.
Lutherans: None. Lutherans don't believe in change.
Amish: What's a light bulb?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)