Who are the experts when it comes to the Scriptures? Should we not test them? By Dave Hunt

 

Question: You have attacked the teachings of Calvin and Augustine. We’ll see which lasts the longest and stands the test of time—the writings of Augustine and Calvin and their contribution to orthodox theology or those of the writers and staff of TBC. Sorry, but history shows that in the world of art, music, literature, and theology God has given some to be head and shoulders above the rest of us. If I was sick I would seek the best, most brilliant surgeons possible. When studying Scripture I will continue to trust and rely on the great theologians, flawed as they may be.

Dave's answer: It is good counsel to “seek the best, most brilliant surgeons possible.” However, regarding spiritual matters, the intent to lean upon “the experts” clearly avoids the scriptural admonition to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Who are the experts when it comes to the Scriptures? Should we not test them? We are all flawed. More important, do Augustine and Calvin consistently and accurately “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15)? We have simply pointed out some of their obvious contradictions and errors.

The Lord notes on a number of occasions that “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:5). Are we to place people up on pedestals? Even the Old Testament priests were told to not “go up by steps unto my altar, lest thy nakedness is discovered.” We are living in a time when socially, politically, and most important, spiritually, men are turning from their responsibilities and surrendering their thinking to “the experts.” The failure of this approach is becoming only too obvious.

If people regard us as the “answer men,” then we have failed in the task the Lord has given us. We seek to point individuals back to the Scriptures, following the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11). What you advocate is contrary to the Lord’s admonition and is detrimental to the health of the Body. Those who accept the pronouncements of “big names” such as Calvin or Augustine without “searching the Scriptures daily” are insubordinate to the commands of the Lord.

When Christ rebuked individuals, it wasn’t because they failed to listen to Gamaliel or other prominent teachers. He went to the heart of the matter. The Scriptures were sufficient for the Lord Jesus Christ when He confronted the two disciples who were on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-27). He told them, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets [not the commentators] have spoken.” And, “...beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (v. 27).

Again, we have not advocated our “TBC opinion” as the standard, and any accusations to the contrary are unsupported and very selective generalizations. What about Calvin and his abuses in Geneva? What about the anti-Semitism/Replacement Theology generated by the teachings of Augustine? It is more than the fact that these men were flawed. As we acknowledged, we all are. The problem is that what they taught is at times greatly in conflict with what the Scriptures say. The Great Physician is the “best, most brilliant surgeon possible.”

It is He who warned against the traditions of men. Now, let’s be obedient to the commands of Christ and although we may find the comments of “great theologians” helpful at times, like all commentaries, the inspiration ceases when we move from the biblical text to the comments of men. We would greatly encourage a prayerful and scriptural reexamination of the position that you have advocated.

As another writer notes, “The reformers had proclaimed the priesthood of all believers, but the Anabaptists, their contemporaries, were not impressed with what they found in the reformers’ churches. The monopoly of the Catholic priest seemed to have been replaced by the monopoly of the reformed preacher. Experts were still disempowering the congregation and hindering it from becoming mature” (Stuart Williams, “Interactive Preaching,” 3/3/08, The Anabaptist Network).

David Charles Haddon Hunt (September 30, 1926 – April 5, 2013) was an American Christian apologist, speaker, radio commentator and author.

WHEN DOES TOLERANCE BECOME COMPROMISE?

By Dr Lim Poh Ann (Porridge for the Soul)

Tolerance is often regarded as a positive trait. Sometimes we think that maturity means we must always be tolerant—even to the extent of condoning false teaching.

But that is not the stance adopted by apostles Paul, Peter and John. They made sure they took a strong stand against destructive heresies (2 Timothy 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1).

Love alone without truth is compromise. http://bit.ly/1f0RuXH

"The early Christians condemned false doctrine in a way that sounds almost unchristian today." -Vance Havner

We must be careful, however, not to be overly dogmatic on relatively minor issues such as the method of baptism—whether it is by sprinkling or immersion.  **

Truth is not just about morality—integrity in thought, word and action. The oft neglected aspect of truth is doctrine, to which we must hold fast.

                                                                   

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-22).

Contending against false doctrine (heresies) will stop believers from slipping down the path of destruction and damnation (2 Peter 2:1).

Fighting the good fight of faith is not just about keeping our personal faith and finishing the race.http://bit.ly/1deSgkU

It is also about contending for the faith, keeping believers safe from enticing words of man’s wisdom that delude many and send them to destruction. http://bit.ly/1g2CpED

                                                                    
Preaching the truth, the Word of God, irrespective of the season, is of paramount importance. The flock needs to be fed the solid Word, especially when there is false teaching (heresy) that is so enticing; it tickles and soothes “itching ears”. People are naturally drawn away from truth to distorted versions of truth (lies) because the latter give them the “feel good” feeling.  There is a great need not only to teach and encourage (positive) but also to correct and rebuke (negative).

                                                                         
The success of any minister lies not only in his ability to impact lives when he is around. He must be able to pass the baton to chosen ones so that lives continue to be impacted when he is no longer around. “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2).

Before he left the elders of the church at Ephesus to go to Jerusalem, Paul shared with them a poignant farewell message:

“So guard yourselves and God’s people. Feed and shepherd God’s flock—his church, purchased with his own blood—over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.  I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth in order to draw a following.”http://bit.ly/1fX66ru

“And now I entrust you to God and the message of his grace that is able to build you up and give you an inheritance with all those he has set apart for himself.”

(Acts 20: 28-30, 32).

It is imperative for leaders to confront false teaching during these perilous end times. If they can identify with Paul the seriousness of the task they have been entrusted with—to feed the flock with solid teaching from the whole Word of God (Acts 20:27) as well as to correct and rebuke heresy (2 Timothy 4:2)—then people will not be so easily led astray from the faith. 

So when does tolerance become compromise?

When we fail to teach sound doctrine and stand up for truth.


"I do not believe in the weak tolerance that we hear preached so often now, the idea that Jesus must tolerate everyone and that the Christian must tolerate every kind of doctrine. When we become so tolerant that we lead people into mental fog and spiritual darkness we are not acting like Christians, we are acting like cowards!" -- A. W. Tozer : Faith Beyond Reason

FALSE DOCTRINES IDENTIFIED

1. DID JESUS SET ASIDE HIS DIVINITY?

A prominent leader, Bill Johnson, teaches that Jesus operated only as a man and not God during His earthly ministry. But did Jesus set aside His divinity while He was on earth?

http://bit.ly/1vnWGyq

2. WILL TRUE GRACE PLEASE STAND UP?

False grace exposed.

http://bit.ly/1fV1mD1

RELATED POSTS

EIGHT WAYS TO FIGHT FALSE TEACHING

http://bit.ly/1g2CpED

UNITY versus TRUTH

http://bit.ly/1f0RuXH

CULTIVATING A SHEPHERD’S HEART

http://bit.ly/1fX66ru

FINISHING WELL

http://bit.ly/1deSgkU

PARTING WORDS

What was the main thrust of Paul’s farewell message to the church at Ephesus and his last words to young Timothy?

http://bit.ly/KU9clI


  **    FOOTNOTES:

SCHISMS: DISAGREEING ON MINOR TRUTHS

"People who were agreed about the centralities of the faith dividing and separating from one another over matters that were not essential to salvation, not absolutely vital. This is always one of the dangers afflicting us as evangelicals. We can be so rigid, so over-strict, and so narrow that we become guilty of schism."

-Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Cessationist John MacArthur Can't Put the Real Holy Spirit Fire Out by R. LOREN SANDFORD

Author's Note: Recently I became aware of the buzz surrounding a new book, soon to be released, by a prominent cessationist who has been around for a long time. I was asked by the Pneuma Foundation to write a review of this book for its Pneuma Review publication. I thought it important enough to share with all of you. Here it is.

Strange Fire by John MacArthur is basically an attack on anything and everything related to the charismatic movement and the various movements descended from it, as if the whole of it were composed of one monolithic set of doctrines and practices that all of us espouse. It invalidates anything that smacks of the supernatural or of emotion freely expressed in God's presence.

MacArthur pours his vitriol—and I mean vitriol—through the filter of his own prejudices and theological presuppositions in a way that blinds him to the differences between the various movements within the charismatic stream and causes him to deny the existence of the majority of us who do not agree with or practice the abuses he objects to. In doing so, he ignores or reinterprets, through very poor exegesis, the clear teaching of much of the Scripture as well.

Ironically, as he formulates his attack, he builds upon concerns that many of us in the movement share. I share his concern over abuses in prophetic ministry, aberrant doctrines, fallen leaders, manipulative fundraising, acting out in fleshly ways that are not of the Spirit and fakery on the part of some associated with the movement. As an insider, I confront these things as well, seeking what is genuine and calling for biblical grounding. MacArthur commits grievous error, however, in claiming that these abuses characterize the movement as a whole. They do not.

For example, I am a charismatic and have been from my childhood in the 1950s. I am also a 1976 graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary. Consequently, I have been steeped in exegetical principle and the doctrines of the historic faith from a time when Fuller described itself as "reformed" in its theology. Consequently, I do not embrace aberrant theologies.

Reading MacArthur, you'd think all charismatics espouse prosperity teaching. We do not. You’d think we are all Word of Faith adherents when, in fact, they constitute a small minority and promote a doctrine many of us oppose. I actually wrote a rebuttal of those two doctrines in my own book Purifying the Prophetic.

On a side note, in his introduction, MacArthur asserts that Fuller Theological Seminary abandoned the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in the early 1970s. I was there from 1973 until my graduation in 1976, and I can state categorically that Fuller at that time held to inerrancy. MacArthur is wrong on many fronts and should be held accountable for what is either blatant intellectual dishonesty or just inexcusably sloppy research.

In reading MacArthur uncritically, you'd think that all charismatics focus in unbalanced ways on manifestations and behavioral aberrations like barking and animal sounds. We do not. Over the years, I've spent at least a cumulative five months in meetings at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, now known as Catch the Fire, serving for 14 years in leadership as a regional coordinator and international council member. Never in all that time did I hear an animal sound. I think MacArthur must be reacting to what he has heard from other revival critics rather than his own eyewitness experience. This, again, constitutes intellectual dishonesty and sloppy research.

MacArthur states, "I'll start believing that the truth prevails in the charismatic movement when I see the leaders, who are the people who are most exposed to its principles, looking more like Jesus Christ."

Yes, some very few of us have been guilty of seeking or walking in anointing without character. Our exercise of church discipline in response to their failings has often been deficient. Tragically, some of those failures have been seen in people with prominent ministries, and as a result we have all had to wear the mud we didn't deserve.

The truth is that the foundation of the Toronto Blessing, for instance, was and is the kind of transformation of character to conform to the image of Jesus (Rom. 8:29) that has produced people like Rolland and Heidi Baker. In their ministry in Mozambique, not only are many thousands of orphans given homes and countless thousands of hungry fed, but thousands of churches are planted, hundreds of thousands come to Jesus, the dead are raised, the sick are healed and the lame walk. The vast majority of lesser-known leaders in the renewal go quietly about the business of doing those same things in the places where they labor all over the world. The fallen leaders and those operating with less than the character of Jesus to whom John MacArthur actually objects are not my leaders and never were for a majority of us.

In bashing spiritual gifts, MacArthur characterizes the gift of tongues, for instance, as "babble," relegating it to the flames of "strange fire," seemingly ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture on the various uses of it. It was evangelistic on the Day of Pentecost, but Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 clearly defines its use in corporate prayer (with interpretation) and for private personal edification, saying, "I wish that you all spoke in tongues." The 120 did, in fact, speak in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Paul did, in fact, franchise its disciplined use in gatherings in Corinth and clearly described it as praying with an unfruitful mind for personal edification. Nowhere does the Scripture say that any of the supernatural gifts would cease.

MacArthur cries out against people falling into senseless trances but seems to miss that this very same thing happened to Daniel, who broke into physical trembling when the angel touched him after he awakened from what was clearly a trance state. MacArthur seems to miss that the priests at the dedication of Solomon's temple couldn't stand up under the weight of the presence of the glory of God. And didn't the disciples appear to be drunk on the Day of Pentecost? Speaking in foreign languages would have attracted little attention in a city where many thousands of Jews from different regions of the world had gathered for the feast, so it had to be their drunken behavior under the power of the Spirit that drew the comments. Through the filter of his cessationist theology, when these things happen today, McArthur calls them "strange fire."

This book isn't about strange fire. It's about putting the fire out.

This review by R. Loren Sandford is reprinted with permission from PneumaReview.com, the journal of ministry resources for Pentecostal and charismatic ministries and leaders, as part of their conversation about MacArthur's book, "Are Pentecostals Offering Strange Fire?"

R. Loren Sandford is the founder and senior pastor of New Song Church and Ministries in Denver, Colo. He is a songwriter, recording artist and worship leader, as well as the author of several books, including Understanding Prophetic People, The Prophetic Church and his latest, Visions of the Coming Days: What to Look For and How to Prepare, which are available with other resources at the church's website. 

THE DEGRADATION OF THE CHURCH by Witness Lee

[There is a difference between the failures in the churches and the degradation of the church. The failures are not serious in a basic way. Whereas the failures in the churches are not that basic, the degradation of the church is more than basic, for it cuts the root of the life, living, and growth of the church. Unlike failure, degradation not only brings in wrongdoings but cuts the root of the church “tree.’’]

A. As Described in the New Testament

Gnostic Philosophy—[The first aspect of the degradation of the church was the church’s being taken over by the Gnostic philosophy and the elements of the world—the rudimentary teachings of both Jews and Gentiles, consisting of ritualistic observances in such things as meats, drinks, washings, and asceticism (Col. 2:8, 16, 20-22; Titus 1:14-15). Gnosticism is a composition of Greek and Oriental philosophy and Jewish religion. When the church spread to the Gentile world, the church was contaminated by Gnosticism. This contamination became a root problem in the church; it nearly cut off the entire root of the church life. Therefore, Gnosticism was a serious threat to the existence of the church life.]

Different Teaching—[Another aspect of the degradation of the church was the teaching of things different from the economy of God taught by the apostle, resulting in turning away from the apostle’s teaching. Acts 2:42 tells us that all the new believers continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles. What the apostles taught was according to God’s New Testament economy. But at a certain time some teachers began to teach certain biblical things, yet those things were different from the economy of God, that is, different from the teaching of the apostles.] [To teach differently was to teach myths, unending genealogies, and the law (1 Tim. 1:7-8), all of which were vain talking (v. 6), differing from the apostles’ teaching centered upon Christ and the church.] [Eventually this resulted in a turning away from Paul’s teaching (2 Tim. 1:15).]

Base Gain—[In 1 Timothy 6:5b Paul speaks of those who suppose “godliness to be a means of gain.’’ They make godliness a way of gain—material profit, a gain-making trade. The desire for material gain is another reason certain ones teach differently from the economy of God taught by the apostles. Thus, because of pride and the desire for profit, for riches, some are teaching differently. Pride is related to wanting a name and a good reputation, and gain is related to money and material profit.]

Turning Away from the Apostle—[Paul’s Epistles are the completion of the divine revelation concerning God’s eternal purpose and economy (Col. 1:25). His ministry completes the revelation concerning the all-inclusive Christ and His universal Body, the church as His fullness to express Him. Nevertheless, in the degradation of the church, many turned away from Paul’s ministry. “This you know, that all who are in Asia turned away from me’’ (2 Tim. 1:15).] [Those who turned away from Paul’s ministry deviated from God’s complete revelation, the center of which is Christ as the mystery in the saints (Col. 1:27).]

Heresies—[Second Timothy 2:16-18 says, “Avoid profane, vain babblings, for they will advance to more ungodliness, and their word will spread as gangrene, of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have misaimed, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some.’’ Here Paul refers to those who bring in heresies as gangrene.]

Factious—[Titus 3:10 and 11 say, “A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one has been perverted and sins, being self-condemned.’’ A factious man is a heretical, sectarian man who causes divisions by forming parties in the church according to his own opinions. The Gnostic Judaism referred to in the preceding verse must be related to this. The divisiveness is based on differing teachings. This is the reason that verse 10 comes after verse 9. Certain believers may have insisted on the teaching of the law and in so doing became divisive.]

Backsliding to Judaism—[In Hebrews 10:25-29 Paul warns the Hebrew believers not to forsake the church to sin willfully, that is, to go back to Judaism to offer the sacrifice for sin which has been terminated.]

Denying the person of Christ—[First John 2:22 says, “Who is the liar if not he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who is denying the Father and the Son.’’] First John 4:2 says, “In this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is out of God.’’ These verses reveal to us that some did not believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself come in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 20:28; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:8).

Not Abiding in the Teaching of Christ—[Second John 9 says, “Everyone who goes beyond and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; he who abides in the teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.’’ Literally, the Greek word translated “goes beyond’’ means to lead forward (in a negative sense), that is, to go further than what is right, to advance beyond the limit of orthodox teaching concerning Christ. This is contrasted with abiding in the teaching of Christ. The Cerinthian Gnostics, who boasted of their supposedly advanced thinking concerning the teaching of Christ, had such a practice. They went beyond the teaching of the divine conception of Christ, thus denying the deity of Christ. Consequently they could not have God in salvation and in life.]

Forsaking the Faith—[In the degradation of the church some forsook the faith. This was the reason Jude wrote, “Beloved, using all diligence to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you, entreating you to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints’’ (Jude 3). The faith in this verse is not subjective; it is objective. It does not refer to our believing, but refers to our belief, to what we believe. The faith denotes the contents of the New Testament as our faith (Acts 6:7; 1 Tim. 1:19; 3:9; 4:1; 5:8; 6:10, 21; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:7; Titus 1:13), in which we believe for our common salvation. This faith, not any doctrine, has been delivered once for all to the saints. For this faith we should contend (1 Tim. 6:12).] There were more points of degradation in Revelation. We will consider those in the next lesson.

(Lesson Book, Level 5: The Church—The Vision and Building Up of the Church, Chapter 10, by Witness Lee)

Lawless Christians? by John Macarthur

Everyone sins, and everyone knows it. While it is true that fallen human nature minimizes or redefines sin, everyone knows they don’t meet the standard of perfection. Whether they call them “sins” or “mistakes,” everyone will admit to having lied, lusted, or lashed out in anger at some point in their lives—if not regularly.

That being the case, what is the difference between the sins of believers and unbelievers? When a believer sins, is it the same as when an unbeliever sins?

The Nature of Sin

The two primary biblical definitions of sin are “missing the mark” (hamartia) and “without righteousness” (adikia). At its core, sin is a transgression of God’s law; it is to think and behave as if there were no law. The apostle John emphasizes that lawless characteristic when he writes, “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).

John wrote his epistle to help believers test the authenticity of their faith (1 John 5:13). Unlike many today, John does not test saving faith on the basis of a signed card, a walk down the aisle, or even a prayer made in a moment of contrition. In the passage we’re considering in this series, he’s focused on the incompatibility of sin with saving faith, and he’s making three arguments for the holiness of believers.

John’s first argument is that sin is incompatible with the law of God. As we saw in 1 John 3:4, he explicitly equates sin with an attitude of lawlessness and rebellion against God (cf. Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21).

Diagnosing Unbelievers’ Sin

John’s description of sin allows for no exceptions or double standards. Everyone who habitually practices sin is living in an ongoing condition of lawlessness. That’s not to say that they’re sinning to the full extent of their depravity. The lawlessness John refers to is more of an attitude than an action. It’s not merely transgressing God’s law—it’s living with an indifference to the law, as if there was no law-Giver at all.

We must not underestimate the severity of the unrepentant sin that flows from unbelief. We can’t define sin in bits and pieces as individual acts alone. Of course each individual sin is a serious offense to God, but we also need to be able to recognize and biblically diagnose the profound lawlessness of the unredeemed heart.

Diagnosing Believers’ Sin

If you’re a Christian, you no longer have that dominant attitude of lawlessness. The truly penitent heart resolves to obey God’s law (Psalm 19:7-11), deny fleshly lusts (Romans 13:14), resist the world’s allurements (Titus 2:12), and willingly submits to the sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ in all things. Those whom God has saved and transformed have traded slavery to sin for slavery to God, as Paul wrote:

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18)

That’s not to say believers never sin—no honest Christian would make that claim. But when we do give in to temptation, we experience godly sorrow, not an attitude that is cavalier and rebellious. The believer’s sin is not the product of a heart bent in defiant lawlessness.

Instead we’re heartbroken over transgressing God’s law. It’s the attitude David displays in Psalm 32 and 51, where he pleads for God’s mercy in the aftermath of grievous sin. We share the frustration with lingering sin that Paul expresses in Romans:

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practising what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. . . . For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. (Romans 7:15, 18-20)

That penitent heartbreak comes from our love of God and His law. At salvation, each believer bows his knee to the lordship of Christ. It’s a commitment to obey Him, follow Him, and fulfil His law. The believer’s life is marked by wilful, loving submission to God’s law in the pursuit of holiness. We understand that the law isn't a system of works righteousness, or a legalistic set of outdated rules. It’s an expression of God’s holy character, and we join the refrain of Psalm 119, confessing “O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalm 119:97).

Therefore, how could authentic believers live in open, unrepentant lawlessness? John says they can’t.

But the lawless nature of sin is only the first of three reasons John gives for his conclusion. Next time we’ll look at how sin is also incompatible with the work of Christ.

(Adapted from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1-3 John.)

Time to Drop the Hyper-Grace Rhetoric by Dr Michael Brown

A hyper-grace pastor recently accused me of believing that “Jesus is not enough.”

How should we respond to accusations like this? And are these catchy little phrases, which attempt to make others look like subpar Christians, really helpful? Do they even tell us anything at all?

This particular pastor was critical of my book Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message (or, at least, he was critical of how another author presented my book, often in extremely misleading ways). He stated, “In Jesus you’re forgiven, sanctified, made holy and made eternally righteousness, yet, Dr. Brown says Jesus isn’t enough. Now he wouldn’t come right out and say such a thing but ... Dr. Brown still depends on human effort to complete the work Jesus began.”

Really? I say (or believe) that Jesus isn’t enough? I depend on human effort to complete the work Jesus began?

This is news to me, after leaning on Him as my only source of righteousness and life these last 42 years.

What point, then, is this pastor trying to make? Is he saying that I don’t mean it when I sing the words, “Oh, precious is the flow that makes me white as snow; no other fount I know, nothing but the blood of Jesus”?

Is he claiming that when I joyfully shout out the lyrics to “In Christ Alone” that I’m just going through the motions? Does he honestly believe that I’m saying that "Jesus is not enough" when I sing with tears of joy those glorious words: “'Til on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied, for every sin on Him was laid, here in the death of Christ I live”?

And isn’t it ironic that hyper-grace teachers who claim that I (and others like me) say “Jesus is not enough” believe that the words of Jesus, such as those found in the Sermon on the Mount, do not apply to them today? How, then, can they say that “Jesus is enough” and then ignore most of His words? (As documented in depth in my Hyper-Grace book, these teachers commonly claim that most, or even all, of what Jesus taught before the cross was not intended for believers today.)

So, what exactly does this pastor mean when he claims, “Dr. Brown says that Jesus isn’t enough”?

Is he implying that those of us who reject hyper-grace believe that we have any source of forgiveness outside of Jesus? That we plan to stand before God one day and claim justification by our works? That we have any boast outside of our Savior?

The fact is that Jesus did everything that needed to be done to secure our eternal salvation (as He said on the cross, “It is finished”), and now He calls on us, by His Spirit, to respond to His gracious offer, to follow Him, to grow in Him and to work with Him to fulfill the Great Commission. Through His blood, He makes us holy, and then He calls us to walk that holiness out in this world. The Word is quite clear about this.

But based on the hyper-grace rhetoric, are we saying that “Jesus is not enough” when we call on sinners to put their faith in Him? Isn’t this adding something on our part?

And why should we be baptized? Isn’t this “depend[ing] on human effort to complete the work Jesus began”? And why witness and pray if “Jesus is enough”? And why, for that matter, do we need pastors and teachers if “Jesus is enough”?

Do you see how meaningless these phrases can be when used as rhetorical weapons?

When Peter wrote, “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct” (1 Pet 1:14-15, ESV), was he saying that Jesus wasn’t enough?

Peter also wrote, “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). Was he telling his readers to “depend on human effort to complete the work Jesus began”?

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1), was he saying that Jesus wasn’t enough?

Paul also exhorted the Colossians to “put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col 3:5). Was he telling them to “depend on human effort to complete the work Jesus began”?

One hyper-grace pastor wrote, “We are driven to ‘do, do, do’, forgetting that Christianity is actually ‘done, done, done’.”

Another pastor rightly responded, “The Bible tells us to ‘do, do, do’ because though Christ’s redemptive work on the cross IS ‘done, done, done’ Christians still have a lot left to do (see the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, the Book of ACTS, the book of Titus (whose theme is GOOD WORKS) and the Book of James (whose theme is being DOERS of the Word)!”

Exactly!

Why can’t our friends who claim to have been wonderfully touched and enlightened and helped by the hyper-grace message simply revel in their newfound liberty without bashing and insulting those who differ with them? Why must they demonstrate how “free” they are by insulting the walks of others? How is that a fruit of grace? (For my part, I am not bashing anyone when I use the termhyper-grace, since many of those who embrace that message say, “Yes, grace is hyper!” I use the term to be descriptive of their message.)

One hyper-grace author criticized me for listing a number of Scriptures that required an active response on our part, claiming that I was calling for self-effort, as if responding in obedience to the Word is a bad thing. How does rhetoric like this advance the cause of the gospel?

And so, once again, I appeal to my hyper-grace friends: Let’s openly and prayerfully discuss our differences, seeking God earnestly and giving ourselves to the gospel of grace, without resorting to cheap and unhelpful rhetoric.

Wouldn’t this please the Lord?

Michael Brown is author of Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

SOME GENUINE QUESTIONS FOR MY HYPER-GRACE FRIENDS

SOME GENUINE QUESTIONS FOR MY HYPER-GRACE FRIENDS
In his new book on hyper-grace, Dr. Paul Ellis states that in writing my book differing with hyper-grace, I have given opportunity to him and his colleagues to clarify exactly what they believe, which is very helpful to all of us.

At the same time, he feels (as do others) that those of us who believe that hyper-grace goes beyond biblical grace often do not understand the hyper-grace gospel. Conversely, in reading his critique of my book, I felt that he often misunderstood (or grossly mischaracterized) what I and many others believe, referring to our beliefs (quite inappropriately) as “mixed grace.”

How, then, do we move beyond these misunderstandings? How do we isolate our very real differences, some of which are significant, while finding places of major agreement as well?

One reason I “named names” in my book was to be sure that I was quoting the authors accurately, interacting with what they did teach and not holding them responsible for things they didn’t teach. And as an apologist and debater, I always do my best to present the positions of others fairly.

I also engaged in extensive interaction with many proponents of the hyper-grace message before writing my book, because of which I only emphasized the points that these proponents emphasized too, trying to major on the majors.

In light of all this, it was definitely surprising for me to hear other hyper-grace teachers say, “But that’s not what we teach!”

Could it be that the hyper-grace movement is not that monolithic? Or perhaps it’ss a matter of semantics, and when I say one thing, they understand it differently (and vice versa)?

For example, we can easily demonstrate from the Greek New Testament that the Holy Spirit “convicts” us of as our sins as believers (the Greek word meaning “reprove” and “rebuke”), but when some people hear the word “convict” they take it to mean “condemn,” which the Holy Spirit never does to us, God’s children.

So, we might agree on the substance of an issue but miss each other in the wording, which happens commonly in the midst of dialogue and debate.

In the interest, then, of bringing further clarity to where we agree and we disagree, and with no desire to be contentious, I’m asking some honest questions, eager to hear the replies of those who say, “Yes, grace is hyper!” (Really, I am being as sincere as I can be. These questions are being asked for the reasons stated and not to start a fight.)

1) Does God require anything from you as his child? Is there anything he says that you must do as his child other than receive his grace? If so, are their spiritual benefits that come through obeying these requirements and spiritual losses that come from ignoring them?

2) The New Testament writers often exhort us to live in ways that please the Lord. Does that mean that it is possible for us to displease him? We agree that he relates to us as his beloved children, but is he always pleased with us? And since Paul urges us not to grieve the Spirit, does that mean that we can, in fact, grieve him?

3) Is there anything you can do to disappoint the Lord? If the Lord always sees you as perfect in his sight, as is commonly taught in the hyper-grace gospel, is there any way for you to disappoint him? I’ve heard it said that we can only grieve or disappoint him by not trusting his grace, but according to your message, hasn’t that sin been forgiven as well?

4) If God has pronounced your future sins forgiven in the same way he has pronounced your past sins forgiven, why do Paul and other New Testament writers address these very sins in their letters, and why does Jesus address them in Revelation 2-3? We know that God doesn’t bring our past sins up to us, since he has forgiven and “forgotten” them. Why then does he bring our present sins up to us in the New Testament, even warning us about the dangers of walking in those sins, if they have also been forgiven and forgotten in advance?

5) Is it possible for you to displease the Lord? Is God as pleased with you if you leave your spouse and commit adultery as he is if you spend time in personal communion with him? While his love for you is constant, is his fellowship with you exactly the same when you are obedient as when you are disobedient?

6) A leading hyper-grace teacher claims that the doctrine of progressive sanctification is a “spiritually murderous lie.” Does that mean that grace preachers like Charles Spurgeon, who believed in progressive sanctification, taught this alleged lie? And if “progressive sanctification” simply means to walk out our holiness with the help of the Spirit, what is so dangerous about this teaching? Put another way, why do you reject the concept that the one who made us holy now calls us to live holy lives in thought, word, and deed, thereby “completing our sanctification in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1)?

7) We agree that the Holy Spirit never condemns us for our sins as believers, but does he ever make us uncomfortable when we sin? To me, this is a very loving act of the Father, not wanting us to get comfortable doing things that could destroy our lives and the lives of others. Isn’t that something to be embraced? And doesn’t that drive us to the cross rather than away from it?

8) We agree that we do not need to confess every sin we commit each day in order to “stay saved,” but is any type of confession and request for forgiveness appropriate? For example, is it appropriate for believers to say, “Father, I’m sorry for sinning and I ask you to wash me clean”? Is it OK for us to get our feet washed (using the language of John 13) when we feel the need to? Are we denying God’s grace or showing an ignorance of God’s grace when we confess our sins to him, asking him to forgive us?

9) Since you believe we are not to judge our salvation by our conduct, how we can avoid self-deception? I know that you are against certain types of self-examination lest you become “sin conscious” and take your eyes off the finished work of the cross, but what do you make of verses that state that we know we have passed from death to life only if we live a certain way (like 1 John 3:14)? If I understand you correctly, you would question the salvation of someone who demonstrated no change of life and continued to walk in unrepentant sin. But doesn’t this mean that, on some level, you are looking at your “performance” to verify your salvation?

10) What actions does God call us to as believers that you do not describe as “self-effort”? My experience has been that when I quote a verse from the New Testament exhorting us to live a certain way (be it take up our cross or run our race or press toward the mark), hyper-grace adherents accuse me of depending on self-effort or calling for self-effort. Can you clarify that for me?

11) Do you think there’s any danger in claiming that the teachings of Jesus before the cross don’t apply to us as believers today? I take a lot of time on this subject in my book, exposing what I believe to be the very real dangers in doing this, but for the moment, I’m wondering if you could tell me why grace preachers like Spurgeon (whom I mentioned above) or D. M. Lloyd-Jones gloried in the Sermon on the Mount and considered it to be choice material for believers today, whereas you reject it as being applicable to us. Were they missing something?

12) What does it mean to you walk in the fear of the Lord? We agree that we are not to live in servile fear before our Father, especially since fear has to do with punishment. But what do you make of verses like these? “And if you address as Father the One who judges impartially based on each one’s work, you are to conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your temporary residence. For you know that you were redeemed from your empty way of life inherited from the fathers, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish” (1 Pet 1:17-19).

13) Do you see any possible danger in emphasizing that it is impossible for a believer to lose his or her salvation? Of course, we could debate whether the Bible teaches this at all, but simply as a matter of experience, many of us have encountered very lost people – drunkards, fornicators, without the slightest interest in God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) – who have then assured us that they were saved because it was impossible for them to lose their salvation. So, on a practical level, do you feel it’s important to add any scriptural caveats to your teaching of eternal security and, if so, how can you do this without putting an emphasis on “performance”? Again, in posting these questions, I am not trying to be contentious, nor have I worded them so as to set some kind of trap. I am genuinely asking for honest responses from those who embrace the hyper-grace message for the sake of clarity and understanding.

At the same time, my fervent hope is that hyper-grace leaders and adherents will reconsider their teachings, reading my book for themselves (rather than relying on what they have been told about it), especially if some of their teachings have been reactionary in nature, born out of bad experiences in the past and hence, swinging out of balance in response. And I have been blessed to see that some hyper-grace teachers, like Ryan Rufus, with whom I often express disagreement in my book, have already written books trying to address some problems arising in their movement.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and, as your schedule permits, for responding to some or all of these questions. May we all embrace God’s grace in full! (A quick P.S. I welcome comments from those who reject hyper-grace as well as from those who embrace it, but again the goal is not to argue but to understand.) 

Is the Sinner's Prayer biblical or not? by Tony Miano and Matt Slick

Is the sinner's prayer biblical?  Yes and no.  It is biblical for a sinner to pray to Jesus to forgive him of his sins.  It is not biblical to say someone is saved "because of reciting the Sinner's Prayer".  It is biblical to confess one's sins and ask for forgiveness and put trust, hope, and faith in Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. But, again, it is not biblical to give someone assurance of salvation based on reciting a prayer - on simply saying the words. Salvation is the work of God and the manifestation of that work is sometimes seen in people publicly confessing, even publicly praying to receive Christ as Savior.

So, we want to be clear that elements of the sinners prayer are biblical. However, we also want to be very clear that a person is not saved "because he prayed a prayer". Faith, assurance, and hope should never be placed in the prayer. Instead, faith, assurance, and hope should be placed in Christ via the proper presentation of the saving message which consists of presenting the Law (that we are sinners before God and deserve judgment) and the gospel (that only through faith and trust in what Christ has done on the cross where he bore our sins and died with them can we be saved from God's righteous judgment).  People must repent of their sins and believe the gospel.  That is what the Bible says.

Mark 1:15, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
Acts 16:30, "and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”  31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household."

What we are not saying about the Sinner’s Prayer

Many Christians have a prayer of repentance and faith as part of their conversion testimony. We know there are genuine, Christ-loving, born-again followers of Jesus Christ who will forever testify that someone shared the gospel with them and asked them to repeat a prayer, which they did, and they were saved. This article should in no way be interpreted or construed as an effort to bring into question one’s salvation because he “prayed a prayer.”

That being said, no one is saved because they “prayed a prayer.”  It is not reciting a phrase or the words of a prayer that saves anyone.   We are against formula salvation.  Those whom God sovereignly chooses to save (1 Peter 1:3; 2 Thess. 2:13) and draw to Himself (John 6:44) may pray a prayer - on their own or at someone else’s urging - as part of the first fruits of their salvation.

While there are many Christians who will testify, to the glory of God, that they prayed a “Sinner’s Prayer” the day God saved them.  But there are also people in the world who, as a result of being led in a false “Sinner’s Prayer,” are now apostate, they were false converts (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31). They have turned their back on Christ and have left the faith they thought they had, because they had never really come to genuine repentance and faith in Christ. They are and were false converts because they put their hope of salvation in "saying words", in "reciting a prayer", in "doing the christian prayer thing", instead of truly trusting Christ to forgive them of their sins against God.

The purpose of this article is not to discourage genuine Christians or cause them to question the authenticity of their faith because their conversion story includes a “Sinner’s Prayer.” Many people have truly been saved along with saying the Sinner's Prayer.  Rather, the purpose of this article is to warn Christians, to plead with Christians to preach the gosple biblically and if/when a person wants to trust in Christ and receive him as Savior, that it is done properly.

A Familiar Story: Sinner’s Prayer Evangelism

"So, do you understand what I've shared with you?"
"Yes."
"Is there any reason why you wouldn't want to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior, right now?"
"Umm. No. I guess not."
"Great. Then just pray this prayer after me. There's nothing magical about the words. What matters is the condition of your heart."
"Out loud?"
"Yes. Jesus said if you confess me before men I will confess you before my Father."
"Right here? Right now?"
"Well, it's up to you, of course. But what could be more important than making sure you're right with God. After all, tomorrow isn't promised to anyone."
"Okay."
"Great! Just pray this prayer after me. Lord Jesus..."
"Lord Jesus..."
"I know I'm a sinner..."
"I know I'm a sinner..."
"I want my sins forgiven..."
"I want my sins forgiven..."
"I don't want to spend eternity in Hell..."
"I don't want to spend eternity in Hell..."
"I want to be in Heaven with you..."
"I want to be in Heaven with you..."
"Please forgive me..."
"Please forgive me..."
"Come into my life..."
"Come into my life..."
"Save me..."
"Save me..."
"Make me a new creature..."
"Make me a new creature..."
"Be my Lord and Savior..."
"Be my Lord and Savior..."
"In Jesus' name, I pray..."
"In Jesus' name, I pray..."
"Amen."
"Amen."
"Praise God! Welcome to the family, brother!"
"Thanks."

"Now, it's real important you start reading your Bible and praying every day. And you've got to start going to church. You need to be around other believers. You need to be discipled. You need to begin the life-long process of growing in your faith. And I'm here to help in any way I can."
"Okay."

Please not that we have underlined those parts of the prayer that are biblical. So, there are biblical elements to the sinners prayer but it is not the sinners prayer itself it saves and again, it must be made clear that it is not reciting the prayer that saves anyone.

It happens thousands of times every day around the world. It happens in one-to-one conversations between friends, relatives, and even strangers. It happens in pastors' offices. It happens via email. It happens in online chat rooms. A well-intentioned Christian shares the gospel with someone (hopefully a gospel that is consistent with the Word of God). The listener seems to understand and even seems emotionally moved by the conversation. The Christian, with eagerness and sincerity, asks the person if he wants to know Jesus as his personal Savior. If the other person responds favorably, then the Christian leads him in a "Sinner's Prayer."

The Sinner's Prayer, False Conversion, and Tradition

This is important.  Many Christians make the cataclysmic and unbiblical mistake of giving the other person a false sense of assurance of salvation, by asserting the person is saved because he prayed a prayer. So, many people walk away from such a conversation still dead in their sins, but believing what they've been told. "I believed what my friend told me, and I prayed a prayer. So, now I'm a Christian!"

It is unbiblical confidence in the "Sinner's Prayer" (instead of repentance and trust in Christ) that often leaves me thinking American Evangelicalism is much closer to Rome than she realizes. The reason is that like the apostate Roman Catholic Church, which holds up church tradition as equal or superior to the Word of God, American Evangelicalism sometimes does the same with her own traditions.

The "Sinner's Prayer" is a case in point.

My presupposition regarding it is an easy one to articulate. Simply put...

There is not a single verse or passage in Scripture, whether in a narrative account or in prescriptive or descriptive texts, regarding the use of a “Sinner’s Prayer” in evangelism. Not one.

However, proponents of the use of the "Sinner's Prayer" will cite several verses/passages of Scripture in a failed attempt to support the unbiblical practice. Here are several:

Matthew 7:7, "Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you."

Luke 18:10-14, " “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. 11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. 12 ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 “But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted."

Romans 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Revelation 3:20, "‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me."


A brief exposition of each of the above texts will show they should not be used to support the practice of the "Sinner's Prayer."

Continue reading: Does Matthew 7:7 support the Sinner’s Prayer?

Hillsong NYC's 'Apostle of Cool' Carl Lentz Waffling on Homosexuality

by ALEX KOCMAN

Carl Lentz of Hillsong NYC (Facebook)

Hillsong NYC isn't your everyday Pentecostal church. Meeting in a night club, disco ball overhead, thousands flock weekly to the concert-like services led by Joel Houston and "hipster" celebrity pastor Carl Lentz.

Maybe, then, it isn't so surprising that Lentz's stance on homosexuality is less than clean-cut.

"We have a stance on love, and on everything else we have conversations."

Though it may seem like Lentz avoids the question, the tattooed and pierced pastor maintains that he always answers the questions thrown at him. "You just don't like my answers," he elaborated in an interview with HuffPost Live.

"Some churches want us to give blanket answers on huge issues. Well, my Bible says, be attentive to individual needs. So I'm not gonna make polarizing political statements about certain things in our Christian community right now. No matter who says what, we won't be pressured into giving blanket statements to individual needs. Never," Lentz proclaimed from the pulpit of Hillsong NYC.

Like Joel Osteen, "Apostle of Cool" Lentz refuses to create division by letting the "gotcha" questions of journalists pin him to one side or the other.

But in doing so, has he already picked his side?

The issue strikes at the heart of a contentious debate within church ministry over what come call "the attractional model."

"This is typical of the cult of celebrity megachurch pastor because to grow their little kingdoms they cannot risk offending anyone," commented Pastor Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries in a recent article.

The key question is: should church be about retaining big crowds of nonbelievers with tame, apolitical preaching, or should church be the gathering of believers who then spread out and make disciples in their communities?

Scripture does indeed require pastoral leaders have good reputations in the community as much as it is possible (1 Timothy 3:7), but that principle alone isn't the sole judge of how Christians should approach divisive issues like homosexuality.

In Luke 9:26, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (NIV).

Lentz, however, sees himself as in agreement with the style of Christ's ministry.

"Very rarely did Jesus ever talk about morality or social issues," Lentz claimed in an interview with Katie Couric in December 2013.

While Lentz's affection for individuals is clear, his priority on biblical teaching is anything but.

"As Christians we must love precious LGBT souls, for whom Christ died, enough to tell them the truth. Pastor Carl, it is not unloving to tell someone the truth; however, it is actually hateful to withhold it from them," Silva wrote.

Watch Lentz's interview with The Huffington Post's Ahmed Shihab-Eldin below: