I have to admit, I'm way too sensitive and way too passionate on this one. But it hurts to be told that you don't trust God because of your beliefs in this area.
Let me share a little of my history. When I was first married, I had my first miscarriage at around age 21. And then another - and then I stopped ovulating. At 23 I started fertility treatments (didn't trust God with my fertility, after all, it is God who opens and shuts the womb).
Every single month - my body betrayed me.
http://http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait22jul22,0,3359930.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
I don't know if that all took, but (is it just me) or is this guy having to really strain at finding things wrong with President Bush?
"Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement? Bush not only thinks so, he thinks it goes for the rest of us as well. In 2002, he initiated a national fitness campaign."
Oh, for Pete's sake! When I was in high school (and it was before the days of Bush the first) there was a presidential fitness campaign.
"The notion of a connection between physical and mental potency is, of course, silly.
Where has this guy been? Men's fitness (May, 2002) says, "In a study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, people who ran on a treadmill for 30 minutes prior to taking a computer test did better on the test than those who did no pretest exercise, and brainwave measurements showed that their decision-making speed had increased."
I understand liberals (and even some conservatives) having problems with some of the things Mr. Bush does - but exercise? Come on...
I should have noted right off the bat that I do not agree with Mr. Courson!
The internal debate I have on the gift of tongues is (at this moment) triggered by a dillema that my dad is facing. My mom and dad attend a small, rural Missionary church in the thumb of Michigan and their pastor is "going all Pentacostal" on them.
I have so much respect for my dad, who is a great man of God, with a very quiet, rock hard faith. He doesn't always speak up, but when he does, you have better be listening because you know this is something that he has pondered long and hard.
And he is preparing to speak up in his church on this issue.
The sermon that I posted about (I believe) takes the Pentacostal stance on the gift of tongues to its logical conclusion (the sign of the New Covenant is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues). I believe this is wrong.
I'm not sure where I stand on the gift of tongues. Some will say that it disappeared with the closing of the Canon. Others will say that it disappeared before that - the only places the mention of tongues appears is very early on, chronologically. Others will say that it *is* for today, as used by Pentacostals. Still others will say that the gift of tongues is for today, but as Paul wrote, can be abused - and the typical Pentacostal church abuses the gift; Paul gave us guidelines and we should use them.
Every side will have back up, either logical or Scriptural (or both). What I know is that tongues is not the determining factor in whether or not we are "sealed", or whether or not we have the Holy Spirit (or are baptized in the Holy Spirit).
😉
Searchlight Radios, "A Survey Through Scripture", by Pastor Jon Courson
I just listened to the first part of a two-part sermon on-line - My goodness! This man took a series from Genesis and Abraham and spent the better portion of his time teaching about the gift of tongues....
He starts out in Genesis 17, where God is giving Abraham a "sign" or "token" of the promise. Mr. Courson noted, God does that which is unexpected and unconventional. God promises to give Abraham a token of the covenant, an emblem. This token would be an item that would remind Abraham of the covenant that God was making with him.
So far, he's ok.
But then, he starts thinking...
"Token" of the covenant...Outward sign, seal...Token of the covenant God made with Abraham. Circumcision is the sign and the seal.
Courson says, in the New Testament, "sign" and "seal" are almost always connected with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seal that was given to the believer, according to Eph 1:13 (In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit...)
So, the correlation made - in the OT, the sign is circumcision, in the NT, the sign is the "Internal work of the Spirit within" (quoted from Mr. Courson)
Note: in this next section, Mr. Courson makes the subtle statement that "praying in the Spirit" = "speaking in tongues"
Courson asks, "What is the sign? The sign is connected with the work of the Holy Spirit in a most particular way." 1 Cor 14:22(a) says, "Tongues, then, are a sign" - now, Courson is beginning to see something...(right). He's asking if seal of the Holy Spirit and the sign of praying in the Spirit (tongues) are connected with the idea of circumcision in some way,
Next, Mr. Courson makes the "solid" connection between circumcision and speaking in tongues
He asks, "Is there really a connection that we can make with integrity?" He quotes Phillipians 3:3 "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God" Paul uses the idea of circumcision to give a NT application. The sign, the seal - are now words connected to the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers - not just correlated with the cutting away of the flesh (physical or spiritual), but with the sign and seal of speaking in tongues.
According to Courson, people get uneasy when talking about speaking about speaking in tongues - like when you talk about circumcision - because they're related. He says that there's a tendency to be embarrassed about tongues-speaking "perhaps because of the abuses of radical Pentecostal." People tend to say "oh, this tongues area is a little -" just like circumcision.
Here, Courson makes a statement that will enable his followers to make the statement that if one Biblically and theologically rejects speaking in tongues as the sign of the Holy Spirit - that one is speaking in the flesh.
According to Courson, just as Abraham may have sat back when learning about the sign of his covenant, so believers today rebel against the "sign" of the New Covenant. He quotes 1 Corinthians 14:14 (For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful) to explain why our "flesh" reacts against speaking in tongues. Our minds like to engage in things that we understand and comprehend intellectually. Courson says that Paul writes, "although the mind is unfruitful, but the spirit is edified." (I couldn't find that part in this chapter).
Courson preaches, your mind (flesh) may rebel against the sign or seal of speaking in tongues. The flesh doesn't like circumcision and it doesn't like "praying in the Spirit" because the flesh and the Spirit are at enmity one with the other.
Courson adds that Paul says that when it comes to speaking in tongues, our mind (flesh) doesn't get it, because we don't understand what's happening. The Spirit is praying through us. Edification is happening within us, but we don't have a clue intellectually - we do it (speaking in tongues) in faith, according to what the Scriptures tell us - but t doesn't please the flesh.
Further (I think he's getting even farther awry here...) even as the flesh rebels against circumcision, so the flesh rebels against praying in tongues - the sign that we are the circumcision which worships God in the Spirit...He says: both tongues and circumcision deal with reproductive organs.
Courson states: there are only two reproductive organs in your body, one is physical, the other is spiritual. Proverbs 18 says that the power of life and death is in the tongue...
Here is where Courson introduces Word-Faith
He says that Christ taught us that when you want to see things happen in the spirit, say to the mountain be removed, don't wish it, think it - go on record - say it - faith is released through the words that we speak. The tongue has the power of death and life - your words will either 18:44 be reproductive or they will be murderous and detrimental.
Next, the implication that tongues-speakers are persecuted, just like the Jews, for their sign.
Further correlation between circumcision and tongues...Both are called sign and both are embarrassing. From that point forward (until fairly recently), Jews would be persecuted over circumcision. So also, today, people make fun of those who speak in tongues. "if they think I'm one of "those guys"...So there can be embarrassment for both the Jew and the believer who is doing the sign and seal in the NT of the tongue being expressed.
The, the "reason" that speaking in tongues disappeared from the face of the earth, after the closing of the canon.
The Jewish went for centuries ignoring circumcision...Let's not even do it, it's causing too much trouble...And in their history, both Biblically and historically - just like Christians, who say why even bother with this controversy. Christian community ignores speaking in tongues because of the repercussions
We are a marked people - we are different from the other folks - it was a continual reminder that we are different than other people - but it was a difference that was noted in either privacy or intimacy - like tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 - Paul said "I would" - not wish you could... (Check out the Greek - or the ESV)
Mark 16 - and these signs shall follow them...(note from my Bible: ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
Paul told us "Follow me, as I follow Christ"
Point - I don't believe Christ ever mentioned Himself speaking in tongues, so if we limit ourselves to following Paul as he followed Christ, tongues is not on that list.
Paul also said, "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
(Which is the beginning of Mr. Courson's next sermon...)
I have been reading and listening to a lot of Mark Driscoll, "The Radical Reformission". He has a lot of great things to say, but I'm increasingly hearing things that I don't like - which I intend to address directly to him.
One of the things that he says in his book is that external things don't matter - and specifically mentioned "goth" as a way of dressing. Here's the thing - I work in a high school and there is a dark spirit (way of feeling, not demon) that accomanies that dark way of dressing.
Don't get me wrong - I like to wear black - it's dramatic and goes great with my complexion and you can accessorize very easily! But I hardly ever (ok, I just don't) wear black with dog collars, purple hair and black lipstick.
When you see a young person calling themselves a Christian, dressing in that way - it's okay to ask a few questions - like "what are they identifying themselves with?"
Another thing that concerns me about Driscoll is his way of speaking of certain groups of people. He consistently uses "limp-wristed" and other terms that are reserved for men who are - well, less than masculine.
I listened to a sermon last night on Genesis 1 - and he referred a couple of times to "hillybilly rednecks" and "hillbilly redneck NASCAR fans" This bothers me, because if his congregation picks up on this (or picks this up) they will have learned that in their church, it's ok to use pejorative terms that put down entire groups of people.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't want my kids talking like that - and I don't want to pick up talking like that.
These are sections from a book, "Why I am Not an Arminian" by Robert. A Peterson and Michael D. Williams.
"The doctrine of divine sovereignty has always posed a problem for Arminianism. It is not too much to say tht historically Aminian theology has tended to pit human freedom against divine sovereignty as if the two are mutually limiting or even mutually exclusive. "
"We believe that incompatibilism, whether determinist or indeterminist, is wrong. It is built upon a false, either-or assumption, an assumption that the Bible everywhere disavows. The contention that human freedom renders God incapable of exercising his kingly sovereignty or that divine ordination of history turns human beings into chess pieces who do not make meaningful choices is patently false from a Biblical perspective. We believe that Scripture assumes compatibilism, the view that divine sovereignty and responsible human freedom are not contradictory at all.
I don't want to write more at any one stretch (copyright stuff) - this is a great book that explains a lot about both reformed theology and Arminian theology in a fair and balanced way.
I talked to a friend today - she adopted a daughter at birth who had been exposed to many different chemicals in the womb, with a lot of consequences.
One of these consequences is her ability to "say no" to a boy. That inhibition just is not there. She's able to be taught, but she will never have that internal "voice" telling her that she shouldn't do this thing. Will she be held accountable for sexual sin - if her mother's prenatal actions deprived her of the conscience that God wanted her to have?
I believe that the sexual road that she is headed toward (she is not even in middle school), is sin.
In Calvinist terms - she can be "called" to a celibate (or faithful) lifestyle - and regardless of that call, she will not be able to believe in her heart that is the right thing. (yes, I know that my friend is not God, nor can she "elect" the child to obedience - I'm just relating my experience to an understanding of how one can be called and still not understand or believe. I know that anybody that stumbles onto this blog who believes in free will will tell me how the example is wrong.)
But there is another context that this girl could lead me to a different possible understanding.
Homosexuality. Yes, I believe firmly that homosexual intercourse is a sin. However, if there is something that happens before birth (some sort of chemical injury) that causes homosexuality, then the person injured would have no more choice in their same-sex attraction than the girl I know has in her lack of sexual conscience.
If this could be proven (or at least if there were strong indication), I would have to separate the act of being gay from the act of having homosexual intercourse.
Is it possible that homosexuals have the "call" to be "normal", without the ability to choose?
I'd vastly prefer to be known as "Calvinistic" and not "Calvinist". Reformed in sotierology, not ecclesiology.
I believe that TULIP is Biblical - but I don't fall into lockstep with the Westminster Confession.
I have come to realize that all parts of TULIP either stand or fall together - it's hard to understand a "3-pointer...
I grew up in an Arminian church, in an Arminian family, in a largely Arminian town. When I "grew up", I married the son of an Arminian preacher and when my sister "grew up" she married an Arminian preacher.
So, the reaction to my conversion to Calvinism was underwhelming. Nobody criticized me, but nobody encouraged me.
Because I live in an area where Calvinist and Arminians work together on many things, when I wrote of my beliefs on-line, the animosity astounded me - on both sides.
When my friend Phil challenged me to take a good look at Calvinism, it took me a year to decide it was time to change churches and longer to choose which reformed denomination. After that, God led me to the “right” church fairly quickly.
I find a great freedom in just saying that God gets to pick – and there’s a lot I don’t know and there’s a lot I don’t have to know!
I'm listening to the radio as I write, thinking about all of this and there are a lot of things that run through my mind.
Remembering where I was when I heard about the World Trade Center and remembering all that happened after that.
Praying for all those who were killed and injured and their families and friends.
Wondering if Parliament will get protective and proactive.
Will the world look to us for leadership? Or blame us?
Who will be the next target, and how will they handle it?
May God be with us all...