Letters may be edited for brevity.
Editorial Comments unless otherwise specified are by Philip L. Powell (plp).
To comment go to – http://www.christian-witness.org/blog/
Find the thread (topic) and make your comment at the end of that thread:
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD: http://www.christian-witness.org/blog/?p=24]
Other interesting posts may be viewed at the following:http://www.christian-witness.org/blog/?p=21#commentshttp://www.christian-witness.org/blog/?p=15#comments
FROM THE REGULAR MAILER
To subscribe go to our Home Page and subscribe to Email Alerts on the left hand side under the Menu and follow the prompts:
Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:12:04 -0700 - I received your newsletter today and look forward to reading it thoroughly. Thank you for sending it and for the work that you do. I am hoping to start a blog about the current apostasies. Would you give me permission to use your articles, unabridged or changed and with a link to your website? My health is unreliable so I know that I can't hold strength or concentration well enough to actually write my own articles. I can, however, present the work of you and others like you in yet another venue on the Internet. Thank you, VP.
ED - Thank you VP for your response and support. Sorry to learn of your ill health. We trust it will improve. We suggest that you simply link to the relevant article that we have published. This is the normal procedure and covers any “copy right” that may be involved. It is best for you and for us. God bless you in your work.
AoG & Elim – Living in a Fool’s Paradise - Mon 22/08/2011 2:12 AM - I received the CWM News letter yesterday and sent a reply to that address instead of to you! All I asked was that if possible could you send me, by email, the notes on your talk about A/G and Elim also comments on Bob Bell’s book which I read recently. I heard a lot of negative remarks on it from people who have not even read it! Hoping all is well with you. – HO – USA.
ED - Go to www.cwm.org.au OR try http://www.christian-witness-ministries.com if the first doesn’t work. The latest CETF # 56 has been published and the PDF, ePub and Kindle versions are now available for download on our ‘Downloads’page. The link for this is on the home page of our website – see above for links to our CWM Home Page.
The complete article about AoG and Elim can be found at http://cetf.co/pN0vUG. The Rob Bell article is in CETF # 56(July 2011) and is called Mocking Truth by Berit Kjos. The link for this is under 'Latest CETF' on the home page of our website. Those who wish to engage in a discussion on this topic may do so at – http://forum.christian-witness-ministries.com/ or http://www.christian-witness.org/blog/
Re Rob Bell – It may be helpful to read the following detailed reviews of Love Wins @ http://cetf.co/nEO5NO and/or http://www.hellsbell.net/ We all know that it's not possible for everyone to read everything. I am flat out reading essential stuff and would be reluctant to read Rob Bell's books in any event. To insist that people read the book before they criticise it is a bit like saying we all have to study all comparative religions before we can criticise false religions. There's enough material around to show that Bell is a heretic and in fact a "tare" sown by the devil. He confessed that his purpose was to "re-paint Christianity." He made that determination when he was a member of a heavy rock band. That says everything. He is BAD news, no matter who supports him. By his own confession he does NOT accept the Bible as authoritative and that colours ALL he preaches and writes. (I have provided documentation for this in my AoG/Elim article.) It's very sad that AoG are using him and promoting him.
Tue 23/08/2011 11:51 PM - Good comments Philip. I have read Love Wins, due to my proximity with Bell (1 hour north of us), as well as the volume of local conversations. Once again there is a glaring accusation against the biblical and historical illiteracy amongst our generation relative to the essentials of the faith once delivered to the saints. Sadly, it is true that more and more of this trendy and "hip" heresy is finding its way onto the University Campuses via the AG's passive endorsement of these men through using their books to lead "discussions" in coffee houses instead of poring over the old, boring, irrelevant Scriptures (note heavy sarcasm). Take care and give our love to all there – Jeffrey L, Whittaker – Niles, Michigan, USA
Hand written Letter – 02/08/2011 - Greetings in Jesus Name - After reading the 2 letters in this latest issue (# 56 – July 2011) where members of AOG in UK accused you of bitterness etc and want to be crossed off mailing list it reminded me of the time I was talking to a leader of [name of church withheld] who told me he had been lied to by his pastor, three times in one week. I thought ‘am I hearing this right, he’s been lied to 3 times by his pastor and is still going [name of church retained in our files]?’ Two years on he is still going there—lied to and deceived, I told a friend and he referred to the scripture – “They lie to the people and the people love it”. I have heard similar stories yet the people go along with these wolves in sheep’s clothing. It’s unbelievable. The things of God are foolishness to those that perish – they are blinded. Praying for you all – BJ –South Australia
***************
Cessationism vs Biblicism
Sun 20/02/2011 2:01 PM - Hi Philip - I agree with you on just about all that you write but I do have a problem with your teaching on Cessationism.
Editorial Insertion - In the interests of space and brevity I have identified RJ’s concerns, which find a response in my editorial comments by a number system – see below.
Briefly, I was bought up a Pentecostal and 'learnt' to speak in tongues but I have now repented of it. I have done a lot of research into the topic. Do you know of Norman Giesler and George Gardner, both have done an extensive study on it and of course John McArthur.
God Bless – RJ – New Zealand.
ED – Sadly RJ has not carefully read or certainly not grasped the argument of my 20,000 word document which was serialised in CETF. It is futile to repeat the argument. We can all call on those whom we think are authorities in the camp of which we are part, but in the final analysis we must support biblical doctrine with the Bible if we are to retain the Reformation sola scriptura position, which is so dear to us. Like RJ’s heroes I and others in our camp have carried out extensive studies for many years and, if RJ is right in his opening comments, it is clear that we have come to different—perhaps opposite—conclusions from those of Norman Giesler, George Gardner, John McArthur, and even RJ himself. So what! If we are to have a meaningful discussion within the context of CWM and CETF it is imperative that the basic argument that I have put forward is examined, and where possible destroyed, based on scripture alone, and/or valid Church history. RJ has failed to do this. So in this response all that I can do is examine some of the assertions that RJ has made and interact with them.
RJ (1) On the contrary the Bible clearly states “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, ....” - 1 Corinthians 14:4. There is NO sense in the passage that this is NOT a genuine gift. The only restriction relates to how and where it functions. The teaching of Paul the apostle is very clear that individual speaking in tongues in a congregation should be accompanied by the interpretation of tongues and that the two together equal prophecy. The entire issue revolves around the location, and this is the implication of “tongues are for a sign” verse 22. On the day of Pentecost and on occasions throughout Church history tongues were a sign to the unbeliever. BUT that is not the ONLY purpose of speaking in tongues according to Paul’s teaching. Private speaking in tongues outside of the congregation is a self edifying expression of prayer and within the congregation, when accompanied by interpretation of tongues, it constitutes prophecy and is for the building up on the body of Christ.
RJ (2) – Again on the contrary the Bible clearly shows that healings and miracles can be counterfeited e.g. Acts 8 cf. Simon the sorcerer and 2 Timothy 3:8 – refer Exodus 7: 11, 22; 8:7; 9:11 etc. RJ’s is a silly statement. Mormons and spiritists etc mimic “speaking in tongues” which is counterfeit. Also it is my view that many Pentecostals and Charismatics have had a counterfeit experience but this is no basis to deny the real.
RJ (3) – Once more part of RJ’s claim is patently false - “ ... earnestly desire the best gifts”; “desire earnestly to prophesy”– 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:39. If as RJ claims we receive “all the gifts at salvation” then these words are superfluous and Paul is guilty of false teaching.
RJ (4) – Before attempting an answer to the question I need to comment on the second sentence, which contains both a truth (no more extra biblical revelation) and a falsity (sign gifts, including tongues were used to confirm new revelations). Where is the evidence that speaking in tongues confirmed new revelations? True revelation requires no confirmation. Your argument is circular. Now to the question! “But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God” – 1 Corinthians 14:28 (NKJV). Paul is clearly not advocating cessation as this verse and the context of other verses prove. For example verse 39 instructs “desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues". In verse 18 Paul states, “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all.” The next verse shows that there should be no “tongues speaking” in the congregation without interpretation – cf. verse 26 - “Let all things be done for edification” i.e. for the benefit and building up of the body. The only logical answer to your question is you may not know, but if a person regularly speaks in tongues in the congregation and no one interprets he should keep silent or as verse 13 instructs “pray that he may interpret.” Paul is not condemning the Corinthian Church. Rather he is correcting them and warning against excesses and abuse.
RJ (5) - In my series of articles on Cessationism v. Biblicism I went to great length to deal with the entire issue, including the points raised by RJ. I showed from Scripture that the term “Baptism in (or into) the Holy Spirit” is biblical and that the experience is different from the new birth. If I am wrong then RJ should deal with the argument, biblically and not just throw Bible verses around. I made a case for the fact that all true Christians are “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8: 9) so I am at a loss to know how he could have missed it and now in his letter infers that I have a contrary opinion by citing Ephesians 1:13, Romans 8:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
RJ (6) - If this is a clear reflection of what RJ believes then he is NOT a cessationist and basically I have no disagreement with him on this matter. Not everyone was healed in the New Testament and the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit were not ALWAYS taking place. They functioned then according to the sovereign will of God as they do now. That I believe and that I think is what my series of articles declared.
RJ (7) – Of the numerous authors that I have read during my reasonably long life time the names Giesler and Gardner do not stand out. I sent my long (20,000) word Cessationism v. Biblicism to a number of respected Christian leaders including John McArthur Jnr. I know the latter received a copy as his then web-master told me so. I did not receive as much as a courtesy acknowledgement notwithstanding the fact that I invited interaction. If JM can fairly and reasonably represent their argument, based on Scripture I am prepared to respond. I doubt I will have time to listen to the tapes offered to me. Apart from that I do not think this is a valid or reasonable way forward.
In short I challenge RJ to deal with the argument.
********************
22/01/2011 3:33 p.m. - Just finished reading 53/54 your article page 32 onwards very good. Keep up the good work for none of us is perfect yet. I’ve just read Touched by the Fire Wayne Warner Logos Int. 1978. Much of what you quoted is in this book. Maybe it would be acceptable to send you some of my Christian Poetry for inclusion in CETF? ... PD.
ED - We don’t usually publish poems but are prepared to consider pertinent and well written stuff, though I make no promise. Thank you for your kind comments
*****************
Oneness Divides and Diverts (CETF # 55 = March 2011)
(12/05/2011 – Handwritten Letter) Dear Philip: I wish to make a response to brother Colin C. Whittaker’s (AOG-UK) concerns re: baptism. (CETF March 2011 p.15-16)
There’s a better reference than Justin Martyr “as early as AD 153”—the Apostle Peter as early as Pentecost 33A.D.—only 10 days after the “Great Commission” of Matt 28:19.
Again obviously the Eternal Spirit, the Father never died were buried and rose again! Only the Lord Jesus did this. If all these scriptures EIGHT in all don’t convince you, nothing will. In fact NOWHERE – NOT ONCE – anywhere in the New Testament was anyone ever baptized in the titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “Father” is not a name, it’s a title. “Son” is likewise. (I’m a “father” and a “son” but my name is Alan Flynn).
If I authorised my child to sign a cheque telling them do it “in my name” they’d write Alan Flynn, not “In My Name”!!
A quick note about Matt 28:19:
It does NOT say “the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit…” NEITHER does it say “the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The Greek is “to. o;noma” – SINGULAR – “the name” – ONE name! This was told to the apostles on Ascension Day 40 days after the Crucifixion (Mark 16:15-19; cf. ACTS 1:3, 9 etc).
Peter and, later, Paul, as shown in the previous scriptures – not one or two incidentally but EIGHT Bible references clearly had the revelation of what the one name (“to. o;noma”) is, for that’s what Peter said a mere 10 days later on Pentecost as I’ve shown earlier.
Here’s a personal testimony of further light on this. Using the literal “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is of little spiritual value not only in baptism, but in prayer, deliverance etc. I will even go so far as to say religious spirits and evil spirits freely travel under these anonymous titles:
#1. While attending Rhema Bible College Townsville North Queensland (AOG David Cartledge was head pastor) in 1983 a widow Ethel had an adjoining caravan to ours. At this time we were [my wife and I] staying at Ross River Caravan Park, Townsville. Our unbelieving, non-Christian widow friend played her cassette-tape recording when she visited a fortune teller, (an ex-Methodist pastor). To my surprise (at that time), the soothsayer began, by praying “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”. I currently believe there’s no problem using titles for evil spirits, but they’d hate “In the Name of Jesus Christ.”
#2. In the PNG Highlands 1990 we dealt with a sanguma spirit killing one of my students, by exorcising it – NOT by titles of Father, Son, Holy Ghost or “In the name of the Son come out” (a mere title again) but “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to leave the young man.
The next two cases are from Europe—both from the 1950s.
#3. In Switzerland and Germany fortune-tellers use the trinity titles calling them “The Three High Names,” they kneel before a statue, cut a feather with scissors, turn it backwards and cast spells “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
#4. In Karlsruhe Germany 1955 during an evangelistic Crusade late Summer. It was being held in a huge city-block sized tent. Off to the right of the platform sat a group of men intently following the steadily worsening storm’s progress. Those who sat near the men could hear them murmuring “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” as they made strange motions with their hands. The group wanted to wreck the crusade and tent through a display of their power. (The evangelist won out as he said ‘Brother Lowsker, don’t interpret this” and in Jesus’ Name the storm dissipated. Thousands came forward straight after the incident in repentance after the display of the power of God and of that Name.)
If none of this communicates anything to you I’ll quit while I’m ahead. But I’m enclosing an excerpt from 100 A.D. (53 years earlier than Justin Martyr’s quotation in your CETF article) in Rome of what must have been the underground church of that time.
Divisiveness is indeed a sad thing. Currently my concern is the danger of Islam. “Oneness”, “twoness” or “threeness” isn’t an issue as long as he/she holds to the only name whereby we can be saved – the Name of the One and only God-Man, Jesus Christ. (2nd John verse 9).
However as I’ve shown from EIGHT clear scriptures the statement made column 3, p.16 of the article that, “There is not a single instance in the Book of Acts when any baptismal formula is given. There is no record of a formula being pronounced by the one administering baptism” is patently false.
Having said this, as long as you love the Lord and His Word – He IS the Word – that’s all that matters. God bless you - Sincerely, in Christ, Alan Flynn, Tasmania.
Re: the “TIME” 5/12/’55 article. While self-supporting missionaries in Enga Province PNG 1990-91, I wrote Time Magazine for the 100AD document I’d heard of. They kindly posted me the entire article!
Editorial Response - Thank you Alan for your full and interesting response to Colin Whittaker’s editorial. I don’t know what you mean by the reference to “the excerpt from 100 AD”. It wasn’t in the envelope you sent me. Colin Whittaker is now quite elderly (in his 80s) however I am proposing to send this to him by email and if he responds I will publish his comments or a summary of them in a future CETF. In the meanwhile, however I feel I should make some observations of my own as follows:
In Acts chapter 19 Paul challenges a group of people who are simply called “disciples” with the question:
Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? – Acts 19:2 (NKJV).
The answer that they gave and the follow up question of Paul can be viewed as reasonable evidence that the formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” was used at Christian baptism in New Testament times. When those “disciples” (cf. v. 1) stated that they had not even heard about the Holy Spirit, Paul’s immediate response was a question about water baptism. The reasonable deduction based on this passage is that the baptism of John did NOT refer to the Holy Spirit whereas Christian baptism did. This is a reasonable conclusion. The verses that you cite about the exclusive use of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ do NOT indicate the use of a formula in baptism but simply emphasise the authority by which they baptised as being the same authority, e.g. by which they healed and preached etc cf. Acts 3:6; 4:10, 18; 5:40 etc. Everything those early disciples did, including water baptism, they did in THE NAME i.e. in the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The anecdotal evidence that you cite to support your view is anything but conclusive simply because it is possible to do anything as mere form. We have a clear case of this in Scripture where even the name of Jesus Christ is used without effect by “the seven sons of Sceva .. chief of the priests”:
Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches." Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. This became known both to all Jews and Greeks dwelling in Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified – Acts 19:13-17.
Latter Rain teaching denies the tri-unity of the Godhead and claims that Jesus Only is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is heresy and sadly it is being revived in our time through popular preachers like T.D. Jakes who is supported by Ashley and Jane Evans of the Assemblies of God in Australia, in their Influencers’ Conferences notwithstanding the fact that this heresy was dismissed as such by the Assemblies of God as far back as 1949. It is false and I and CWM will stand against it.
CWM will help publicise and support by attending a debate between well known Christian (Trinitarian) James White and United Pentecostal (Latter Rain) Roger Perkins both from USA at Hope Christian Church, 121 Barbaralla Drive, Springwood, QLD 4127, Australia - http://www.hopechristianchurch.com.au/ on Friday October 21st, 2011 at 7 p.m. Topic - "Did the Son, as a self conscious divine Person distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, exist prior to His Incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth?"
James White will present the case for the affirmative (i.e. Yes He did) and Roger Perkins the case for the negative (i.e. No He didn’t). Proceedings will be those of a normal debate viz. Affirmative (James White first) – OPENINGS 25 minutes each; First REBUTTALS – 15 minutes each; BREAK – Second Rebuttals – 7 minutes each; First Cross-examination 2 x 15 minutes; Second Cross-examination 2 x 10 minutes; Closing Statements 10 minutes each; Audience questions 15 minutes. We at CWM agree with the AFFIRMATIVE.
