JOHN MACARTHUR: CONTINUATIONISM VS CESSATIONISM

(21) John MacArthur explains Continuationist vs. Cessationist. - YouTube

John MacArthur and many within the Reformed/Calvinist camp describe themselves as cessationists. In the above video, Macarthur's argument against continuationism is based on the false premise that spiritual gifts (charismata) were limited to "the signs of an apostle". (2 Corinthians 12:12). MacArthur argues his case regarding apostolic gifts as if this settles the argument. Unfortunately, MacArthur completely ignores Paul's further teaching regarding "varieties of gifts", including the utterance of knowledge, wisdom, faith, healing, miracles etc. amongst the congregation at Corinth. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 27-31 cf. Romans 12:6-8). These further passages indicate that the Holy Spirit apportions charismata "to each one as He determines". (1 Corinthians 12:11). MacArthur also ignores evidence that the early Church Fathers recognized and practiced charismata. I abhor the abuse and perversion of modern charismata as much as the cessationists, but since MacArthur and others do not base their view on sound exegesis, they fail to present a credible argument.

The early Church Fathers and the charismatic gifts {1}

Justin Martyr 100-165AD:  Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 82: “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time.” Chapter 87:“..to those who believe in Him, according as He deems each man worthy thereof.” Chapter, 88,: “Now, it is possible to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God.”

Second Apology, chapter 6: “And now you can learn this from your own observation. For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs”
Irenaeus (130-202): Irenaeus’ magnum opus Against Heresies:“Those who are in truth Jesus’ disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform miracles, so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe in Christ, and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years” (2:32:4). The Spirit, then, does miracles, casts out demons, reveals the future, delivers the sick and even raises the dead!

5:6:1: For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect”, terming those who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used himself also to speak. In like manner we do hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual”, they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.”
Tertullian (150-220): On Baptism, 20: “Therefore, my blessed ones, whom the grace of God awaits, when you ascend from the most sacred font of your new birth [baptism], and spread your hands for the first time in the house of your mother [the Church], together with your brethren, ask from the Father, ask from the Lord, that His own specialties of grace and distributions of gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-12) may be supplied you. “Ask,” says He, “and you shall receive.” Well, you have asked, and have received; you have knocked, and it has been opened to you. Only, I pray that, when you are asking, you be mindful likewise of Tertullian the sinner.” 

Tertullian Against Marcion: “Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart (1 Corinthians 14:25); let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer (1 Corinthians 14:26)- only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from among those specially holy sisters of his. Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree too with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator; therefore without doubt the Christ, and the Spirit, and the apostle belong severally to my God. Here, then, is my frank avowal for anyone who cares to require it.”
Origen 185-254AD:  De Principiis 2:10:7: "When, whether by baptism or by the grace of the Spirit, the word of wisdom or the word of knowledge or of any other gift has been bestowed upon a man, and not rightly administered, i.e. either buried in the earth or tied up in a napkin, the gift of the Spirit will certainly be withdrawn from his soul, and the other portion which remains, that is, the substance of the soul, will be assigned its place with unbelievers, being divided and separated from that Spirit with whom, by joining himself to the Lord, it ought to have been one spirit."

Against Celsus 1:46:“There are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos” 
Novatian (200-258): On the Trinity, 29: "This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, often discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed.” 

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386): Catechetical Lectures during the fourth century. 17:37:“If you believe, you shall not only receive remission of sins, but also do things which pass man’s power. And may you be worthy of the gift of prophecy also! […] All your life long will your Guardian the Comforter abide with you; He will care for you, as for His own solider; for your goings out, and your comings in, and your plotting foes. And He will give you gifts of grace of every kind, if you grieve Him not by sin […] Be ready to receive grace, and when you have received it, cast it not away.”

17:36: “If you be counted worthy of the grace, your soul will be enlightened, you will receive a power which you had not, you will receive weapons terrible to the evil spirits; and if you cast not away your arms, but keep the Seal upon your soul, no evil spirit will approach you; for he will be cowed; for verily by the Spirit of God are the evil spirits cast out.”

The turning point occurred when Augustine of Hippo took it upon himself to promote the idea that individualized charismata had ceased and were no longer necessary. Augustine's later thoughts on the gifts of the Spirit are set out in Retractationes (427AD) Retractationes was a revision of his early position in De vera religione (390AD). Augustine's later views set the trend for church practice and have been adopted by cessationists today. It is my contention that later tradition does not have the authority to rescind what is written in the scriptures despite the problematic issues arising out of modern charismania. Although Augustine was hugely influential, we should bear in mind that there are a great many problems associated with his theology. (See Further Links) 

Retractationes: "These miracles were not allowed to last until our times.. For not even now, when a hand is laid on the baptized, do they receive the Holy Spirit in such a way that they speak with the tongues of all nations; nor are the sick now healed by the passing shadow of the preachers of Christ. Even though such things happened at that time, manifestly these ceased later. But what I said is not to be so interpreted that no miracles are believed to be performed in the name of Christ at the present time. For, when I wrote that book, I myself had recently learned that a blind man had been restored to sight in Milan near the bodies of the martyrs in that very city, and I knew about some other, so numerous even in these times, that we cannot know about all of them nor enumerate those we know."  (1.12.7)

Charles A Sullivan:  Augustine did not promote the cessation of miracles but better control mechanisms; one of them denying certain individualized gifts. Both him and Chrysostom also believed that an overemphasis on miracles was a gateway to pride. These two represented a fourth-century trend electing to switch the authority from the individual to deceased saints, symbols of the church, personal piety, and the authority vested in the Church. It is not known whether this was a personal agreement between Augustine and Chrysostom or was simply the intellectual spirit of the times." {2} 

Having demolished the theory that the early fathers did not recognize the gifts of the Holy Spirit beyond the first generation of believers, we are left with a conundrum due to the shocking fakery of many false teachers within charismatic/NAR circles. Examples are the Copeland/Howard-Browne tongues fiasco; {3} the fakery of Todd White's cold reading and leg-pulling episodes; {4} Shawn Bolz's cold reading scams; {5} Paula White's "angels in Africa" nonsense; {6} not to mention the numerous failed Trump prophesies. The antics of these wolves are enough to deter anyone from even considering the possibility that genuine charismata exist today, hence the persuasive arguments of MacArthur and other cessationists. Despite this, I am not fully convinced by the cessationist line of reasoning. Just as there are many false teachers, false gospels, false prophets, false Christs etc. it is logical to conclude that there are also false charismata. (Matthew 24:24; 2 Corinthians 11:4). I would therefore describe myself as a cautious continuationist whilst utterly rejecting those within the NAR who claim to hold the office of contemporary foundational "apostles and prophets". Mark and avoid these wolves. (Romans 16:17-18; 1 John 4:1). 

The strategy adopted by Mike Winger's church (Calvary Chapel) is interesting. Although I do not endorse Calvary Chapel in every specific, their approach to the gifts of the Spirit is one way of avoiding a charismatic free for all. 

To paraphrase Mike Winger: There is no emphasis on the gifts in general typical gatherings during service times and people do not interrupt the service. However, we are open/very open to someone having a "word from the Lord" that they might share privately for it to be tested.  (48:00 mark) {7} 

Tongues - known languages or ecstatic utterances?

Ambiguities within various passages describing the gift of tongues in the New Testament lead some to support the theory that there are two different kinds of tongues. The passages in Acts, particularly Acts 2, are straightforward in identifying tongues as known languages (xenoglossia). However, a number of teachers within the charismatic/NAR camp make a distinction between the earthly languages spoken in Acts, and the languages (glōssais) discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. Many within this group claim that those practicing tongues today are speaking heavenly or angelic languages (glossolalia).

Speaking in tongues is explicitly mentioned in five places in the New Testament.

Mark 16:17-18 records the prophecy of Jesus Christ to the apostles: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Acts 2:6-11 confirms that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were known languages: And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

Acts 10:46-47 describes how the Holy Spirit fell on the household of Cornelius in Caesarea. This event was compared with what happened at Pentecost and appears to follow the earlier precedent of known languages. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

Acts 19:6 describes a group of approximately twelve men at Ephesus who spoke in tongues and prophesied when the Holy Spirit came upon them. Although the text is nonspecific about the precise nature of these tongues, it seems consistent to take the view that this occurrence also followed the precedent of known languages at Pentecost. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

1 Corinthians 12-14 - These chapters in particular have given rise to the theory that there are two different kinds of tongues.

For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:8-11). 

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. ( 1 Corinthians 12:27-31).

The above is Paul's general discussion of the offices and gifts. There is no reason to make the assumption that the tongues mentioned above suggest anything other than known languages.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).  

Paul is speaking hyperbolically i.e. he talks about possibilities rather than actualities as demonstrated by his following implausible speculations. He also discusses the possibility of understanding all mysteries and all knowledge, all faith, giving away everything that he possesses, and giving up his body to be burned.

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. (1 Corinthians 13:8-9). 

MacArthur and other cessationists argue that the above verses are evidence that tongues ceased with the death of the apostles. {8} Continuationists make a good case that "when the perfect comes" is a reference to the eternal state.

Paul discusses the gift of tongues in detail in 1 Corinthians 14. The ambiguity within this chapter has led many within the charismatic camp to believe that there are two kinds of tongues.

For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. But he who prophesies speaks to men for their edification, encouragement, and comfort. The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I wish that all of you could speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be edified. Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? ..Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. (1 Corinthians 14:2-6,9).

The conclusion some draw from the above verses is that Paul is referring to heavenly languages. The counterargument is that an unrecognized tongue may just as easily refer to an earthly language. In fact, Paul does refer to earthly languages in this very discussion. (1 Corinthians 14:10-11). It seems that because tongues were distinctive and showy, the Corinthians were flaunting this gift amongst each other. Paul's concern is edification. (1 Corinthians 14:12). The person who speaks in a tongue (glōssē) without an interpretation cannot edify others, whereas the one who prophesies edifies the church. Paul concludes his discussion by clarifying that the purpose of tongues is a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 14:22). This seems to reiterate the Acts 2 precedent of tongues as known languages and a sign for unbelievers. If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, how will they benefit from an unknown tongue unless there is an interpreter? (1 Corinthians 14:23,27). In my view, the gibberish we observe today in many charismatic/NAR churches are not the tongues described in the scriptures. 

There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16).

Evidence from church history that glōssais were known languages

False teacher Charles Fox Parham (1873-1929) originally believed tongues to be a known language given by the Holy Spirit for evangelistic/missionary purposes. The phenomenum began when Agnes Ozman, one of Parham's students, allegedly began writing and speaking in the Chinese language and was unable to speak English for three days. Soon afterwards, Parham and 34 other students also began speaking in unknown languages. However, when put to the test on the mission field, Parham's missionaries' repeated attempts at xenoglossia failed, and it turned out that Ozman's "Chinese" was not Chinese at all. Afterwards "many of Parham's followers became disillusioned and left the movement." {9} Parham subsequently redefined tongues as glossolalia and formulated the doctrine of "initial evidence" of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. 

American evangelist FF Bosworth, one of the founders of the Assemblies of God, held Parham solely responsible for theologically separating speaking in tongues into two separate definitions. {10}

FF Bosworth: "Charles Parham who came forward with this doctrine in the year 1900, is the first man in the history of the world to teach it. He saw that it was not possible to teach that speaking in tongues will in every case accompany the Baptism in the Spirit, unless he could make it appear that speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost was something separate and distict from the gift of tongues at Corinth. He is also the first man in the history of the world to teach that none have ever been baptized in the Spirit unless they have spoken in tongues". {11} 

Mike's comment from a previous post of mine summarizes the history of glossolalia: "Ecstatic, unintelligible speech is well known in pagan religions inc Wicca and Voodoo and manifested well before Parham and Seymour in the cults of Montanus, the so-called French prophets, the Shakers, the Irvingites and the Mormons (who labelled it the 'Adamic language') . Reputable ministers went to Azusa st and called it 'the last vomit of Satan' as the behaviour was close to that displayed at Toronto, Lakeland etc." 

This critical information should make every charismatic tongue-speaker question the teaching they have received promoting glossolalia. 

Writing in tongues is never mentioned in the New Testament!

1. CHURCH FATHERS: Home (newadvent.org)
2. Augustine on the Tongues of Pentecost (charlesasullivan.com)
3. (20) Tongue fight! - YouTube..
4. (20) Todd White’s Newest Leg Lengthening Video 2022 - YouTube
5. (20) Social Media Prophet? Shawn Bolz | Don't Be Duped - YouTube
6. (20) When the Angels in Africa heard Paula White praying - YouTube
7. (15) Does This Verse Teach Cessationism? And a Bit On Bethel. 1 Cor 13:10-12 - YouTube
8. (23) MIRACLES, HEALINGS AND TONGUES(selected scriptures) By John MacArthur. - YouTube
9. Charles Fox Parham - Wikipedia
10. Charles Parham on Speaking in Tongues (charlesasullivan.com)
11. (PDF) Bosworth Blamed Charles Parham: He Criticized Him for His 'Wrong and Unscriptural" Teachings on Speaking in Tongues (researchgate.net)

Further Links

SINS OF AUGUSTINE (gospeltruth.net)

(24) Have The Spiritual Gifts Ceased? Part 1 | Were The Miraculous Gifts Only For The Apostles? - YouTube

Early Pentecostal Embarrassments, Part 1 | by Andreas Wiget | Medium
https://medium.com/@andreaswiget/interview-with-michael-a-former-word-of-faith-pastor-and-rhema-grad-534edf2a17f5
Alfred Garr’s Failed Missionary Tongues | by Andreas Wiget | Jan, 2023 | Medium

A Word Study of “Tongue” (Glossa) | by Andreas Wiget | Medium

ASBURY: AN ORCHESTRATED REVIVAL?

The Asbury "revival" began on February 8th and continues to the present time, although I understand that there will be some restrictions put in place from February 22nd. Whether it is biblical to put restrictions on a revival is an interesting question. The "revival" has been well aired on GodTV, CBN and also on Fox News. As far as I am aware from various reports and from personal observation, this revival has consisted mainly of singing repetitive Bethel/Hillsong-style songs and personal testimony. There has been no preaching of the gospel, a hallmark of genuine revival. It has been confirmed that the worship team has been led by self-identifying LGBTQ students. {1} In line with the college statement on human sexuality, this particular element within Asbury claim to be celibate while affirming the biblical teaching that sex is between a man and a woman within the context of heterosexual marriage. {2} As Caleb Corneloup explains below, the problem with identifying as an "LGBTQ Christian" is paradoxical from a biblical perspective. (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

Caleb Corneloup (iThinkBiblically): "There are many people touting the so called Asbury Revival as being a genuine move of God. But the truth is, this so called revival is not a move of God at all. Its a disgrace. From the very beginning the worship has been led by homosexuals. Gays and Queers have been leading this so called Asbury Revival. Now, as Christians we must love homosexuals and we must treat them equally and with compassion. However, the bible is very clear that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven. There is no such thing as a gay Christian or a queer Christian. A true Christian renounces his sin, and is ashamed of his or her sin."

 

Two Christian men were ejected from the "revival", one wearing a T-shirt saying "Homo Sex is Sin - Romans 1". {3} I am not entirely sure that the motivation of these two men was unassuming observation, but perhaps their ejection is worth noting. 

I have identified the following red flags at Asbury University which should send a cautionary message about accepting the current so-called "revival" as genuine. (1 John 4:1). Many Christians have learned critical lessons from the blatant false teaching and excesses that came out of Toronto, Lakeland, Pensacola etc. It should be expected that Satan will attempt to disrupt a genuine revival. (Nehemiah 6:2; 2 Corinthians 11:14). As such, endorsements from various NAR wolves who apparently seek to co-opt the "revival" is unsurprising. What is surprising, if Asbury is a genuine revival, is their tolerance of various heretical teachers, not least the attendance of proven false prophet and adulterer Todd Bentley. Biblically we should mark and avoid Bentley and his cohorts like the plague! (Romans 16:17).  What fellowship has light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14; cf 1 Corinthians 5:9; Ephesians 5:7). Todd Bentley, Shawn Bolz and other wolves are referring to Asbury as the possible beginning of the fulfillment of the “Bob Jones Superbowl prophecy”. It seems that NAR leaders are determined to have their "billion soul harvest" one way or another! {4} 

An Orchestrated revival? 

Approximately two months prior to the "revival", ecumenical false teacher Francis Can posted the following video: 

(12) Collegiate Day of Prayer 2023: "Will You Pray?" (Francis Chan) - YouTube

4,043 views Premiered on 28 Nov 2022
"Adopt a college campus in prayer today at http://collegiatedayofprayer.org. Join us on Feb 23, 2023 for 200-year anniversary of when every denomination and every university adopted the last Thursday of February as a day of prayer for revival and spiritual awakening on college campuses in America."

(12) Collegiate Day of Prayer 2023 – LIVE from Asbury University — Feb 23rd @ 8-10p ET - YouTube

Let's ADOPT and saturate EVERY CAMPUS in America in prayer (go to http://collegiatedayofprayer.org to adopt a campus) and join us LIVE from Asbury University on Feb 23rd at 8-10pm ET with special guests Rick Warren, Francis Chan, Allen Hood and worship leaders from International House of Prayer, Circuit Riders + Black Voices Movement, and Met By Love Worship. Let’s believe God for REVIVAL amongst believers on college campuses and SPIRITUAL AWAKENING amongst the lost. Father, revive the saved and save the lost!!

The Asbury "revival" has the endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church.

Universe Weekly: Asbury revival sets Catholics on fire with Holy Spirit.

"It’s almost like a wellspring,” said Father Norman Fischer, pastor of St. Peter Claver Church in Lexington, Kentucky, and chaplain at Lexington Catholic High School. “You just know right away that God is there.” {5}

Alleged exorcism? 

The (Christian?) woman who was allegedly delivered from a demon poses the controversial question of whether true believers of Jesus Christ can be demon possessed. In my view, believers cannot be demon possessed. Whilst I subscribe to the belief that believers can be oppressed by demons, there is no instance in the New Testament of believers being demon-possessed. If this was a genuine "deliverance", then why was it necessary to send for medical assistance? {6} 

When Jesus delivered those possessed by demons they emerged completely sane.  

And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. (Mark 5:15 cf. Matthew 17:18; Mark 9:26-27; Luke 11:14).

 

Asbury is an ecumenical liberal Methodist seminary

Loving God, Loving Self: Faith & Culture 2013

Speaker Father Normal Fischer

"Topics ranged from identifying the not-so-obvious signs of racism to ministering to other faiths in a pluralistic society.

'We need to focus less on our similarities and focus on our differences and work through them,” Barringer said. “Even Catholic/Protestant — you’re working in your framework, and I’m working in my framework, but how do we work together and give witness to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead? I would hate to be ‘color blind’ and not see the beauty of our differences, but I would also hate to live in a world where we can’t approach those differences in a productive way, especially for those of us who claim the name of Christ..

'Junior Elijah Friedeman appreciated the emphasis on religious diversity in this year’s “Faith and Culture” series. 'I enjoyed having a Catholic priest come and speak, because it emphasized the point that not only is ethnic diversity important, but also religious diversity' he said. 'Although Catholics are Christians too, it was neat to have that experience hearing from a theological tradition that’s far different from what most of have experienced.'" {7}

Egalitarianism

Kate Nunneley speaks on the egalitarian and complementarian views of women in the Church. {8)

Entire Sanctification

"Asbury University, with its roots in the American Methodist and holiness tradition, has followed Wesley’s teaching on entire sanctification. Believers may and should seek a subsequent work of God where through grace imparted by the Spirit, they are made full of the love of God." {9} 

We believe:

"That entire sanctification is that act of divine grace, through the baptism with the Holy Spirit, by which the heart is cleansed from all sin and filled with the pure love of God. This is a definite, cleansing work of grace in the heart of a believer, subsequent to conversion, resulting from full consecration and faith in the cleansing merit of the blood of Jesus Christ." {10}

Wesley's definition of "entire sanctification" was, and still is, widely criticized. {11} 

There are enough red flags at Asbury to be very cautious about this so-called "revival". It seems unlikely that this was a spontaneous revival arising from a simple student prayer meeting. I do not doubt that there are genuine Christians in attendance and my prayer is for their protection and for spiritual discernment. 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1).

1. The Asbury Revival Narrative Is Crumbling – Evangelical Dark Web

2. 2019_04_10-AU-Human-Sexuality-Statement.pdf (asbury.edu)
3. (12) Christians Kicked Out of Asbury Revival for T Shirt? You Won't Hear This on the News - YouTube
4. Bob Jones’ Revival Prophecy Headlines Super Bowl Win - Charisma Magazine
5. 'Jesus was right next to me': Asbury revival sets Catholics on fire with Holy Spirit - Universe Catholic Weekly
6. (12) Casting Devils out at Asbury University!!! - YouTube
7. Faith and Loving My Neighbor – Asbury University
8. Friday, November 3, 2017 — Kate Nunneley — “A Woman’s Place in the Church”
9. Wesleyan-Holiness Theology – Asbury University
10. Spiritual Vitality – Asbury University
11. A PLAIN ACCOUNT OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION text by John Wesley (whatsaiththescripture.com)

Further Links

Letter to the Editor Raises Concerns About Possible Pre-Planned Exploits - Lighthouse Trails Research Project

(14) Daniel Adams Using Asbury to Promote His False Ministry - YouTube
Francis Chan, Rick Warren Do Not Attend National Collegiate Day of Prayer at Asbury To Keep It Free of Celebrities (churchleaders.com)

STEVE KOZAR + DANIEL LONG: ILLEGITIMATE BAPTISM

 (7) My Response to Sean Christie of Revealing Truth on the Topic of Baptism - YouTube 

Daniel Long and Steve Kozar's exposés of the Azusa Street "revival", John G Lake, Charles Parham, William Branham etc. are well-researched and accurate. Ironically, it is very remiss of these men not to have dug up the dirt on their own cult leader Martin Luther, and there is plenty of dirt to be had! Arguably Martin Luther's wickedness exceeds that of all the false teachers Kozar and Long have exposed!

Daniel Long on the validity of infant baptism

Long: "If you are going to say that somebody who was baptized in the Catholic Church did not have a valid baptism, then you have to say that Martin Luther didn't have a valid baptism, Calvin, any/all of the reformers, and the early church fathers were all baptized as infants. Are you saying that their baptism was an illegitimate baptism and that they all should have been rebaptised?"  YES, that it precisely what I am saying.. although I do not acknowledge the claim that Luther and Calvin were true believers. (Matthew 7:16).

The argument that believers do not need to undergo believers baptism if they have undergone infant baptism is extremely weak and is not validated by the scriptures. Luther went to extreme lengths to validate the doctrine of infant baptism. However, his arguments depend upon tradition and his appeals to the scriptures regarding the faith of infants are dubious: “Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, and since no one can prove with good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes and build on such weak arguments.” {1} 

Thousands of believers have been denied valid baptism as a result of this demonic teaching. (1 Timothy 4:1). Baptism is the very first commandment required of those who have repented and believed the gospel. To prohibit baptism to genuine converts is a very weighty matter indeed! These teachers will have to give an account to the Lord for this wicked teaching when the time comes. (Hebrews 4:13).   

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).

Luther - A drunkard and glutton

The widespread belief that Luther lived in poverty is easily debunked. Luther was massively obese and weighed a hefty 150kg (23st 8lb) at his death in 1546 at the age of 63. {2} Luther was a glutton and a drunkard, and by his own admission he indulged himself to excess. Apparently, he drank up to two litres of fortified wine with every meal in addition to large quantities of beer.

Luther: "What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me." {3} 

"By his own admission, Luther put on a few extra pounds in his later years. During a business trip (of sorts) to Eisleben (his place of birth) several days before his death, he joked to friends that he would shortly return to Wittenberg and "give the worms a fat doctor to feast on." In actual fact he never made it back to Wittenberg. He passed away in Eisleben early in the morning on 18 February 1546." {4} 

Luther - As He Was

(Death Mask by Lucas Fortnagel - Leipzig, University Library)

Luther and the scriptures!

Luther's first German translation of the scriptures omitted 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Luther referred to the Epistle of James as "straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder".  He referred to other books as "Judaizing nonsense". {5} 

Luther and the Peasants Revolt   

Beginning in 1524 and ending in its suppression in 1525, the Peasants' Revolt began as a result of abuses cited by the peasants by the government and the church. Luther is often credited with the role of encouraging the Peasants' Revolt. However, he maintained allegiance to the German Princes against the violence of the rebels. Luther openly condemned the peasants and called for their brutal suppression, arguably inciting the demise of more than 100,000 peasants and facilitating further oppression of the lower classes."(German: Wider die Mordischen und Reubischen Rotten der Bawren) Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants typifies Luther's reaction to the Peasants' War, and alludes to Luther's concern that he might be seen to be responsible for their rebellion." {6} 

Quotes from Luther:

Tract Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants, published in May 1525: "Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you".

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog! – If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[Erlangen Vol 24"

"I have killed all the farmers in their rebellion; all their blood is on my neck.."

Luther's condemnation of the Anabaptists

The most distinctive belief of the Anabaptists was believer's baptism. The Anabaptists repudiated infant baptism as a blasphemous formality. They maintained that infants and young children are not accountable for sin until they become aware of good and evil and can exercise their own free will, repent, and accept baptism. The Anabaptists were mercilessly persecuted by the Reformers and most of the early Anabaptist leaders died in prison or were executed. Protestants were especially fond of “baptizing” Anabaptist heretics by drowning them in rivers.

Ken Rathbun: "Writing against the Anabaptists regarding the matter of faith and baptism, Luther strenuously denied that faith needed to be present in order to baptize. He even turned the argument around and stated that the 'rebaptizers' could never know for sure if anyone really had faith. Luther left open the question of whether infants could have faith in some mysterious way: 'There are Scripture passages that tell us that children may and can believe, though they do not speak or understand. . . . I grant that we do not understand how they do believe, or how faith is created. But that is not the point here.' {7}

"August 7th, 1536, a synod was convened at Hamburg to devise the best means of exterminating the Anabaptists. Not one voice among all the delegates was raised in favor of the Anabaptists. Even Melancthon voted to put all those to death who should remain, obstinate in their errors. The ministers of Ulm demanded that heresy should be extinguished by fire and sword. Those of Augsburg said: “If we have not yet sent any Anabaptists to the gibbet, we have at least branded their cheeks with red iron!? {8} 

Luther and the Jews

Luther's hate-filled vitriol against the Jews is legendary. He wrote at least five treatises on the subject of the Jews, including The Jews and Their Lies in 1543. 

Luther's seven recommendations to church and state authorities for actions concerning the Jews: 

Their synagogues and schools should be burned to the ground, their houses should be “razed and destroyed”; their “prayer books and Talmudic writings” should be confiscated; their rabbis should be “forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb”; they should be denied safe-conduct on the highways; usury should be prohibited to them and their gold, silver, and cash should be taken from them; finally, they should be subjected to harsh labor.

Luther can also take responsibility for influencing Hitler and the Holocaust.

For Daniel Long to read aloud swathes of Luther's large catechism is scandalous. Luther was a gluttonous monster whose understanding of the scriptures was deeply flawed. We should mark and avoid those who promote the aberrant teachings of this imposter. (Romans 16:17).

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7).

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 cf. Proverbs 23:20).

 

1. The Reformers' Defense of Infant Baptism - Faith Baptist Bible College
2. Researchers dig up the dirt on father of Protestantism | Religion | The Guardian
3. To Spite the Devil | Lapham’s Quarterly (laphamsquarterly.org)
4. Martin Luther: Fat Reformer? - Reformation 21
5. Luther's canon - Wikipedia
6. Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants - Wikipedia
7. The Reformers' Defense of Infant Baptism - Faith Baptist Bible College
8. The reformers and their uncivilized behavior against the anabaptists | Bjorkbloggen

THE WARTBURG CASTLE: DANIEL LONG / STEVEN LONG'S JOURNEY INTO LUTHERANISM

(5) From Doubt to Assurance: A Journey to Lutheranism - YouTube

Above Daniel Long's brother, Steven Long, shares his story of how he became a Lutheran. 

Steven Long related how he was previously a very strong Calvinist, but found himself in a spiritual battle in which he describes a constant struggle regarding condemnation over sin.

Steven Long's struggles remind me of the main character in Pilgrims Progress, Christian, who was plagued by spiritual doubts and condemnation.

Justin Taylor: "When we meet him, Christian has an enormous burden on his back, and Christian’s burden represents not sin per se, but it represents the shame and doubt that he feels because of his sin. Christian’s sins get forgiven, and he was justified when he received Christ, which is represented by his entering the Wicket Gate. But Christian does not yet understand the basis of his forgiveness, so his conscience continues to bother or burden him. Put in more technical terms (always a welcome means of clarification) the burden represents psychological guilt not forensic guilt. Therefore, what Christian loses at the cross is his shame and doubt caused by sin, because his sins had already been forgiven when he entered the Wicket Gate. Also, at the cross Christian receives a scroll, which he later calls his assurance. When Christian entered the Wicket Gate, he received Christ. When Christian gazed at the cross, he understood substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness, and this gave him assurance that his sins were forgiven." {1} 

What struck me about Steven Long's story is that his deliverance seems to have come from the Lutheran church rather than directly through Christ, although I am sure he would protest otherwise.  

Daniel Long: "We are receiving God's gifts to us in the service, We are receiving His word, we are receiving His sacrament, we are receiving the absolution spoken over us, we are confessing our sins.. partaking on a regular basis, partaking of the sacrament, the body of blood of Christ, and just having that strength, that assurance.. that gets me through the week." 

Daniel Long quotes Chris Rosebrough: "We come to church and our sack is empty.. we hear that we are forgiven, and that is thrown into the sack, and then we have the absolution spoken over you, that's put into the sack, and then you are hearing the gospel that Christ forgave you through the Word, and that's put in the sack, and then you go and you partake of the sacrament and that's put into the sack, and then you hear the benediction spoken over you and that's put into the sack, and so you have got your sack full when you leave church.. that sack throughout the week starts to empty and you have to go back and do it again."

Steven Long: "Some weeks my sack is empty by Monday morning, so we need it all the time." 

All these things are administered externally through the minister, the sacrament, the benediction etc. There appears to be an intermediary between the people attending the Lutheran service and Jesus Christ reminiscent of Roman Catholicism. To say that your sack empties until the next time you attend is very concerning to me. It is as if there is no immediate relationship between the person attending the Lutheran church and Jesus Christ Himself .

"If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32 cf. John 15:5).

1. At What Point in Pilgrim's Progress Does Christian Get Saved? (thegospelcoalition.org)

DANIEL LONG'S DUBIOUS CASE FOR BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (9) My Response to Sean Christie of Revealing Truth on the Topic of Baptism - YouTube

Above, Daniel Long (LongforTruth) continues to defend the dubious Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 

Long: "We do not believe that if a person has not been baptized, they are not saved."  Nevertheless, Long does link baptism and salvation. Long: "We do believe that baptism saves.. Baptism is a means of grace.. it is a way that God delivers His grace to us." There is a great deal of obfuscation involved in the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Essentially, the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration recognizes two ways of salvation. Most Christians adhere to the orthodox belief that salvation occurs by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8). However, Lutherans hold the illogical belief that salvation also, but not exclusively, occurs through baptism. This perplexing assertion compromises the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) and, as such, it is a primary issue. 

Long refers to passages (plural) that link baptism and salvation. Actually, there is only ONE passage that definitively links regeneration and baptism. Lutheran teachers make the error of taking Acts 2:38 in isolation as their proof text for baptismal regeneration at the expense of the sum of God's word. (Psalm 119:160). The passage in question (below) identifies those who received Peter's word and were subsequently baptized.

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (εἰς) the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added about three thousand souls that day. (Acts:2:36-41).

The preposition εἰς (eis) has been translated for in verse 38 which gives the slightly confusing meaning that baptism facilitates the forgiveness of sins. εἰς is translated elsewhere as to or into, of place, time, or purpose; also in adverbial phrases. {1} The Amplified Bible gives a clearer interpretation: because of the forgiveness of your sins.

Peter instructed the Jews to repent and to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. At that point in time they were deeply convicted of their sin and were asking Peter "What shall we do?". The practice of the early church was that believers repented and were baptized within a very short period of time, repentance being the necessary requirement for baptism. The norm for the early church consisted of repentance and baptism in close proximity to one another. In our time, Christians are often baptized weeks, months, or even years following conversion. The assertion that unbaptized believers have not received the Holy Spirit in the intervening period prior to baptism is false. The critical question is: When do believers receive the Holy Spirit?  The Gentile converts received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism:

>Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Acts 10:46-48).

Long proposes that the aorist imperative passive βαπτισθήτω (baptisthētō) (be baptized) demonstrates that the person being baptized is a passive recipient of God's grace. In this instance, the passive voice indicates nothing more than the fact that baptism is administered by another person. In the very early church, baptism appears to have been administered by apostles or elders. Paul was thankful that he baptized only Crispus and Gauius and the household of Stephanas. (1 Corinthians 1:13-17). 

> That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (Ephesians 5:26).

Many commentators refer to water baptism as a sign, a representation, a symbol etc. rather than a literal cleansing. I have listed a few examples below. {2} 

Benson: "Ephesians 5:26-27. That he might sanctify and cleanse it — Might remove the guilt, power, and pollution of sin; with the washing of water — In baptism, as the sign of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which can only renew, sanctify, and cleanse the soul. See 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2; Titus 3:5. By the word — The ordinary channel by which justifying, regenerating, and sanctifying grace is communicated; (John 15:3; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; John 17:17;).." 

Matthew Henry: "..baptismal water was the outward sign."

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: "..He speaks of baptism according to its high ideal and design, as if the inward grace accompanied the outward rite; hence he asserts of outward baptism whatever is involved in a believing appropriation of the divine truths it symbolizes, and says that Christ, by baptism, has purified the Church [Neander] (1Pe 3:21)."

Matthew Poole: "With the washing of water, viz. in baptism, in which the external washing represents seals, and exhibits the internal cleansing from both the guilt and defilement of sin by the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:14 Revelation 1:5."

>In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses.. (Colossians 2:11-13).

The context of the above is passage adds baptism to "the circumcision without hands" i.e. baptism is performed subsequent to faith. Paul is contrasting circumcision and baptism in this passage. 

> Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4). 

Long: "You died to sin in your baptism.. The old you was killed in baptism, and the new you arose.. Paul very specifically tells us how we were placed in Christ. Paul says in Romans chapter 6 it was through our baptism." (29:00 mark)

Gill: "..because baptism is an ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress or dependence on it for salvation; such who are thus baptized, are "baptized into his death"; they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons are dead to sin, who are so baptized; for by the death of Christ, into which they are baptized, they are justified from sin; by the death of Christ, their old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; besides, believers in baptism profess themselves to be dead to sin and the world, and their baptism is an obligation upon them to live unto righteousness." {3}

> And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children (τέκνον) and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39).  

τέκνον is the Greek word for child, descendent, inhabitant. {4} Many commentators agree that the broader sense of τέκνον i.e. descendents or posterity is indicated in this verse rather than the specific children of Peter's audience. Previously these very same men had imprecated Jesus' blood upon themselves and upon their children i.e. their posterity (τέκνα): “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25).

"..in a broader sense (like the Hebrew בָּנִים), posterity: Matthew 2:18; Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; Acts 2:39; Acts 13:33(32). with emphasis: genuine posterity, true offspring, John 8:39; (of women) to be regarded as children, 1 Peter 3:6. β. specifically, a male child, a son: Matthew 21:28; Acts 21:21; Revelation 12:5; in the vocative, in kindly address, Matthew 21:28; Luke 2:48; Luke 15:31.

Cambridge Bible: "39. the promise is unto you, and to your children] Just as “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” {5}

Expositors Greek Testament: "Acts 2:39. ὑμῖν γὰρ: the promise was made to the very men who had invoked upon themselves and upon their children, St. Matthew 27:25, the blood of the Crucified." {6} 

Long's alleged evidence that infants can have faith  (1:00 mark)

> ..and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15).

The exceptional events surrounding the birth of John the Baptist were unique. John's birth was in fact miraculous (not in the same sense as Jesus' birth). John was an answer to prayer; Elizabeth was past the age of childbearing and the news was delivered to Zechariah via angelic agency (Gabriel). I am very doubtful whether this passage proves that infants in general below a certain age can have faith. (Luke 1:8-25).

Further alleged evidence

> Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust (מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י) you at my mother’s breasts. (Psalm 22:9-10)

I am not a Hebrew expert, but in this instance, the Berean Standard Bible appears to render the best interpretation. 

Berean Standard Bible: Yet You brought me forth from the womb; You made me secure (מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י ) at my mother’s breast.

מַ֝בְטִיחִ֗י (batach) be bold confident, secure, sure, careless one, put confidence, make to hope, put,  {7}

> Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother’s womb. (Psalm 71:6) .

David did not consciously rely upon God from before his birth, rather he was sustained by God.

NASB Lexicon: "By You I have been sustained נִסְמַ֬כְתִּי (nis·mach·ti) 5564: to lean, lay, rest, support a prim. root" {8}

Barnes: "By thee have I been holden up from the womb - From the beginning of my existence. The 'idea' in all this is, that, since God had sustained him from his earliest years - since he had shown his power in keeping him, and manifested his care for him, there was ground to pray that God would keep him still, and that he would guard him as old age came on. The sentiment in this verse is substantially the same as in Psalm 22:9-10." {9}

>..when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:20-21). 

Barnes: "..baptism administered in connection with true repentance, and true faith in the Lord Jesus, and when it is properly a symbol of the putting away of sin, and of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, and an act of unreserved dedication to God - now saves us.." {10}

>So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:24-27). We symbolically put on Christ in our baptism ~ the outward act confirms the inward change.

Long's insistence that infant baptism in the Roman Catholic Church is valid is indefensible. (55:00 mark). The Roman Catholic Church is a false church and is an abomination to the Lord! Anyone who has undergone baptism in that wicked cult has undergone a false baptism and needs to be legitimately baptized. 

Chris Rosebrough's Research

Rosebrough's quotations from various Church Fathers do not match the writings of the Church Fathers that I have located. (?)

Barnabus (?): “Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]."

Rosebrough: "Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is,‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.' Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls” {11} 

Barnabus: "Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves.. Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross have gone down into the water;" {12} 

Notice that Barnabus prioritizes those who place their trust in the cross and their subsequent act of baptism. Nowhere does Barnabus imply that baptism removes sins

Hermas (?): "I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is."

The only comparable passage I could find in Hermas is as follows:

Hermas: "Explain to me a little further, sir, I said. What is it that you desire? he asked. Why, sir, I said, did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits? They were obliged, he answered, to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For, he continued, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God." {13} 

I find this passage so obscure that I cannot count it as being doctrinally sound or evidential to the cause of baptismal regeneration. 

Wikipedia: "For Hermas baptism is necessary to be saved and warns those who undergo baptism by the danger of postbaptismal sins. Shepherd of Hermas possibly supports delaying baptism for practical reasons which is because of the fear of post-baptismal sins. According to Hermas, those who fall into sin after baptism, have only one chance of penance" {14}

I have not researched Rosebrough's further examples of the Church Fathers, though I may do so at a later date. Anything written by the later Church Fathers such as Augustine, would, in my view, be invalid.  

Long ends his video with a fairly long quote from the Large Catechism of Martin Luther which is one the most blasphemous documents I have ever read. {15}

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

..whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:25 cf. Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 1:5).

Luther followed the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions by removing the prohibition against graven images from the ten commandments. {16} He also rejected various books of the bible; he perpetuated replacement theology and his writings had a huge influence on Hitler. It is incomprehensible that the writings of Luther should be venerated and viewed as compatible with the scriptures.

1. Acts 2:38 Lexicon: Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (biblehub.com)
2. Ephesians 5:26 Commentaries: so that He might sanctify herchaving cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, (biblehub.com)
3. Romans 6 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)
4. Strong's Greek: 5043. τέκνον (teknon) -- a child (of either sex) (biblehub.com)
5. (Galatians 3:16),
6. Acts 2:39 Commentaries: "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (biblehub.com)
7. Strong's Hebrew: 982. בָּטַח (batach) -- to trust (biblehub.com)
8. Psalm 71:6 Lexicon: By You I have been sustained from my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb; My praise is continually of You. (biblehub.com)
9. Psalm 71:6 Commentaries: By You I have been sustained from my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb; My praise is continually of You. (biblehub.com)
10. 1 Peter 3:21 Commentaries: Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (biblehub.com)
11. Baptism Texts the Earliest Christians.pdf (dropbox.com)
12. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle of Barnabas (newadvent.org)
13. CHURCH FATHERS: The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III (newadvent.org)
14. The Shepherd of Hermas - Wikipedia
15. The Large Catechism (Infant Baptism) - Martin Luther (projectwittenberg.org)
16. Luther’s Small Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther (cph.org)

FURTHER LINKS

44) FALSE TEACHER CHRIS ROSEBROUGH-LUTHERANISM-FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
(48) A Biblical Analysis of Infant Baptism - YouTube
(48) Controversies and Biblical Clarity on Baptism - YouTube
(48) Debate: "Is Water Baptism Required for Salvation?” Dean Meadows and Mike Winger - YouTube
(58) Water Baptism DOES NOT Save - Explaining 1 Peter 3:20-21 - YouTube
Martin Luther On Baptism-Heresy Exposed! SermonAudio - Media Player
Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism - The Gospel Coalition

MY QUESTION TO STEVE KOZAR: BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (60) Responding to Sean Christie: Part One - YouTube

I can't go any further without responding to Steve Kozar's response to Sean Christie (Revealing Truth).

Sean Christie has posted a new video (below) which will hopefully silence these troublemakers, although I will not hold my breath. Kozar and Long have gained some credibility amongst Christians due to their refutations against NAR heretics. However, I now begin to wonder if their plan was to launch a spiritual hand grenade onto the body of Christ all along. (2 Peter 2:1). I have had reservations about Kozar in particular for some time, but I put this down to personality rather than anything I could pinpoint definitively. Kozar's various slanderous responses to Christie's original video now confirm that my previous uneasiness about him was based on something other than personality. (Proverbs 8:13). 

Kozar refers to "..amateur discernment bloggers who seem to have the viewpoint of 'it's me and my bible against the world, I'm just going to do this all by myself.'" 

My question to Steve Kozar: Who are you to say who can or cannot challenge various troubling developments and doctrines within the church?  

Kozar's comment reminds me of my experience at Holy Trinity CofE Church in Leicester some years ago when I questioned the antics of the then vicar John McGinley and his promotion of various deviant teachings. I went to John McGinley's house one evening to discuss my concerns, and at one point he said to me "Who are you to question us?"  My response was that what I was observing did not line up with the scriptures, and I asked him why I should not question him. John McGinley has now morphed into an NAR "apostle" and he is an associate of Emma Stark, Rebecca King and other false teachers. {1} If we do not test the spirits, and if we allow the "experts" to instruct us unchallenged, I think that we would be in real trouble! (1 John 4:1). Kozar appears to have taken a leaf out of the false NAR teachers' book by misapplying Matthew 7:1 "judge not"!

One accusation levelled against Christie was that he did not take the time to find out what Kozar and Long really believe. If you cannot put a good case for your so-called "doctrine" in a one-hour-plus video, then there is something wrong. According to Kozar, we need to spend several hours studying the subject of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration before we can question their view. I disagree. I heard enough in their original 1.23 hour video to set alarm bells ringing. {2} 

Another accusation against Christie is, apparently, he does not have a PhD and he is not qualified to challenge those who "know what they are talking about". Christie does not mention whether he has any theological qualifications or not on his YouTube channel, but as far as I am concerned, provided his teaching is sound, this is not an issue. Whatever qualifications we have, they are not banners to be waved around to impress or intimidate others. We only have to look at Paul's boasts in the flesh to understand that on their own qualifications mean absolutely nothing. (Philippians 3:4-6).

My understanding from Kozar, without spending hours and hours reading the PhD's he recommends, is that according to Lutheran doctrine, baptism is and is not salvific.  

A bewildering number of views exist amongst those who promote baptismal regeneration. 

Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund sum up the Lutheran view of baptism as "the ordinary means of regeneration.. baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it is ordinarily necessary for salvation..  there are exceptions to that."  Chris Rosebrough calls out Michael Brown as "the apostle of obfuscation", but really, you would have to go a long way to make up anything more obscure, unclear or unintelligible as the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. What Christie noticed was that Lutherans pay a lot of attention to the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration and I agree with him that this is a concern.

 

1. Conversations - Episode 120 with Rebecca King, Emma Stark and John McGinley - YouTube
2. (60) Baptism Is Not A Work! A Discussion between Steve and Paulette Kozar and Dan Long - YouTube

STEVE KOZAR: INFANT BAPTISM AND BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (35) A Lutheran Response to Mike Winger on Infant Baptism (Repost from Pastor Matt Knuppel) - YouTube

Steve Kozar recently posted the above video which is Lutheran Pastor Matt Knuppel's (Grace Lutheran Church) response to Mike Winger's analysis of infant baptism. Kozar has come out of the wicked NAR/Charismania deception, but unfortunately he continues to have problems with basic theology. Very sadly he and Daniel Long are currently busy muddying the waters by foisting the aberrant teachings of Lutheranism onto the body of Christ. This topic is salvific i.e. it pertains to salvation and as such, it is a primary, not a secondary issue.

Why begin with the Lutheran Confessions?

Knuppel: "What do Lutherans believe about baptism in general?" He goes on to quote Article 9 of the Augsburg Confessions and the Small Catechism. Surely we should begin with the scriptures rather than Luther! The general consensus is that Luther and the other reformers did not go far enough with their reforms. Luther made some terrible blunders, not to mention his legendary antisemitism. Luther's first German translation of the scriptures omitted 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Luther referred to the Epistle of James as "straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder".  He referred to other books as "Judaizing nonsense". {1} It is obvious to me that Luther was a very arrogant man and that we should not hang onto his every word! What we find below is Luther's view of baptism which goes beyond what is written and is unsupported by the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 4:6).

 

The Small Catechism: 

First
What is Baptism?

Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word.
Which is that word of God?

Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19)

Second
What benefits does Baptism give?

It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are these words and promises of God?

Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

Third

How can water do such great things?

Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5–8)

Knuppel: "Baptism is a means of grace that works forgiveness of sins.. Water, all by itself, without any word of God is just plain water. You can drink it, you can use it to wash your car; but with the word of God, with God's word of promise, it is no longer just plain water, but it becomes a holy baptism.." The claim that the actual water (H2O) changes mystically in baptism has no biblical support whatsoever. This idea is similar to the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's supper (consubstantiation), which is an unfortunate throwback to the Roman Catholic Church.

Household Baptisms

Knuppel refused to spend time responding to arguments against the inclusion of infants into household baptisms in the book of Acts, although he thinks this is "strongly possible". I am not surprised that Knuppel is unwilling to substantiate his views on this subject. There are definite weaknesses with the view that entire households, including infants, were baptized. For instance, it is not feasible that infants belonging to the "entire household" of the jailer mentioned in Acts 16 heard the gospel, believed and rejoiced. Infants by definition would not have understood the gospel. 

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (Acts 16:30-34).

The scriptures show that faith precedes baptism. By necessity, baptism is a subsequent act that arises from faith and repentance. In other words, salvation occurs when believers receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Otherwise, the thief on the cross would not be saved and there would be no deathbed conversions. (Luke 23:43).

Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Acts 10:46-48).

The Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to Paul's message and baptism followed:

Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. (Acts 16:14-15).

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41).

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16).

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:3 cf. John 3:16. 5:24; Acts 8:12, 11:16).

Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).

Gill: "..because baptism is an ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress or dependence on it for salvation; such who are thus baptized, are "baptized into his death"; they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons are dead to sin, who are so baptized; for by the death of Christ, into which they are baptized, they are justified from sin; by the death of Christ, their old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; besides, believers in baptism profess themselves to be dead to sin and the world, and their baptism is an obligation upon them to live unto righteousness." {2} 

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16). The early church appears to have performed baptism at a very early stage in the lives of believers (arguably on the same day). (Acts 8:36; 10:47 etc.). The emphasis in this verse is on whoever believes/does not believe. Given all the other scriptures confirming that faith precedes baptism, it is a reasonable deduction that the inclusion of baptism in this instance is based on the assumption that baptism will occur within a very short period following conversion. 

..when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:20-21). A good conscience is pledged at the point of baptism. The scriptures indicate that baptism was performed on those capable of personally believing in Jesus Christ, pledging a good conscience, and calling on His name. (Acts 22:16).

 

Baptism and Circumcision

Baptism differs from circumcision in a number of ways. A key difference is that inclusion into the New Covenant is not something that parents can do for their children by proxy. Biblical faith is a personal saving relationship and a commitment to Jesus Christ. A definite command in the Old Testament was that only male children were to be circumcised at eight days old. (Leviticus 12:3). Infants were automatically included in the community of Israel when they were circumcised. Although children of believers have the advantage of being part of a Christian family, they are not considered to be Christian in their own right until they are old enough to make a personal commitment to Jesus Christ through faith. The sign of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit: For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:28-29).

Paul contrasts circumcision and baptism as follows:

In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses.. (Colossians 2:11-13).

Parallels between Genesis 17 and Acts 2

Genesis 17:9-14

And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Acts 2:38-39
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

In the above passages, descendants or posterity are denoted not infants.

Cambridge Bible: "39. the promise is unto you, and to your children] Just as “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” {3}

Expositors Greek Testament: "Acts 2:39. ὑμῖν γὰρ: the promise was made to the very men who had invoked upon themselves and upon their children, St. Matthew 27:25, the blood of the Crucified." {4}

 

The sign of the old covenant was circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14), whereas the sign of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written coded and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:25-28).

The Wartburg Castle has recently posted further revisions and updates, including a video by Hans Fiene: (48) "WhaddaBout the Thief on the Cross??" by Pastor Hans Fiene - YouTube This video is described as "satire" and it is supposed to be amusing. According to Fein, there are two ways to be saved: "Just because someone can be saved apart from baptism doesn't change the fact that baptism saves."  This presents us with the confusing concept that baptism can save someone, but that it is not required for salvation. Perhaps I don't have the Lutheran "superior knowledge", but this does not make one jot of sense to me. 

Kozar and his Lutheran associates should be very careful about mocking those who hold the biblical view of salvation by faith through grace. (Ephesians 6:8). In my view, their scripture twisting and mockery are likely to incur the wrath of God. (Galatians 6:7; Proverbs 18:7). 

1. Luther's canon - Wikipedia
2. Romans 6 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)
3. (Galatians 3:16),
4. Acts 2:39 Commentaries: "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (biblehub.com)

Further Links:

(44) FALSE TEACHER CHRIS ROSEBROUGH-LUTHERANISM-FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
(44) #340 Chris Rosebrough's Defence of Idolatrous Statues of Christ | MEGIDDO RADIO - YouTube
(48) A Biblical Analysis of Infant Baptism - YouTube
(48) Controversies and Biblical Clarity on Baptism - YouTube
(48) Debate: "Is Water Baptism Required for Salvation?” Dean Meadows and Mike Winger - YouTube
(58) Water Baptism DOES NOT Save - Explaining 1 Peter 3:20-21 - YouTube