JOHN PIPER: EPHESIANS 2:8 THE DAMAGING CONSEQUENCES OF CALVINISM

What Do I Do If I've Tried to Believe In Jesus but Can't? (youtube.com)

The question addressed to John Piper: "I have concluded that I don't have saving faith. I have tried to believe in Jesus for two years, but I can't. I fear I am beyond saving. What can I do?" 

John Piper: "It may be that the Lord has withheld from you the kind of faith you are looking for in order to make you feel absolutely desperate.. We cannot produce faith. If we have genuine faith it is a gift.."  

Undoubtedly, faith plays a central role in salvation, but whether it is directly given by God or arises from hearing and responding to His Word is a matter of interpretation. Those who teach that faith is a gift misapply the phrase "and this is not your from yourselves" (Ephesians 2:8). The consensus amongst Greek scholars is that the phrase "and this is not from yourselves" refers to salvation itself, not faith. For an in-depth study of the Greek see the link at the end.

The definition of faith is to have complete trust or confidence in something. Biblically, faith needs to be applied in order to receive salvation. The scriptures never define faith as a work i.e. something we do in order to earn salvation. The scriptures make a clear distinction between faith and works. (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:28,4:2-5; Galatians 3:10-11; Philippians 3:9). The scriptures explicitly state that salvation is a gift from God that cannot be earned, rather salvation is received by faith. (John 3:16; Romans 5:15,6:23 cf. Galatians 2:16). The conundrum that Calvinism poses is that if faith is a work then our salvation would be earned, but that interpretation violates God's word. 

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, (Romans 4:4-5).

It is by grace you have been saved! And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might display the surpassing riches of His grace, demonstrated by His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:5-9).

Piper's irresponsible response in defining saving faith as something God can withhold is false and effectively erects a barrier between God and the enquirer. The right response would be to give hope and assurance to the enquirer by clarifying that the invitation to believe is open to everyone. (Matthew 11:28). The damage that Calvinism does to those outside and inside the church is inestimable.

Pulpit Commentary: "Verse 8. - For by grace have ye been saved, through faith. He repeats what he had said parenthetically (ver. 5), in order to open the subject up more fully. On the part of God, salvation is by grace; on the part of man, it is through faith.. The apostle is so anxious to bring out the great distinguishing doctrine of grace that he puts it in all lights, affirms it positively, contrasts it with its opposite, and emphasizes it by repetition. It is a gift, not a purchase; a free gift, without money and without price; what would never have been yours, but for the generosity of God. It is very usual in the New Testament thus to represent salvation; cf. our Lord's words to Nicodemus (John 3:16); to the woman of Samaria (John 4:14); St. Paul's "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift" (2 Corinthians 9:15); "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23); and 1 John 5:11, "God gave unto us eternal life, and the life is in his Son." This usage confirms the view that it is not merely faith, but the whole work and person of Christ which faith receives, that is meant here as the "gift of God."1

Is Faith a Gift of God? – Ephesians 2:8 Reconsidered – Grace Evangelical Society (faithalone.org)

1. Ephesians 2 Pulpit Commentary (biblehub.com)

LEIGHTON FLOWERS VS JAMES WHITE JOHN 6:44 UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION?

Leighton Flowers VS James White: The John 6:44 Debate | Does John 6:44 Teach Unconditional Election? (youtube.com)

"Leighton Flowers VS James White: The John 6:44 Debate | Does John 6:44 Teach Unconditional Election?" 

Got Questions definition of unconditional election: "God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace. These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will. God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin."1 

James White's theological debates include Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, infant baptism, the King James Only movement, Jehovah's Witnesses, and atheism. White has described Leighton Flowers as a "one-string banjo" referring to what he describes as his "obsessive" mission against Calvinism. Flowers attempted to make the debate more light-hearted by giving White a gift of a one-string banjo. However, at the end of the debate, White refused to accept it. White's "one string banjo" quip was doubtless thrown out as an insult, but Flowers apparent approval of other false doctrines is odd. For my part, I am unable to reconcile Flowers hyper-focused fight for truth in one aspect (Calvinism), and his apparent approval of error in another (ecumenism). (Acts 20:27). I was so troubled by this disconnect in 2018 that I have not paid him much attention since that time. 

Below is an excerpt from my previous post in 2018: 

  

"One would expect Flowers to have a bible verse on the 'Our Beliefs' page of his website, but his primary text is a quotation from AW Tozer! In fact there are many scripture references, but no actual bible quotations on this page at all.

I notice that Flowers also frequently quotes CS Lewis in his videos. Both CS Lewis and AW Tozer were ecumenists and closet mystics. As I look down the list of non-Calvinistic scholars Flowers lists as reading material, I am very troubled indeed. For example, he lists false teachers such as ecumenist Billy Graham, false deliverance teacher Derek Prince, ecumenist Greg Laurie, open theist and annihilationist Clark Pinnock, ecumenist Ravi Zacharias, ecumenist David Jeremiah.. I could go on.. and on... This tells me that Calvinism is not the only serious problem that needs to be addressed within the Southern Baptist denomination. The ecumenical movement is THE biggest threat to biblical Christianity in our time, and yet inexplicably, Flowers actively promotes ecumenical teachers and apostates on his website!"2 

The Debate

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— (John 6:37-45).

White: "Has the historical understanding of John chapter 6 since the Reformation.. is that a proper reading of the text?" This opening question was very telling in that it indicates that White's presuppositions are inhibited by his Calvinistic tradition.

White opened by emphasizing that there is no break or contradiction in verse 44 i.e. the group drawn by the Father is the same group that is raised up on the last day, namely the Jews who had been drawn by the Father via the prophets. Based on his understanding of John 6:44, White's view is that no distinction exists between the (passive recipients ?) being drawn by the Father, those being taught, those hearing and those learning in verse 45.   

Flowers opened by identifying God as the initiator and the hearers as the responders. His position is that the Jewish crowd in John 5:43 rejected God due to their own fault because they were unwilling. (31:00 mark) In contrast, White's presupposition from Calvin (originally Augustine) is that sinful people reject God by default. Flowers also quoted Calvinist John MacArthur: "Sinful man is pre-programmed by God to believe lies." Flowers appealed to various proof texts as evidence that the Jewish crowd was responsible for responding to Jesus.

I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. (John 5:43).

 

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, John 1:12 ..  cf. Ezekiel 18:32

For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Acts 28:27).

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37 cf. Isaiah 30:15). 

Flowers: "Notice this hardened condition of Israel is not a universal default condition of all humanity from birth. It is a purposeful divine judicial judgement upon a rebellious people at a particular place in time to bring about Calvary through their rebellion.."  (Luke 19:41-42; John 12:39). This also explains why Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds. (Mark 4:34). Flowers also referred to Romans 11: ..as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” (Romans 11:8). As a result of their rebellion, the Jews were ..ever seeing but never perceiving. (Mark 4:12). 

Flowers: "There is only one point of distinction.. why does God give certain people to the Son?" He continued.. "those who believed in the Father are given to the Son". Calvinism reverses the stated order given in the text i.e. regeneration precedes belief. From the Calvinist perspective draw = regeneration, whereas draw is given a different definition in the text.. i.e. those drawn are those who have heard and learned = those who have responded. 

Flowers position on John 6:44 ~ The Jewish crowd is not given to Christ because of their continued refusal to believe all that the Father has taught them (through Moses and the prophets).

White's position on John 6:44 ~  The Jewish crowd is unable to believe by default because they are not given to Christ.

Ex-Calvinist Bible Scholar Reviews James White Vs. Leighton Flowers Debate: John 6:44

https://youtube.com/live/ir0m-1h5wSU?feature=share

The subsequent review of this debate by Biblical Studies expert Dr Joel Korytko, although rather technical, is significant. In it, he identifies various critical weaknesses in White's arguments. White's smoke and mirrors strategy i.e. his technical knowledge of Greek grammar was a tactic that ultimately backfired. It became apparent during Korytko's review that White's frequent references to Greek grammar were not only superfluous and misleading, but were even incorrect at times. Korytko asserted that White's detailed information about aorist present participles in John is not remotely related to the debate and was an unnecessary distraction. In addition, Korytko pointed out that John 6:44-45 does not give evidence of volition. 

 

The Old Testament background to John 6:45 - the Prophets  

It is written in the Prophets: ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me— (John 6:45).

Then all your sons will be taught by the LORD.. (Isaiah 54:13 cf. Joel 3:1-2; Jeremiah 31:4; John 2:20). Isaiah 54:13 is an eschatological prophecy referring to Israel's ultimate salvation in their post-conversion state. (Zechariah 12:10). John 6:45 omits "all your sons" and simultaneously refers to the eschatological prophecy as a present reality (inaugurated eschatology) via the new covenant. This verse presupposes the willingness of present believers, as well as the future inhabitants of the New Jerusalem, to be taught by the Lord. Biblia: "Essentially the same promise is given in Joel 3:1-2, and Jeremiah 31:34; and represented in 1 John 2:20 ('Ye have the anointing of the Holy One, and know all things') as already fulfilled."3 

The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have drawn you with loving devotion. (Jeremiah 31:3 - Berean Standard Version).

The ESV does not convey the meaning of draw in Jeremiah 31:3. However, several other versions translate the equivalent of the NT word elkusō (draw) Hebrew mashak. Jeremiah 31 sets the stage for the new covenant and the ultimate regathering of Israel. Critically Jeremiah 31:3 powerfully illustrates that the sense of mashak/elkusō (draw) is to lovingly persuade. There is no indication of irresistible grace aka effectual calling in this verse. 

Bengel's Gnomen: The same word occurs in the Septuag., Song of Solomon 1:4, εἵλκυσάν σε, [Engl. Vers.] “Draw me, we will run after Thee;” Jeremiah 31:3, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee” [in Septuag. ch. 38:3, εἵλκυσά σε εἰς οἰκτείρημα]. 4  

pantes and pas

'And they will all (pantes) be taught by God.’ Everyone (pas) who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me— (John 6:45).

Flowers seemed to get rather flustered by White's use of pantes (all) and pas (everyone) (1:38 mark). Flowers has now modified his view and he accepts that all and everyone are in fact the same group. Few teachers are humble enough to publicly admit their errors, and we should give Flowers credit for his subsequent U-turn. Korytko effectively simplified this misunderstanding by appealing to the eschatological reality of John, i.e. everyone taught by God is the same group who have heard and learned from the Father and come to Jesus.           

heard and learned

Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me. (John 6:45).  

White's false assumption is that heard and learned are passive verbs i.e. those who have heard and learned are the passive recipients of the Father's instruction. In context, everyone is the subject of the sentence. Everyone actively performs the action of coming to Jesus after hearing and learning from the Father.

Other parts of the New Testament emphasize how we hear (active) indicating volition, or whether people have ears to hear. The formula "He who has ears to hear"  (Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:9 etc.) suggests more than ordinary powers of thought to comprehend.5  

Take care then how you hear (akouete), for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away. (Luke 8:18).

And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen (akouete) to him!” (Luke 9:35 cf. Luke 9:44; Deuteronomy 32:46-47; Proverbs 2:2-5).

For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them. (Matthew 13:15).

Thayers Greek Lexicon: "The Johannean phrase ἀκούειν παρά τοῦ Θεοῦ, or τί παρά Θεοῦ, signifies a. to perceive in the soul the inward communication of God: John 6:45."6 

Rightly handling the word of truth

White claims that taking verses 44 and 45 out of order in John 6 is inconsistent: "He (Flowers) begins at verse 45, assigns it a meaning, and then reads it back into the text, skipping over everything that comes previously". 

Korytko: "Verse 45 is the support for the previous statement.. this phrase is almost parallel to the previous one, they're supposed to interpret each other. Reading backwards is fine here because they are mutually interpreting each other.7  

White makes a similar argument regarding comparisons between John 6:44 and John 12:32.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44).

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. (John 12:32).

White's hermeneutic of John is based on a rigid chronological verse-by-verse interpretation of the book in its historical context. While linear methodologies are useful in interpreting other passages of scripture, John has profound layers of meaning that simply do not lend themselves to this strategy. So when White claims that it is inconsistent to "jump six chapters into the future to a completely different context" from Jesus' Jewish audience in chapter 6 to all (Jews and  Greeks) in chapter 12, he ignores the circular nature of John's narrative and he misses the forest for the trees. (2 Timothy 2:15). Korytko: "In John, he is teaching a theology from the time of the present.. it is interacting with some of the things that Jesus said and also John's own spin on things."  (48:00 mark).

White's comparison with John 6:39-40 does not prove irresistible grace (TULIP) and is equally problematic regarding volition: And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father's will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”   

        

The main focus for Calvinists is the verb "draw" (helkó) = I drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe.8 Clearly, no one can be saved unless the Father draws them, but as we have seen from the Old Testament background, White's view that believers are compelled to respond to God's drawing is to make the false assumption that helkó invariably means to irresistibly drag. White's removal of the necessity for a response eliminates free will and human cooperation. The other passage where helkó is used in a moral sense is in John 12:32, where all people are the object of the sentence. Since universalism is not an option, the context of helkó determines its meaning. 

 

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (elkusō) all people to myself. (John 6:44).

Cambridge Bible: "There are two Greek words for ‘draw’ in the N.T., one of which necessarily implies violence, the other does not: it is the latter that is used here and in John 6:44; the former (suró) is used Acts 14:19; Acts 17:6. Man’s will is free; he can refuse to be drawn: and there is no violence; the attraction is moral. We see from John 6:44 that before the ‘lifting up’ it is the Father who draws men to the Son."9  

Ellicott: "The word 'draw' need not perplex us; and all the theories opposed to the width of divine love and influence, and to the freedom of human will and action, which have been built upon it, are at once seen to be without support, when we remember that the only other passage in the New Testament where it occurs in a moral sense is in the declaration: 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me'" (John 12:32).10 

“That this ‘drawing’ is not irresistible grace, is confessed even by Augustine himself, the great upholder of the doctrines of grace. ‘If a man is drawn, says an objector, he comes against his will. (We answer) if he comes unwillingly, he does not believe: if he does not believe, he does not come. For we do not run to Christ on our feet, but by faith; not with the movement of the body, but with the free will of the heart…Think not that thou are drawn against thy will; the mind can be drawn by love.’” (Alford)

f. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me: Those who have a revelation from God the Father will come to His Son and Perfect Representative. f. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me: Those who have a revelation from God the Father will come to His Son and Perfect Representative. To hear and learn from the Son is to hear and learn from the Father.   

Expositors Greek Testament: "But whether it is also true that everyone whom God teaches comes is not here stated; the καὶ μαθὼν introduces a doubtful element. [Wetstein quotes from Polybius διαφέρει τὸ μαθεῖν τοῦ μόνον ἀκοῦσαι.]"11 

Both Flowers and White agreed that drawing is the teaching, or as White put it, "communicating facts and data". Flowers added, "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation". I would not isolate teaching as the single element required for salvation. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.. (Ephesians 2:8).

Matthew Poole: "..unless it be illuminated and drawn by the Spirit of God. No soul is able of itself to discern spiritual things.."12   

One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. (Acts 16:14). 

I am not implying that Lydia was compelled to respond, as Calvinists assert, but without the Lord's direct intervention in opening Lydia's heart, she would not have been converted. 

The evidence summarized    

The circular style of the gospel John does not necessitate a rigid verse by verse interpretation: James White says We Can't Read Backwards (youtube.com)

Several New Testament passages talk about everyone responding to the gospel. 

The Greek grammar is not relevant to the debate: James White uses Greek (youtube.com)

helkó (draw) is not compulsive.

hearing and learning are not passive verbs in this context. James White Thinks Hearing and Learning are Passive (youtube.com)

John 6:44-45 does not demonstrate volition. 

1. Unconditional election - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

2. WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: THE COMPROMISE OF LEIGHTON FLOWERS! SOTERIOLOGY 101 (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)
3. Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 54:13 – Bible Commentary (biblia.work)
4. John 6 Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament (biblehub.com)
5. Matthew 11:15 Commentaries: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear. (biblehub.com)
6. Strong's Greek: 191. ἀκούω (akouó) -- to hear, listen (biblehub.com)
7. Ex-Calvinist Bible Scholar Reviews James White Vs. Leighton Flowers Debate: John 6:44 (youtube.com)
8. Strong's Greek: 1670. ἑλκύω (helkó) -- to drag (biblehub.com)
9. John 12 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (biblehub.com)
10. John 6:44 Commentaries: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (biblehub.com)
11. John 6:45 Commentaries: "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. (biblehub.com)
12. Jeremiah 31:3 Commentaries: The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness. (biblehub.com)

Further Links

Why I Think Calvinism Is Unbiblical (youtube.com)

A Scholar Corrects James White on John 6 (youtube.com)

I Misunderstood James White (youtube.com)

Joel Korytko, PhD - Northwest Institute for Ministry Education ResearchNorthwest Institute for Ministry Education Research (nimer.ca)  

SAM STORMS + MICHAEL BROWN: WORTHLESS SHEPHERDS

Roundtable: Brown & Storms vs. Peters & Osman (youtube.com)

According to Sam Storms, a false teacher must deny some foundational truth. He went on to mention some "secondary issues" that he does not identify as false teaching i.e. "differences in eschatology, the mode of baptism, or the role of women in ministry". Storms parameters for false teachers are so broad that he does not identify Benny Hinn as a false teacher despite irrefutable evidence of Hinn's false prophesies, manipulative tactics, prosperity teaching etc. Storms claimed that he has never heard Hinn deny a foundational truth, and on that basis he accepts him as a believer "as far as I can tell". Justin Peters interjected with Hinn's heretical teaching on the nine-member godhead. Despite this Storms was still reluctant to call Hinn out as a false teacher. (22:23 mark) 

Storm's definition of a false teacher is scripturally inaccurate and shortsighted. If it were a black and white issue we would easily identify false teachers and we would not need discernment. (1 Corinthians 12:10). The challenging nature of discernment is to recognize that "lesser errors" bleed into the very gospel itself, and primary doctrines are indirectly attacked and diminished by so-called "secondary issues". (1 Corinthians 5:6). All false teaching is damaging and has repercussions on the gospel itself. For instance, irresistible grace (TULIP)) has massive implications for soteriology; the doctrine of baptismal regeneration misrepresents salvation; false eschatology such as dominionism and pretribulationism will have catastrophic consequences for those who have been mistaught. Eschatological error is likely to lead to catastrophic loss of confidence in Jesus Christ when severe persecution arises at the end of the age. (Matthew 24:10,21). Jesus' command to pay careful attention counters the sloppy attitude of many charismatics to the word of God. (Mark 4:24; Acts 17:11; Proverbs 19:27).

Storms noted that there are only eleven instances of the term "false prophet" in the New Testament and in each instance, the term always applies to non-believers. He neglected to mention that other terms and warnings also identify false teachers. For instance wolves, Acts 20:29; deceivers 2 John 1:7; evildoers and impostors 2 Timothy 3:13 etc. Storms objection that we have no business calling out false teachers to any significant degree because "we do not know their heart" is sentimental nonsense! The scriptures warn that there will be many false teachers/prophets at the end of the age and we are negligent if we do not take this warning seriously. (Matthew 24:5-11; Acts 20:29). The basis on which we are instructed to judge false teachers is to identify their fruit i.e. teaching and lifestyle. (1 Timothy 4:16). Since the scriptures condemn false teachers, we cannot doubt that they are on a calamitous course unless they repent. (2 Peter 2:17). The ultimate fate of false teachers is a matter for the Lord who knows the heart. (Acts 15:8). While we do not want to pick up on every little detail, we are required to be zealous regarding doctrine in order to keep the church pure and to purge evil from amongst ourselves. (1 Corinthians 5:13 cf. Deuteronomy 17:17). The lackadaisical attitude of many charismatics as evidenced by Storms, Brown and other leaders is responsible for the degenerate state of many congregations within that movement.  

The tragic irony is that when Storms had finished rebuking those of us who practice discernment, he went on to give a glowing report of Mike Bickle! (54:00 mark)

Justin Peters: "I believe that Mike Bickle has lied about a number of things, in fact, not the least of which he claims to have been to heaven at least twice. I don't believe that. I don't believe he has been to heaven." 

Storm's: You might not believe it, but how do you know he is lying?  I believe he has..  Everything you have said about Benny Hinn without knowing the man personally, Mike Bickle is probably my best friend in this world. I was in a small group with him and his wife for seven years, on his staff as his Senior Associate, on his staff at IHOP for an additional four years, eleven years. I know this man to the depth of his soul. I can't think of a more biblically orthodox, humble, Christ-exalting individual who lives an incredibly simple lifestyle.. If I hear people say that Mike Bickle is a false teacher it angers me.. because I know the individual. We are not talking about just watching ministry, I know the man personally and he is not NAR as has been claimed by so many..  the stories have been empirically verified.. Bob Jones had a remarkable gift.."

The false assumption that you have to know someone personally in order to critique their teaching is patently false. Clearly, it failed in this instance! Bickle's dubious association and experiences with false prophet Bob Jones has been widely exposed elsewhere. It is impossible to know what these two shady individuals cooked up between themselves, and in light of recent events, we should not believe any detail of Bickle's "prophetic" history. A group of former IHOPKC leaders known as "the Advocate Group" claim that Mike Bickle has been engaged in predatory sexual behavior and pathological misconduct spanning five decades.1 The Bickle debacle leaves Storms credibility and spiritual discernment in tatters!

As graphically demonstrated by Storms, we cannot base our approval for teachers on friendship, personal liking, or any other criteria; our approval must always be based on fruit. If Brown and Storms don't have the time or the inclination to research people like Sid Roth, Mike Bickle, Benny Hinn, Todd White etc. then they are negligent and have no business in the ministry. The mandate for shepherds is to guard the flock, not to support an old boy network! Such appalling negligence is an insult to the Lord and breaks the first commandment. (Mark 12:30 cf. Deuteronomy 6:5). 

 .

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28). 

NAR Charismatics have not only brought the gospel into disrepute, in many cases they have caused untold damage and ruin to the body of Christ. (2 Peter 2:2). Michael Brown's affinity for Sid Roth is based on the false foundation of personal friendship of almost forty years. Brown absolutely views Sid Roth as a brother and he pleads ignorance regarding his ungodly antics. He claims that he doesn't know because he has only seen "snippets" of Roth's programs. (1:47 mark) Apparently Brown is too busy providing fresh victims for the wolves "Jewish evangelism" that he doesn't have time to test the spirits and guard the flock! (1 John 4:1; Matthew 28:19). As a leader and teacher it is Brown's responsibility to be fully conversant with the antics of the ministries and teachers he defends. God will hold leaders like Brown and Storms accountable for the flock! (Ezekiel 34:4-10).

On the basis of Titus 10:1-14  Brown and Storms are disqualified as leaders: 

    

He must hold firmly to the faithful word as it was taught, so that he can encourage others by sound teaching and refute those who contradict it. For many are rebellious and full of empty talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced.. Therefore rebuke them sternly, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of men who have rejected the truth. (Titus 10:9).

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. (John 10:11-13).

Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!” (Zechariah 11:17; cf Jeremiah 23:1). 

Pulpit Commentary: "Verse 17. - Woe to the idol shepherd! rather, woe to the worthless shepherd! literally, shepherd of vanity, or nothingness, as Job 13:4, "physicians of no value." The LXX., recognizing that no special shepherd is signified, renders, Ω οἱ ποιμαίνοντες τὰ μάταια, "Alas for those who tend vanities!" St. Jerome, expounding the verse of antichrist, "O pastor, et idolum!" That leaveth the flock. Thus Christ speaks of the hireling (John 10:12). The sword shall be upon his arm, etc. The punishment denounced is in accordance with the neglect of the shepherd's duties. The sword represents the instrument of punishment, whatever it he; the right eye, the severity of the retribution (1 Samuel 11:2). The arm that ought to have defended the flock shall be withered up as by catalepsy; the eye that should have watched for their safety shall be blinded. This is the judgment on the foolish shepherd."2

NAR charismatics and other false teachers should continue to be challenged and their deceptions exposed as commanded in the scriptures. (Ephesians 5:11). Reformed cessationists are not in the clear by any means. Calvinism has massive implications for soteriology and spiritual gifts. Peters and Osman's approval of Martin Luther is very telling and reveals that they are equally remiss. I have addressed the subject of Martin Luther's despicable behaviour and writings in a separate post: WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING: FALSE PROPHETS AND BIBLE TEACHERS IN THE LAST DAYS: CHRIS ROSEBROUGH: THE SINS OF MARTIN LUTHER DOWNPLAYED (bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com)

1. I sadly admit I sinned’: IHOPKC founder repents, but denies ‘intense sexual activities’ (yahoo.com)
2. Zechariah 11:17 Commentaries: "Woe to the worthless shepherd Who leaves the flock! A sword will be on his arm And on his right eye! His arm will be totally withered And his right eye will be blind." (biblehub.com)

JUSTIN PETERS: SEXUAL SIN IS NEVER FULLY BLOTTED OUT - REALLY?

Justin Peters - Dangerous Doctrines: Session 3 (youtube.com)

Justin Peters: "My bible says that sexual sin leaves a wound and the reproach will never be fully blotted out. My bible says that sexual sin is sin that is committed inside the body, not outside the body. There is something especially pernicious and especially injurious about sexual sin that is not true of other sin.. Just because we have been forgiven judicially, does not automatically remove the ugly consequences of that sin, and there is something unique about sexual sin that leaves a wound, it leaves a scar because it is sin that is committed inside the body, not outside the body. The Bible does not 'whisper' about sexual sin.."  (51:00 mark) 

The passage Justin Peters refers to is 1 Corinthians 6 below:

"All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-20). But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 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. (1 Corinthians 6:12-21).

Although I agree with much of what Justin Peters says in this video, and I certainly have nothing but contempt for JD Greear and Ed Litton, it would be tragic if those who have been cleansed from their sin by the blood of Jesus were to believe that their previous sexual sin was not fully blotted out! Where does it say this in the Bible? Justin Peters' sweeping statement applies to a great many believers and it would be tragic if any believer, let alone a great number of believers, were to swallow the lie that their sexual sin was not fully blotted out. Paul referred to himself as "the worst of sinners" ~ he was a murderer and all his sins were blotted out. (1 Timothy 1:16). Ironically Justin Peters' opinion runs counterproductive to his aim of exposing false teachers. His false supposition has the potential to ruin the peace of many believers and is injurious to the very gospel itself! (Proverbs 30:6). Isn't this precisely how false doctrine gains a foothold? 

The Bible teaches that when someone repents of their sin and believes the gospel, ALL their sins are blotted out, including sexual sin. Sexual sin does differ from other sins in that it occurs inside the body. However, it is critical to note that Jesus has blotted out ALL our sins completely.

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.. (Acts 3:19 cf. Isaiah 43:25,44:22; Psalm 51:1,9).

..how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:14).

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 (every) sin.   

Barnes: "The general meaning is plain, that in regard to any and every sin of which we may be conscious, there is efficacy in that blood to remove it, and to make us wholly pure. There is no stain made by sin so deep that the blood of Christ cannot take it entirely away from the soul."

Clarke: "The blood of Jesus Christ — The meritorious efficacy of his passion and death has purged our consciences from dead works, and cleanseth us, καθαριζειημας, continues to cleanse us, i.e., to keep clean what it has made clean, (for it requires the same merit and energy to preserve holiness in the soul of man, as to produce it,) or, as several MSS. and some versions read, καθαριει and καθαρισει, will cleanse; speaking of those who are already justified, and are expecting full redemption in his blood.
And being cleansed from all sin is what every believer should look for, what he has a right to expect, and what he must have in this life, in order to be prepared to meet his God. Christ is not a partial Saviour, he saves to the uttermost, and he cleanses from ALL sin." 

Woods: "Moreover, it cleanses from sin, not merely solely the conscience, but sin (amartias), all sin, whether of thought, word, or deed, rash sins, sins of ignorance, of malice, of omission or commission, sins of the flesh, sins of the disposition, sins of pleasure or of pain, sins of every type and kind committed at any time or place."  1 

1. 1 John 1:7 - Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary - StudyLight.org

KEITH FOSKEY ~THE IRREVERENT "KING OF THE AMILLENNIALSTS"

Keith Foskey is the "pastor" of Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville Florida, and is the host of Conversations with a Calvinist. I wonder how any serious bible believer can accept an obese "pastor" who glorifies himself as the "King of Amillennialists", wears a crown, turns our precious faith into a circus, and teaches faulty doctrines. (2 Peter 1:1). Foskey's lack of humility and trivialization of the scriptures is just as scandalous as any NAR false teacher. By biblical standards, Foskey does not meet the criteria of a true pastor. (Titus 1:7-16; James 5:5; Proverbs 23:2; Ezekiel 16:49).  

At a charity event for Set Free ministry in Jacksonville On November 4th, Foskey was introduced as "The Right Reverend and High Holiness". 1 Is it legitimate to reduce the ministry of those called to serve God as elders and pastors to irreverent babble and comedy?  (2 Timothy 2:16). We do not find the apostles joking about their calling in this way! Foskey justifies his ungodly behaviour by quoting Proverbs 15:13 ~ A merry (שָׂמֵחַ) heart maketh a cheerful countenance (KJV). The adjective שָׂמֵחַ (sameach) does not refer to cheap jokes, it indicates glad joyful merry.. 2 

John Gill: "A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance,.... Or, a "joyful heart" (c); that is joyful in the God of its salvation; that rejoices in Christ Jesus; is filled with joy and peace through believing in him, in his person, blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; that has a comfortable view of his justification by his righteousness, of peace and pardon by his blood, of the atonement of his sins by his sacrifice; to whom he has said, "be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee", Matthew 9:2; who has peace in him, though tribulation in the world: as such a man's heart must be made glad, this will make his countenance cheerful, or cause him to lift up his head with joy; as it is in natural things, so it is in spiritual ones;" 3  

Those who go along with Foskey in this foolishness, including Spencer Smith, should repent and have nothing to do with his unseemly behaviour and false doctrines. 4 

Foskey delights in issuing "kingly" decrees:

"..pre-millennialists and dispensational pre-millennialists must choose a representative to joust on the bow of Ken Ham's Ark every seven years between now and the time that Jesus returns." 5 

Amillennialism is the incorrect view that the “thousand years” of Christ’s reign in Revelation 20:1-6 should be interpreted symbolically rather than as a literal period of one thousand years. Amillennialists allegorize and reinterpret the book of Revelation and various Old Testament passages that describe the millennium as a physical kingdom. The doctrine of premillennialism was the consensus of the majority of the early Church Fathers ~  although it is important to note that the early Fathers were not pretribulational. Amillennialism was originally introduced in the fourth century by Augustine of Hippo and Origen.

In Foskey's own words: "We do not believe that the millennium is a literal thousand-year period, but what that thousand years represents is the time between Christ's first coming and His second coming or his final coming, and we call that the inter-advent period the period between his two advents he came once and he will come again and the time between his first and second coming is known as the millennial age that's where we are.." 6 

Foskey: "How can we conclude that Satan is bound right now?"

..how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? (Matthew 12:29). Jesus' parabolic question is probably based on Isaiah 49:24-25. The scriptures indicate that at the beginning of the millennium, "the strong man" i.e. Satan, is bound for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:1-2). The amillennial view that Satan was bound at the cross is neither practical or realistic for a number of reasons outlined below. 

Various deficiencies in the Amillennial view 7 

Revelation 19 and 20 are sequential events stemming from the return of Christ in chapter 19. Amillennialists limit their eisegesis to an isolated view of Revelation 20. 

The reign of Christ with His saints is contingent upon a literal resurrection of the dead, not as amillennialists assert, from an unregenerate life of sin to the point of conversion or regeneration.  (Revelation 20:4-5).

In Revelation 20:3 Satan is bound in order to to prevent him from deceiving the nations. 

In Revelation 12:9 Satan is described as the deceiver of the whole world.

In Revelation 12:12-13 the dragon (Satan) is thrown down to the earth. 

In Revelation 20:1-2 Satan is banished from the earth and is thrown into the Abyss. This event coincides with the beginning of the future millennial reign of Christ. Satan cannot be confined to the earth and imprisoned in the Abyss simultaneously. 

Satan is active and powerful in the present evil age. (Galatians 1:4 1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Peter 5:18 etc.) 

During the millennial age described in Revelation 20, there is a total cessation of Satan's activity until he is released from the Abyss after the thousand years are complete. (Revelation 20:7).

Following the thousand years, Satan is cast into the lake of fire following his final attempt to wage war on the saints. (Revelation 20:7-10). 

A period of one thousand years separates the fate of the beast and the false prophet and Satan who is thrown into the lake of fire a little over a thousand years later. 

To assert that the thousand years began at the crucifixion (or as some would argue on the conversion of individual believers) leaves us questioning the reason why the beast and the false prophet are thrown alive into the lake of fire prior to the thousand-year period. (Revelation 19:20). 

Amillennialists argue that the premillennial position regarding the present freedom of Satan contradicts the effects of the crucifixion. However, by their own warped reasoning, their admission that Satan must be released for a brief period of time at the end of the millennium also contradicts the effects of the crucifixion. (Revelation 20:3). 

Biblically, Satan has already been defeated. However, his sentence becomes effectual when his authority as the god of this age is terminated by his imprisonment in the Abyss, and then finally a thousand years or so later when he is thrown into the lake of fire. (2 Corinthians 4:4). 

We cannot possibly be living in the millennial period where Satan cannot deceive the nations any longer. (Revelation 20:3). Jesus Christ strikes the nations precisely because they have been deceived into attempting to wage war against Jesus Christ at Armageddon. (Revelation 19:19-20). 

The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. (Revelation 20:5,12).  Amillennialists deny that the first resurrection is a literal resurrection.  

Revelation Commentary: "The premillennialists would argue that 'the rest of the dead' refers to unbelievers. The saints of the ages who died before the sixth seal are resurrected between seals six and seven and those beheaded after the Rapture are resurrected near/on the beginning of the 1000-year period. The general resurrection of the wicked occurs at the end of the 1000-year kingdom. The amillennialists must argue that 'the rest of the dead' refers to the wicked and perhaps some righteous. However, this causes a major problem. If 'come to life' is spiritual in Revelation 20:4, then it must be spiritual in Revelation 20:5. Problem: how do the wicked come to life in a spiritual sense? If 'come to life' is spiritual in Revelation 20:4, how can the same verb refer to physical life in Revelation 20:5 without any textual clues to help the reader understand this change? Such 'doings' are unnatural to the text!" 8 

Henry Alford: "..I cannot consent to distort words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any considerations of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the millennium may bring with it. Those who lived next to the Apostles, and the whole Church for 300 years, understood them in the plain literal sense: and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who are among the first in reverence of antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of consensus which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκροὶ ἔζησαν only at the end of a specified period after that first, if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to any thing. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough to maintain: but if the second is literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive Church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope). Blessed (see ch. Revelation 14:13 , Rev 19:9 ) and holy is he that hath part in (ref., the expression is peculiar to St. John) the first resurrection: over such persons the second death (see reff.: and bear in mind what is said of our Lord Himself, Rom 6:9 ) hath not power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they [ shall ] reign with Him (Christ) a (or, the ) thousand years." 9

 

George Eldon Ladd:  "The first anti-millenarians disparaged the natural interpretation of Revelation 20, not for exegetical reasons, because they thought the book did not teach a millennium, but because they did not like millennial doctrine." 10 

The souls of those who had been beheaded and came to life refers without doubt to their physical resurrection. (see below).

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven with the key to the Abyss, holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he threw him into the Abyss, shut it, and sealed it over him, so that he could not deceive the nations until the thousand years were complete. After that, he must be released for a brief period of time. Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life (ἔζησαν) and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:1-6).

Alan Kurschner has shared an excellent post on this subject on his website: Send This Article To Your Amillennial and Postmillennial Friends | ESCHATOS MINISTRIES (alankurschner.com)

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.(Revelation 22:18-19 cf. Deuteronomy 4:2,12:32; Proverbs 30:6).

1. (121) Comedy is Therapy (Keith Foskey's Standup Routine) - YouTube
2. Strong's Hebrew: 8056. שָׂמֵ֫חַ (sameach) -- glad, joyful, merry (biblehub.com)
3. Proverbs 15:13 Commentaries: A joyful heart makes a cheerful face, But when the heart is sad, the spirit is broken. (biblehub.com)
4. (121) Keith Got a Rapture Debate Challenge from Spencer Smith! - YouTube
5. (118) BREAKING! Doug Wilson challenged to a debate by Keith Foskey, King of the Amillennialists! - YouTube
6. (124) Optimistic Amillenialism - YouTube
7. (124) Ten reasons why Amillennialism is wrong! - YouTube
8. Revelation Commentary : Chapter Twenty
9. Revelation 20 - Alford's Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

10. Ladd, Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, p149

ROB ZINS' CALVINIST TAKE ON 2 PETER 3:9: "GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH".

(145) "God Is Not Willing That Any Should Perish," Who Is God Talking About In 2 Peter 3:9? All Or Some? - YouTube

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,* not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:8-10).

* some manuscripts = on your account.

Rob Zins: "Does God arrive at knowledge? - or to explain the question, - Does God know all  things that come to pass as a result of His willing them to be so, or must He wait for events to happen so that He can look ahead and gain knowledge of events?"  

According to Zins, a consistent theme of Pelagian, Arminian-Evangelical and Roman Catholic theology is the idea that God looks down the tunnel of time to find out, or arrive at, knowledge. In other words, simply stated, "God is unaware until He takes a look". Zins is describing "open theism", a false doctrine that is supported by a relatively small number of Christians. 

Zins seems to assume that all non-Calvinist Christians are "Evangelical-Arminians" - this is a false assumption. Furthermore, he has misrepresented the views of Arminians and Roman Catholics, and in doing so he has compromised his entire argument. There are differing views within the Arminian camp, but generally speaking, Arminians argue for the traditional view that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and complete, and that the future is certain and is not contingent on human action. 

Nathan Justice: "Arminianism argues for the traditional understanding of divine foreknowledge, which says that God has 'complete and infallible knowledge of the future.'1 This definition of divine foreknowledge is also called 'simple foreknowledge', because Molinists accept God’s complete and infallible knowledge of the future while also affirming God’s middle knowledge. In defending simple foreknowledge, Arminians represent the most common view of divine foreknowledge throughout church history as well as the most common interpretation of the biblical data. In distinction from Calvinism, which holds that God foreknows because He foreordains, Arminius argued that God foreknows future things through the infinity of his essence, and through the pre-eminent perfection of his understanding and prescience, not as he willed or decreed that they should necessarily be done, though he would not foreknow them except as they were future, and they would not be future unless God had decreed either to perform or to permit them." {1}

I am certainly not an apologist for Roman Catholicism, but as far as I can ascertain, the RCC promotes God's infallible foreknowledge and has no idea of God "arriving at knowledge". {2}

Rob Zins: "It is our contention that God knows all things because He wills all things. God does not arrive at knowledge and He leaves nothing to chance."

The struggle to reconcile God's omniscience and human free will is extremely challenging. The scriptures are clear that God is omniscient i.e. He is all-knowing and He knows exactly what will happen. (Isaiah 14:24, 46:10; Psalm 33:11). In other words, God has complete and ultimate knowledge of every decision made by human beings past, present, and future, otherwise, how can we explain bible prophecy? Any philosophical attempt to explain God's omniscience is feeble and inevitably falls short. If the Apostle Paul was among us, I think he would tell us not to lean on our own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5). In one particular sense Zins is correct in that God does not arrive at knowledge and that He knows all things. However, the thorny question remains: What part does human free will play in salvation? Zins' statement"regeneration precedes salvation" is extremely problematic since a number of scriptures suggest that faith precedes salvation. (e.g. John 1:12, 3:15-16; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 21,11:18,16:31; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 1:21).

It is impossible to deny the fact that God has created people with the capacity to choose from Eden, and yet there are those who persist in denying human free will. (Genesis 3:3). The appeal in the scriptures over and over again is for all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30; Isaiah 45:22). The futile pursuit of attempting to reconcile God's sovereignty and human autonomy inevitably culminates in the formulation of distorted and divisive false doctrines. (1 Corinthians 1:19; Proverbs 3:5; 1 Timothy 6:20). Perhaps some should learn a lesson from Job! (Job 15:8). Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34 cf. Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 13:12).

Zins gives the so-called "Arminian-Evangelical", or what he also refers to as the "inconsistent Evangelical Arminian" interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-10. The Lord is not slow of the promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Zins: "Not willing (βουλόμενος) is God's eternal will or desire, and the any is everyone in the world, past present and future. It is all without exception, and the word here come into repentance (χωρῆσαι μετάνοιαν) is salvation."  Zins doesn't accept the "Arminian Evangelical" interpretation of this passage, because, according to him "..they don't take into account the plural 'you'."  Zins makes the assumption that the phrase "toward you" in verse 9, applies to believers "beloved" (αγαπητοι) in verse 8. Does "toward you" apply to the beloved, or does Peter change focus and apply it to a wider audience, i.e. everyone in the world which is also plural? 

The other reason Zins doesn't like the "Arminian Evangelical" interpretation: "If Peter wanted us to believe that any, meaning each and every person in the whole wide world to come to repentance, which is salvation, he would have written something like: 'The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, but is longsuffering toward the world, or towards the cosmos, not willing for anyone to perish but for all to come into repentance.'" With words like any and all, non-Calvinist scholars have concluded that Peter does in fact mean every person in the world. Calvinists still do not accept that all humanity is referred to, even when the scriptures specifically identify the world/cosmos as in John 3:16. 

Zins continues to describe what he considers to be a flawed Calvinist response to the "Arminian Evangelical" view: "The Lord is not slow of the promise as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward you (beloved), not willing (βουλόμενος) for any (of you) to perish, but for all (of you) to come, or to enter into repentance (salvation). Zins doesn't like this interpretation because of the idea that the word βούλομαι is not God's secret eternal will, but rather it is His will of desire (will of command) which can be broken. In other words, βούλομαι is just God's desire. Zins notes that even Calvin takes the view in his commentary that Peter does not refer to the eternal secret will of God, but rather he teaches that it is not God's desire for anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance (salvation). In other words, God's open command (His desire) is that everyone in the world will come to repentance.

Zins goes on to describe what he views as a more acceptable interpretation of this passage from various strong Reformed theologians including AW Pink. "He {Peter} is writing only to the elect because of the word 'beloved'.  'But let not this one thing be concealed from you (elect)..  He is long-suffering toward you (elect), not willing (the eternal will) for any (of the elect) to perish, but for all (of the elect) to come to repentance (salvation). The idea here is that the delay in Christ's return is so that all of the elect will come to salvation.."

Zins' own novel interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-10: "This is not a salvation passage at all.. it is an experience in salvation, in other words, it refers to diligence and perseverance. 'but let not this one thing be concealed from you beloved (elect), that one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years one day. The Lord is not slow of His promise (regarding His coming, that's the theme), as some count slowness, but is long-suffering (patient in enduring) toward you (referring to the beloved), not willing (either will of desire or eternal will) for any of you (beloved) to perish (ἀπόλλυμι), but for all of you (beloved - his elect) to enter into or come into (chōrēsai) repentance (metanoia). Repentance here is not salvation, it is repenting from being involved in the sins that were so troubling to the reading audience." Zins cites 2 Peter 3:15 as his proof text for this interpretation.

If this passage refers to an experience in salvation rather than an experience of salvation, the false Calvinist belief in once saved always saved (OSAS) is compromised by the word perish (ἀπόλλυμι). Zins fails in two respects; firstly, he misrepresents the "Arminian Evangelical" and RC position regarding God's foreknowledge; and secondly, he suggests that the passage does not refer to salvation, which is completely at odds with the context and the word perish (ἀπόλλυμι).  

Bible Hub: "perish - ἀπόλλυμι = 622 /apóllymi ("violently/completely perish") implies permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); 'to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction' (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end." {3}

Paul is addressing the "beloved" i.e. believers. When Paul says that God is "patient with you", he is referring to the apparent delay in Jesus' coming. He explains the reason for this in the next clause: not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance ~ The gospel invitation is inclusive and is extended to all people in the world/cosmos. (John 3:16). Jesus' apparent delay in coming is contingent upon the salvation of those who will respond to the gospel and put their faith in Him in the future. This is pertinent to "the beloved" of whom they will eventually become a part. The salvation of these future people will make the number of believers (the bride of Christ) complete in Him. (Matthew 22:9; Luke 21:24; Revelation 19:7). 

After watching Larry Wessels' video on CAnswersTV: (151) Unpopular Bible Doctrines #1: The Biblical God No One Wants To Know - YouTube  I was absolutely horrified. What kind of "God" do Calvinists believe in? Those who teach Calvinism malign Christ's teaching by denying the fullness of the gospel and limiting its application. In doing so they malign the very character of God Himself by denying His goodness and love toward all people. (John 3:16 ). These teachers grieve the Holy Spirit and inevitably cause pain and confusion to the body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:30; Proverbs 30:6). This teaching devastates churches and is very discouraging to unbelievers. How will these men be able to give an account to God for spreading this wicked doctrine? (Hebrews 4:13; James 3:1). 

I have included a link to Mike Winger's video on this subject below because he makes some useful points. Where I disagree with Winger is that he claims that this is not a "gospel issue". Zins himself says that Arminianism is a different gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:4). I agree with Zins that traditional Christianity and Calvinism are different gospels, but of the two teachings, it is my view that Calvinism is the "different gospel".  

1. viewcontent.cgi (liberty.edu)
2. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Predestination (newadvent.org)
3. Strong's Greek: 622. ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) -- to destroy, destroy utterly (biblehub.com)

Further Links

(153) What does God know? Open Theism, Calvinism and Arminian views analyzed with scripture surveyed - YouTube
(156) Why Regeneration Cannot Precede Faith (Part 1) - YouTube

JOEL WEBBON (RIGHT RESPONSE MINISTRIES) CONTROL FREAK AND MYSOGYNIST

Five-point Calvinist Joel Webbon of Right Response Ministries is running an abusive regime in his own home! His wife's reading material is micro-managed and she is not allowed to go to women's bible studies. This "pastor" clearly has some major issues! Even his children are regulated as to when they can use the bathroom! The misogynistic behaviour of Calvinists is an absolute scandal. Webbon has taken down this video.

Webbon believes that women should not have the right to vote! "Following new data comparing voter registration and turnout rates between women and men, a group of male leaders associated with Doug Wilson believes the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave American women the right to vote, was a mistake.. Webbon noted that the 19th Amendment was a bad idea” because women are 'easily deceived' and are attending 'institutions for deception.'" {1}

1. Why these Christian men believe women shouldn’t have the right to vote – Baptist News Global

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