By the way, Spurgeon finally gave up his cigar [didn't he also smoke a pipe? ] to avoid offending his congregation. Or was that his critics?

Actually, it was due to a cigar company using his name in their advertising .

And I agree with Spurgeon that a cigar is a good thing, used in moderation .

I disagree. Spiritual discernment is apostolic "special revelation"? When tongues and prophecy aren't? And I didn't even give any OT examples! The Holy Spirit gives us discernment...

He gives us discernment in varying degrees and for various purposes. And, as a semi-strict cessationist (confessional, remember?), I would also point out that tongues and prophecy are largely restricted to the apostolic age. The fact of the matter is, you can't often tell the wheat from the chaff just by talking to them.

You know what verse came to my mind when I first read this? Titus 1 "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled" [KJV]. So I think you made an excellent observation. But there's a limit, namely what's black and white. Some things are good for all and some are bad for all. Some things produce good fruit in no one.

Naturally: if you're violating one of the big ten in any way, shape, or form, then it's bad. However, I think this leaves a great deal of freedom: it's always shorter to list the things prohibited than the things allowed.

Cultural discernment, in the end, is simply the ability to separate the good from the bad in our engagement with the culture--but in order to be engaged, one must, naturally, be culturally engaged.

TBG

You know what verse came to my mind when I first read this? Titus 1 "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled" [KJV]. So I think you made an excellent observation. But there's a limit, namely what's black and white. Some things are good for all and some are bad for all. Some things produce good fruit in no one.

That's what I meant. I should have been clearer.

And I agree with Spurgeon that a cigar is a good thing, used in moderation.

Only if you want a 'moderate' life span.

Now, I'm going to take a dangerous step and introduce a new topic. I've been reading through Hebrews and ran across this passage this morning:

Heb 10:26-29
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Huh? I see heresies just waiting to happen. What is Paul really saying here?

My pastor grew up in the farms of Texas and he described this passage as 'waiting for the chickens to come home to roost'. Charles Stanley said in one of his sermons "We reap what we sow, more than we sow, and later than we sow". There is no sacrifice for intentionally willful sin. Are we forgiven as Christians? Yes. Should we brace ourselves for the consequences? We better. They might come right away; they might come several years down the road. Smoking too much doesn't have immediate consequences, but they show up several years down the road in your physical health.

Another way of looking at it is this: when we willfully sin after recieving the grace of God, it is as though we are nailing Jesus back up on the cross. That final ultimate sacrifice was finished. It is like thumbing our nose at God. But God is not mocked. When we sin willfully, we will reap the consequences. That's a promise not a threat. The consequences will go away when we learn our lesson, because extending a punishment beyond what is necessary is cruel and unloving.

This is one thing Christians really struggle with. They can sort of grasp the idea that God has already forgiven all of our sins, but we don't like the idea of being forgiven and still having to suffer the consequences. But if we willfully sin, we will deal with it. What's more is that when we sin willfully, we know it. We know it before we do it, we know it as we do it, and we know it after. And the only way to avoid the consequences of willful sin is simply to not willfully sin.

Good stuff, Fencer. And very brave of you to try another topic, Gladius! I had thought to introduce a new topic, too, sometime soon.

Based on reading simply the passage excerpt — without comparing it to the whole chapter and/or book, another translation, or other Scriptures — it doesn’t seem like “receiv[ing] the knowledge of the truth” refers to those who “receive” as in repent/believe and follow Christ, but simply those who hear the truth, and reject it.

The Hebrews author’s argument seems to be: if those who ignored Moses’ law were punished, the punishment will be far worse for those who ignore the ultimate sacrifice of the One Whom Hebrews says elsewhere is far greater than Moses.

Now for a comparison to the whole chapter, and a new translation. (I love the King James, but a newer translation, optimally based on literal translation, helps a lot). After spending 18 verses discussing how Christ’s sacrifice is the fulfillment of, and superior to, Old Testament sacrifices, the author goes on to say:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Hebrews 10: 19-31 (ESV)

Yes, wrong belief (though not necessarily salvation-compromising heresy) could be spun from these verses — either the idea that real Christians never sin, or that Christians are not eternally secure unless they hold onto their own salvation and try to stop sin. There are half-truths in each of these, and imbalanced ideas that can arise, and of course some Christians, reacting to those wrong beliefs, will as a result overcorrect into the lie that we need not worry about sin at all.

All this actually relates to the last discussion, I think, because although Christians can and do sin and remain saved, they must naturally want to turn from sin and better conform their minds and hearts to the nature of Christ — affecting lifestyle choices and discernment.

However, if a Christian messes up, that does not mean he suddenly becomes unChristian. Because of his new nature, true Christians will be drawn more to Christ. If you don’t have that draw — as is the case with many “carnal Christians” who haven’t even bothered to obey the Savior they claim to love — you may not have been saved in the first place.

1 John 1: 5-10 captures this paradox beautifully: that we must walk in the light, because God is light and cannot abide darkness, but at the same time, God’s people will sin sometimes, He will forgive His people of their sins. Notice the “we” the Apostle addresses — he is talking specifically to God’s people. And notice the “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” phrase is in the present tense.

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 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. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 1:5 - 2:6 (ESV)

Note the perfect balance: John does not say “no believer ever sins.” But he also does not say “don’t worry if you do sin.” Instead he says: you have an advocate, Jesus Christ. John also does not encourage apathy toward sin. Instead: walk in His light, the same way He walked; keep His commandments. It’s not works-righteousness at all. He simply says: act according to the way of the Savior you believe.

The same beautiful, Biblical balance occurs in John 3 (though is has so often been woefully misused and abused). Note the phrase “a practice of sinning” as opposed to mere sin. A “practice of sinning” seems the same as the book of Hebrews’ “sinning deliberately.” It’s a lifestyle of sin, not caring about the One we were saved to imitate. Again, Christians may sin — and will continue to struggle with it in this world — but it’s only if someone “makes a practice of sinning” or engages in “sinning deliberately,” i.e. a lifestyle of sin, that calls into question whether he or she was ever truly saved in the first place.

Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

1 John 3: 4-10 (ESV)

Again, this is why it’s so important to teach all of Scripture! If we only focused on the beat-sin-in-your-life passages, we could become despairing and perhaps legalistic. But if we only focused on the Christ-has-won-the-victory-already passages, we could become careless and indifferent to the dangers of sin, and the commands to love Christ by keeping His commandments. And unfortunately, I’ve seen many sets of Christians who overexposed on one or the other “side.” We need both.

Oh my... so much to answer. *girds her loins*

Thanks for weighing in on the female leadership issue, SL. I agree that in the secular sphere, there's no reason why a woman should not hold any position she is fitted for. But the Bible is too clear to be ignored about women exercising spiritual authority over men; we just can't get around it.

PP, again, I really appreciate your attitude

Before I comment, I just want to clarify that I would never consider myself a feminist.

I didn't get that impression from you at all! We can ask intelligent questions and discuss these issues without subscribing to feminist ideology.

I want to know how to tell the difference between the “ruling principle” and “prohibition.”

Don't we all? I wish there was a quick test to use to determine that for every passage of Scripture, but there isn't. It takes an investment of time. We have to learn what it meant to those to whom it was written and what aspects of their culture it addressed, and translate all that information to our present culture. It is definitely a process. I have grown better at it as I have matured in my walk with the Lord, but I have much more to learn.

I didn’t immediately jump [to the conclusion that "minister" and "deacon" mean "pastor"].

Ooh, sorry how I worded that! I wasn't assuming you had even gone to the conclusion; I was using the generic "you." It's less stiff than the formal "one," but unfortunately it can lead to misunderstandings like this.

Maybe my problem is I’m not married (mostly serious)… and am still a little too young (25) or maybe I’m behind … it wouldn’t be the first time … (mostly joking)

I may be only 26 but I've been married for over six years now. So I've got a bit of an unfair head start! And it's taken all six of those years for me to really make peace with the notion of submission to my husband, and God's design for male and female roles. And of course I don't have it down perfectly, trust me. God just chose that time of my life to really work through that stuff with me. And this is the time He is choosing to bring it to the forefront in your life. It doesn't make sense to compare ourselves to other believers about when God chooses to deal with us on certain issues. The Christian walk is on the same road for all of us, but He personalizes it

I’m probably being a bit like a devil’s advocate again, but if the men who are in charge of the leadership of the church decide to bestow some responsibility on a woman or women is that different?

The prohibition here is not that women should have no responsibility in a church. It's just that women should not be in official leadership positions in which they exercise spiritual authority over men. Women can lead other women (see Titus 2; in fact, my church's small groups are called "Titus 2 Groups" ). Women can (and should!) lead children, and fulfill a variety of essential functions within the church. But they are not to formally teach men.

So to answer your question above, I would say that if men designate a woman to teach them, they are all in violation of Scriptural tenets and she is usurping their role. The atmosphere of cooperation and acceptance of female teaching authority doesn't make it okay.

Does it change things if the female pastor is under the male pastor? We have one senior pastor (male who oversees the other two).

This is an area of some grayness, but I would ask what group the female pastor is overseeing. Does she exercise any spiritual authority over men? My parents' church has a female pastor who is the children's pastor. I can see how they would justify that... but I am still not entirely comfortable with the title "pastor" being given to a woman. I think it could so easily give the wrong impression of the church's stance on male/female roles.

Oh bother, I guess I’m reading things wrong again. I thought when it said in Ephesians 5:22-24 “Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.” It meant that wives had to bow her head and obey whatever their husbands said. That didn’t make sense to me because then a husband could demand that the wife do something against God’s Word.

Submission does not equal blind obedience. Look at the relationship between God and Christ. Christ always submitted Himself to the Father's will. But would you call it blind, unthinking obedience? No! It is beautiful. And it does not imply that Christ is inferior in any way to God. He chooses to submit Himself because that is His role. When you think about submission in human relationships, always start with the submission of Christ to the will of the Father, and proceed from there to filter it down. I think we often start at the bottom — with us and our immediate human relationships — and get boggled because we should be looking at Christ first.

Of course, we run into issues because humans are sinful and a husband's will is not perfect as God's is. God's law is always higher than human rules. So if my husband were to tell me to do something directly contrary to Scripture, I have to follow God's law first. The husband's authority in the marriage relationship never trumps the Lord's.

The same applies to children and parents (one thing to note here is that in Scripture, the word used for children to "obey" their parents is NEVER used for wives with their husbands. "Submit" is different). A parent's rules do not override God's.

I’m asking and studying and wrestling and if I ever figure out what God is saying I’ll accept it.

He will make it clear to you (He, and not me!). It may take awhile, even years. Keep at it — and don't worry if it takes a long time to percolate. I'm still working on the practical aspect of submission to authority, regardless of how well I understand it on a theoretical level And even on the theoretical level I manage to trip myself up frequently. It keeps me humble.

I didn’t mean our translations weren’t any good but some are better than others. Translation always involves some interpretation on the part of the translator and that allows for some human error. I think most translations are accurate in the main details but do have some inaccuracies in the smaller details.

I agree with this!

What is your (anyone who is reading this and choose to answer) interpretation of these verses and the note?

Interesting info on that passage. I think the "women being silent" bit was addressed to women who were disrupting the church meetings. Obviously it can't mean a total gag order on women once they step inside the church; that doesn't make sense and doesn't jibe with the other passages that mention women taking part in the church services. It's a case where our interpretation is wrong if we think it means women can't say a word in church in any context.

Notice this part: "For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate." The implication is that by their speaking, the women of Corinth were being insubordinate. It's not their speaking itself that was sinful, but their insubordination and refusal to submit to both God's and their pastor's/elders' authority. It's insubordinate speaking that Paul is addressing here. And I don't blame him for wording it very strongly; interfering with the corporate worship of a body of believers is a serious offense because you are robbing each person there of the edification that he/she should be receiving.

I think it's a bit iffy to start second-guessing whether or not this part was added as a margin note later (thereby freeing us from having to submit to it ). I think that God is powerful enough to preserve His Word as He intended it to be written. This is too big a point to be considered a small inaccuracy attributable to a translator's faulty interpretation.

And now to jump to another topic in the mix... 220, as I was reading your post, the part about your mom being able to read people's hearts disturbed my spirit. I have read your words and observed your actions on this forum, and therefore I know your heart, and the Spirit is telling me how wrong you are on this particular point because I have the gift of spiritual discernment and can "read" you.

See how subjective that is?

Let me try again. I'll quote you so I don't mess it up:

She can read people's hearts just by observing them and talking to them. How? "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" [Matthew 12].

I am really kind of surprised that you would read this verse and instantly think it means we humans have the ability to read people's hearts because of their words. The verse — which is actually Matthew 12:34, not 35 — says nothing of the kind, and you are guilty of forcing your own desired meaning upon it.

• First off, Matthew 12:34 says nothing about the person's hearers. But your interpretation is ALL about the hearer! (In this case, your mom.)
• Jesus is simply stating that our words flow from our hearts and give some indication as to the state of our hearts. Nowhere in this sentence does it even hint that certain believers are given special abilities to observe people and instantly perceive their full hearts. And yet that is the meaning you pull out of it.

I'm sorry to come down hard on you, but you are misusing Scripture to support your own belief. It simply does not hold up logically or hermeneutically.

But I believe that just like God can reveal to us the state of our own hearts through His Word, He can also reveal to us the state of others' hearts, through the Word. "Discerning of spirits" [1 Cor 12] is a gift we can pray for.

More misuse of Scripture. I Corinthians 12 is talking about discerning angelic and demonic spirits. It says absolutely nothing about "reading" other people's hearts as you describe.

And actually, 1 Corinthians 12:10 says nothing about "asking" for this particular gift. Rather, the beginning of the thought is in verse 7, where it says each gift is given for the common good. It doesn't say "ask for the gift of reading other people's hearts/discerning spirits!" as your comment appears to claim. It doesn't say we can or should pray to have this gift; it simply says the Spirit gives it.

And back to the women in church leadership issue:

Isn't this a direct contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

I've already addressed these two passages in my reply above to Pattertwigs Pal, but I just want to repeat something: the Word of God never contradicts itself. If there appears to be a contradiction, it is because we have interpreted something incorrectly. We are all guilty of incorrect interpretations at times . But our goal should be complete accuracy (and honesty!) about Scripture and what it says. It should be treated reverently, not feverishly quoted in pursuit of making a point in a debate. Quality of interpretation is more important than the quantity of verses in a post here. I would rather take the time to really study a single passage than rush around to many different ones without really honestly looking at what each passage means.

*is interested to hear what others will say about Hebrews 6*

Dr. Ransom: I'm curious to know what you think is proscriptive in the Bible and what's descriptive.

What I am not saying: I oppose the idea of spiritual discernment. What I am saying: I oppose, and Scripture does not prove, that any Christian can have a special "gift" to read someone's heart or motivations. I have seen this wrongfully done too many times and based in little but someone's emotional opinion. Without basis in Scripture, and Scripture alone, this will be a disaster in too many cases (though not necessarily in yours).

220, as I was reading your post, the part about your mom being able to read people's hearts disturbed my spirit. I have read your words and observed your actions on this forum, and therefore I know your heart, and the Spirit is telling me how wrong you are on this particular point because I have the gift of spiritual discernment and can "read" you.

See how subjective that is?

Let me try again. I'll quote you so I don't mess it up:

She can read people's hearts just by observing them and talking to them. How? "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" [Matthew 12].

I am really kind of surprised that you would read this verse and instantly think it means we humans have the ability to read people's hearts because of their words. The verse — which is actually Matthew 12:34, not 35 — says nothing of the kind, and you are guilty of forcing your own desired meaning upon it.

• First off, Matthew 12:34 says nothing about the person's hearers. But your interpretation is ALL about the hearer! (In this case, your mom.)
• Jesus is simply stating that our words flow from our hearts and give some indication as to the state of our hearts. Nowhere in this sentence does it even hint that certain believers are given special abilities to observe people and instantly perceive their full hearts. And yet that is the meaning you pull out of it.

Spiritual discernment in OT
1. Ahijah and Jeroboam’s wife, 1 Kings 14:4-6
2. Elisha and Shunammite woman, 2 Kings 4:27-29
3. Elisha and Gehazi, 2 Kings 5:20-27
4. Micaiah and lying prophets, 1 Kings 22:17-23

If someone says he or she discerns a thought or motive in someone else but turns out to be wrong, they didn’t have discernment! You already knew that. But it’s not because spiritual discernment is a not a reality. It is. It’s because the Holy Spirit is never wrong. Discernment is a spiritual gift, just like tongues, prophecy, wisdom, etc. And we can and should pray for it. Do the Elmer Gantrys of this world make all preachers liars? Do they make religion a fraud? No. So do people who think they have discernment when they don’t put discernment as a real spiritual gift in question? No. And discernment has zero basis in emotions. Some of the biblical examples I gave were about motivations. More often, the person discerned whether or not the other was a Christian or a fake, a true or false prophet. The same is true for my mother. Most of the time when she discerns people's hearts, what does she discern? Whether the person is a Christian or a fake, whether a true or false prophet, whether filled with the Spirit or filled with a demon. It has nothing to do with motivations or emotions.

And, as a semi-strict cessationist (confessional, remember?), I would also point out that tongues and prophecy are largely restricted to the apostolic age.

I Corinthians 12 is talking about discerning angelic and demonic spirits. It says absolutely nothing about "reading" other people's hearts as you describe. And actually, 1 Corinthians 12:10 says nothing about "asking" for this particular gift. Rather, the beginning of the thought is in verse 7, where it says each gift is given for the common good. It doesn't say "ask for the gift of reading other people's hearts/discerning spirits!" as your comment appears to claim. It doesn't say we can or should pray to have this gift; it simply says the Spirit gives it.

I repeat, discernment is a gift, just like tongues, prophecy, wisdom, etc. Tongues and prophecy haven't ceased. They're alive and well in Pentecostalism. And we can and should pray for these gifts. Spiritual gifts are just that: gifts. But we must ask for them, in prayer. That is how we receive them. Just as Jesus said the Father would give the Holy Spirit to those who ask, seek, and knock [Matthew 7:7-11, Luke 11:9-13], so also we must ask, seek, and knock for gifts of the Spirit. Most spiritual blessings are given to us without us having to ask. But more often, if we want to receive any spiritual gift from God, we must ask. A friend of mine, whom I met this spring, prayed for the gift of wisdom a few years ago. And he received it. You know how I know? I told him the night I met him at a youth group that I heard him speak wisdom, a lot of wisdom. I had never met this person face to face until that night. I knew nothing about him. But that's when he told me that he had prayed for the gift of wisdom all those years ago.

You still haven't explained how you can reason with someone who argues that "the Spirit told me this music is wrong." And some people say the same sort of thing about The Chronicles of Narnia. I'm sure you wouldn't, but don't you see that this places you in the exact same position as a Christian who's trying to defend how a rap or contemporary style of worship is actually fine to use in worship or even entertainment?

I have my own problems with the Narnia series. It contains some biblical parallels and I enjoy that part immensely. But I don't care for the mythical/pagan elements I see sometimes. So I can see why some would have a problem with CoN. That's up to them, not me. Maybe their consciences are more sensitive than mine. If they are, I rejoice. I would rather have a sensitive conscience as a deadened one. On the subject of music? I'm tired. I don't even feel like trying anymore. I'll just say this. The Holy Spirit should produce conformity in the black and white areas. But obviously, I have to leave the grey areas up to the Spirit. My problem is with people who defend their musical choices--whether or not I like them--without subjecting those [and other cultural] choices to the Spirit's guidance and leading. If the Spirit says "it's okay," okay. If He says "it's not okay," we must change. But how often do we really do this with the grey areas? More often, don't we just assume that if we like it, the Spirit does too? That's my point.

MM: there are two types of spiritual presence. [This dawned on me last night after the evening service.]
1. The Spirit of God is everywhere. This is a spiritual truth. But this presence everywhere doesn’t transform. It’s the difference between common grace and the grace found only in Christ.
2. OT: the Shekinah presence, the glory of God, was only in the Holy of Holies, nowhere else [Ex 26:31-35]. This is where the Ark of the Covenant, overlaid with the mercy seat, was. And God said, “there I will meet with thee and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat” [Ex 25]. But only the high priest on the Day of Atonement could enter this most holy place [Lev 16:32-33, Heb 9:7-8]. NT: the glory of God shines on the face of Jesus Christ [2 Cor 4:4-6; also Isaiah 35:2, 40:5, Matt 17:2, John 1:14, Rev 1:16]. Through the blood of Christ, we now have complete access into the Holy of Holies [Matt 27:51, Heb 9:12-28, 10:19-20]. We can run to the mercy seat, sprinkled with the blood of Jesus. And it is here alone that we are spiritually transformed into Jesus’ image. “But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a glass, the the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory” [2 Cor 3:18, KJV]. The Holy Spirit ushers us into God’s Shekinah presence, into the Holy of Holies. And in His presence there is transformation, healing, power for service, and freedom. It is here that we see Jesus face to face—spiritually [see Gen 32:30, Ex 34:29-35; also Psalm 17:15, 34:5], for no one can see God [Ex 33:18-23, Jn 1:18]. We will also see Jesus face to face in heaven—literally, whether through death or the Rapture [Rom 8:29, 1 Cor 13:12, 1 John 3:2].

So when we pray or sing songs like “Welcome, Holy Spirit” or “Holy Spirit, come and fill this place,” we’re basically saying, “Draw us into the Shekinah presence so we can be spiritually transformed, healed, set free, and filled.”

Just a suggestion to all in this thread ... Ask yourself daily, “Am I patterning myself after the world or after Jesus? Am I spending more time with the world or with Jesus? Am I setting my mind on earthly things or on heavenly things? Am I looking forward to heaven, and the rapture, with joy or with fear? Do I want Jesus to come back now or do I want Him to wait awhile?” If your answers to these questions are Jesus, joy and now, I'd say you're ready to go home! If any of your answers are world, fear, or later, search your heart... Why do I ask this? Jesus may come back tomorrow. You may get hit by a car tomorrow. And guess what? You won't have the time to repent or search your heart for unconfessed sin. This means we must be ready to go at all times...

I've heard two sermons on worship in the last 3 weeks, the second one last night. God has excellent timing! So I just thought I'd share them... [Note: I heard these sermons in person. So my notes are a bit rough.]

Sermon: God revealing Himself in worship
Text: John 4:1-26

Worship is not what we do but who we are. It is real life, not a mythical interlude in a week of reality [John Piper]. The question is, do we worship God or Satan? Worship: who is worthy? We have to be taught who to worship, not how. This means true worship vs. false.

1. God meets us where we are: Jesus went thru Samaria to meet a woman. It was a divine appt. Being in Samaria and talking to a single woman were two big no-nos. The woman talks about earthly water [flesh]. Jesus talks about living water [spirit]. He then asks about her husband. The reason? John 3 “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” Part of worship is God revealing sin to us, telling us we have to get rid of X [sin, idol, etc] before we can receive living water, before we can go deeper in worship, deeper in discovering who God is. If we recognize X in our lives, God hasn’t given upon on us. He’s knocking at our door.
2. God gives us the truth: the woman wanted to focus on the place to perform worship. But Jesus tells her, focus on Me and be transformed. The emphasis is on who, not where or how. We must lift up Jesus all the time! We must also be obedient to the truth. Romans 12 don’t be conformed to this world. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind = read/study the Bible! Offer your body a living sacrifice as a spiritual act of worship.
3. God reveals Himself to those who worship Him in spirit and in truth. The Seeker seeks those who seek Him = seek God!

Sermon: Worship in the beauty of holiness
Text: Psalm 24

True worship:
1. Recognizes God’s sovereignty in our lives – Jesus as Savior
2. Requires pure heart and holy life – Jesus as sanctifier
3. Receives blessing from the Lord – Jesus as Spirit baptizer
4. Rehearsal for kingdom of God – Jesus as soon-coming King

Contexts:
1. 2 Samuel 6/1 Chronicles 18], David restores the ark [presence of God] to Israel
2. Messianic psalm (both advents)
3. Worship
4. Continuity to Psalm 23

-Beauty of holiness [not legalism] – purity of soul
-Holiness: life transformed in presence of holy God, beautiful, to be desired, propels us into worship
-Worship makes us holy.
-Response to God’s presence – knowledge of uncleanness [Isaiah 6]
-I want to know that when I call on God, I can expect Him to move. This requires holiness so I don’t have to worry about it. I may not have time to confess sin in a crisis.
-Power comes to us by the baptism of the Spirit, makes us pure, clean, and holy.
-To understand worship, we must understand holiness.

True worship recognizes God’s sovereignty in our lives.
-God created and owns everything, including people—whether or not they submit to Him.
-“Dwell” [v. 1] = “sit down” = everyone on earth. “Stand” [v.3] is similar to dwell but refers only to those who’ve submitted to God.
-Jesus: Savior, Lord, God. We worship Him for who He is.

True worship requires a pure heart and holy life.
-Many people want to “ascend” to God’s presence but not “stand” or dwell there [v. 3]. On Monday, they spiritually go downhill.
-Holiness is the key to abiding in God’s presence. Psalm 15: live and do right.
-Some claim to know and believe in God but they have filthy mouths and deeds. They don’t walk the talk.
-Mosaic Covenant: holiness was a prerequisite to entering God’s presence. If the high priest wasn’t holy, he died. OT to NT: God hasn’t changed! But we take this for granted. On Judgment Day, either you’re holy or you die. Hebrews 12 I’m not judging anyone. The Word does that.
-Revelation: holiness is the language and culture of heaven. It is the very nature of God. It is not superficial nor is it legalism.
-Outward, “clean hands,” evidence of inward, “pure heart”; outward, hasn’t “sworn deceitfully,” evidence of inward, hasn’t “lifted up his soul unto vanity [an idol]” [v. 4].
-Ever feel dirty on the inside? What do you do? You go to an altar and allow God to bathe you in the blood of Jesus. Holy = beautiful.

True worship receives the blessing of the Lord.
-We are positioned to possess God’s blessings through holiness.
-“Generation” [v. 6] = class/type of person who abides in Christ, who seeks the face of God [not just His blessings]. When we get hold of God, we have what He wants for us.
-Some want the blessings and presence of God but not the standard that comes with it. When the ark was being carried to Jerusalem, Uzziah put out his hand to steady the ark and he died [2 Sam 6:6-7]. God gives blessings on condition. He asks for our life, that we approach Him in holiness. He draws us to Him.
-Psalm 1: we should be like the tree planted/rooted by the rivers of water. We should not be like vagabonds in God’s presence.
-“Righteousness” [v. 5] = vindication. This means God has your back.

True worship is a rehearsal for the kingdom of God.
-It is a model for how we should live.
-Worship = rehearsal, for heaven, on earth.
-Jesus is the “King of Glory,” who gives us and is everything we need.

Fencer, I don’t think that the sacrifice for sins mentioned in Hebrews 10 refers to redemption from consequences. It says, very specifically, that if we sin willfully after receiving knowledge of the truth, there is no more sacrifice for sins.

I think, as Doctor Ransom said, that this refers to the person whose heart is not changed; one who receives the knowledge of the truth and despises it. Someone whom God has really changed from the inside out will not be happy in sin. This is why real heart change is so central to Christianity. Too often we lower salvation to the status of a ‘response,’ or a ‘decision.’ But real salvation is a heart transplant; a complete change of our nature. I am reminded of this passage Jeremiah:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

I repeat, discernment is a gift, just like tongues, prophecy, wisdom, etc. Tongues and prophecy haven't ceased. They're alive and well in Pentecostalism.

I think they have, for the most part. I allow that there may be limited exceptions, but they are limited to times and places where they would be necessary and useful. Every record that we have in Acts of tongues-speaking, it is for edification. I do not see modern Pentecostalism having much edification going on. Most of the signals I get from that corner indicate that they are serving milk not meat.

As for other gifts, we have to understand that wisdom and understanding are gifts from God, but that even with them, we will not get it right 100%. We are still fallible and we are still sinners.

TBG

220, I feel I must clarify just as Ransom did, because you are either purposefully or accidentally missing the point of what I was saying.

• I am not denying that there is such a thing as spiritual discernment. Why do you keep arguing against points we aren't even making? Are you perhaps trying to dodge the points that we are?

What I am arguing with you is your definition of it, and *some* of the Scriptures you are yanking out of context to serve your preconceived ideology.

I find it very interesting that you don't even address the "spiritual discernment" I just practiced on you above . How can you argue against my discernment, 220? I have read your words (which come from your heart, right? and therefore reveal every single thing about your heart, right?) and so now I know your heart, and with my gift of spiritual discernment I have read you and am telling you that you are wrong about this. How can you actually argue with me on this? It's my word against yours, isn't it? God told me!

My point is that the way you want to define spiritual discernment is so subjective as to be utterly indefensible.

Your methods of debate are not convincing. For example, in your last post you list a bunch of OT Scriptures — descriptive verses — and treat them as though they are proscriptive, recipes for how we should act today. And then you go off in an unfocused paragraph arguing emotionally back at me about why spiritual discerment as defined by you is right. There are no Scriptural references in your paragraph; you just threw a bunch of OT references at the top to cover yourself. This is not convincing.

I also find it very interesting that you don't even address my concerns about how you are misusing Scripture (specifically Matthew 12:34 and I Corinthians 10:12). I pointed out the specific problems with the interpretations you were giving, and you have not acknowledged or addressed those issues at all. So my points still stand, as you have not even tried to refute them.

Leave the spiritual discernment be for a second. Mishandling Scripture is not something to gloss over or treat lightly! I think it's a much bigger problem — probably the core of the real problem — than the definition of spiritual discernment. That's a very serious charge and I was debating with myself how strongly to come down on the misuse of those two verses in particular. You seem to have the mentality that more is better, and if someone questions your interpretation of a passage of Scripture, you should just throw a ton more verses at them. Maybe they won't notice the bad hermeneutics and logic in the overwhelming flood of references and quoted passages

Tongues and prophecy haven't ceased. They're alive and well in Pentecostalism.

Oh, don't get me started on this. I'm a former charismatic, raised in it from birth until a few years ago, and I praise God for pulling me out of that belief system. The fact that you are trying to use tongues as evidence for your definition of spiritual discernment makes your argument even less convincing than it was already! Even if I believed as you do about tongues, what does that have to do with how 220 defines spiritual discernment? Again — let me repeat myself — my argument is not against the existence of spiritual discernment; rather, it is against your emotionally driven, un-Scriptural, and frankly rather worrisome definition of it. And bigger than that, your blatant misuse and misinterpretation of Scripture to make it say what you want it to.

I won't make this long, but I do have something to add about the spiritual discernment issue. First off, it is real and some people really do have it. Most of the time it has to do with dealing with the ongoings of the spiritual realm. My gift tends to focus and spiritual activity and more specifically on the demonic activity. Several times I have simply sensed (to the point where I had that spine tingling chill) of spiritual battles about to take place. Many of you know about my encounter with the demonic from two years ago.

But there is more than that to spiritual discernment. Telling who is being Scripturally sound and who's not is no easy proposition. For me, when I can tell it, it is usually through tone of voice, expressions, eyes, and on a rare occasion my gut. The gut usually doesn't kick in unless I had seen it through the things I listed above. This will weed out the more obvious ones, but there are times where this simply won't work.

There are people out there that truly have thier stuff down pat. They know thier Bible inside and out, they know all the theology, they are active members in the church and show all the fruit you'd expect to see out of an ideal Christian. But some of the people are really from the enemy and were sent in to infiltrate the church. This happened to a friend of mine, where a kid in his youth group had come in for that very reason.

At the same time, there are others that are rather questionable, but really have thier stuff down pat. Using the musical discussion, Curvine might be one of these people. He is a rapper, which is a turn-off to many people. But his heart is genuine. If there was anything questionable about him, I would have sensed something in one of the four times I have heard him (twice at a youth camp and twice at my church).

So how to you tell who is who? Spiritual discerment can be usefull, but it alone can't do it. You need to know Scripture and know it well. Referencing a few Scriptures that appear to be relevant won't do it. You need to know them well, what they really mean, and how to apply the lessons in your life. Also, you can't do it alone. You need someone to speak with who can keep you in check. We have a very nice group here who have excellent Scriptural knowledge, but this is not the place for an outright Bible study. While on-line studies do work, you still need that home Bible Study (through a church or other ministry) where you can dig deep into the Word. The other thing that needs to happen is through relationships. It is very rare for you to be able to tell who is who if you only meet them for five minutes or less. You need to spend time with them, before you make a judgement. I am not talking about doing what they do, but something simple like enjoying a lunch together or something like that. These are just some suggestions and are not meant to be collectively exhaustive. I am simply saying that spiritual discernment is not always a tool we can use to tell who is really following God and who isn't.

The same is true for my mother. Most of the time when she discerns people's hearts, what does she discern? Whether the person is a Christian or a fake, whether a true or false prophet, whether filled with the Spirit or filled with a demon. It has nothing to do with motivations or emotions.

220, I'm going to just come out and say this, but this strikes me as a little...creepy. At the very least I find it unsettling, not because such a spiritual gift is impossible, but because the way you're describing it makes it rife with the possiblity of abuse. What if your maternal unit just doesn't like someone? Maybe their haircut, or that they like to wear too fashionable clothing, or she just plain doesn't like them for some odd reason that defies explanation (and there's not a single one of us who is immune to such things)? Whenever you stick the "human element" in there there is potential in this type of thing for misidentification. I can just see the poor guy who was just spiritually discerned as being a fake and a false prophet quickly becoming a social pariah at church events simply based upon the word of one person. With all due respect, in the parlance of the modern generation, that's just not cool...

I won't make this long, but I do have something to add about the spiritual discernment issue. First off, it is real and some people really do have it. Most of the time it has to do with dealing with the ongoings of the spiritual realm. My gift tends to focus and spiritual activity and more specifically on the demonic activity. Several times I have simply sensed (to the point where I had that spine tingling chill) of spiritual battles about to take place. Many of you know about my encounter with the demonic from two years ago.

I agree with you here Fencer, but that's not what 220 is talking about, at least not in the terms you've placed out here. And I think if you have a demonic entity in close proximity to a believer one is going to feel something. I've felt it and I'll never forget it, and I sincerely hope I never feel it again. This other is more along the lines of saying that if I had the gift which 220 is referencing I can simply look at a person (which is what it boils down to, from what I've read) and know intrinsically that that person is not a believer and a fake. I need no evidence...I need no proof. I don't even need to see their long term "fruits". I just know.

I don't deny that such a gift is possible, but I'll have to agree with TBG that the time and place of its use would be ordained by God, and wouldn't be some helter skelter, seemingly random 24/7 type of thing.

Oh, don't get me started on this. I'm a former charismatic, raised in it from birth until a few years ago, and I praise God for pulling me out of that belief system. The fact that you are trying to use tongues as evidence for your definition of spiritual discernment makes your argument even less convincing than it was already! Even if I believed as you do about tongues, what does that have to do with how 220 defines spiritual discernment?

I was in a charismatic church for a little over a year in my youthful days. My parents eventually moved on because they had issues with the fact that a whole bunch of people were speaking in tongues and there were no translators. If speaking in tongues is meant to glorify God and there's no one there to translate what the tongue-speaker saying, then they could be speaking gibberish for all anyone knew. I've never done this myself but I can only imagine that it must be a very sacred and holy experience (if someone who has never left the country immediately begins to praise God in Russian, Arabic, or any other language that's nothing short of a miracle on display), and it is there to bring glory to God and show everyone in the room He's quite present.

shadowlander, I addressed 220's position later in my post. My first paragraph was to illustrate the differences in spiritual discernment and how the former is more common than the other.

As for tongues, there are two sides to it and I have seen both. One side is what you see in the Pentacostal, charismatic churches. This is also known as the angelic language which essentially is only known to God. Apparently even Satan doesn't know this language. I cannot deny this gift's existance as I have been in missions long enough to see it in action. But I do not agree that it is a gift everyone, especially in a concentrated group, should have. I have been with mission teams where every member spoke in this type of tongues. And interestingly enough, I don't recall any interpretation. I can't agree that all of them really had the gift. Praying in the Spirit is one thing, but if you are going to do it in public, there should be an interpretor, otherwise all it is is gibberish. Private prayer is just between you and God. Public prayer is for the whole group and God. So if someone is praying in tongues with no interpretation, how does that benefit the group?

There is another type of tongues: this is seen in Acts 2 at Pentacost. It is the speaking of one language and the hearers understands it in another. I have good reason to believe my dad has this gift. My parents and I live on the US/Mexico border, where we take mission teams into Mexico for short term trips. My dad is often the bus driver. But he is not the kind of bus driver that just sits on the bus. He is a true servant and is always seeking to serve wherever needed. At some point during the day, he seems to find one or two men from Mexico to speak with. My dad barely knows two words in Spanish and these men often don't know a word of English. And yet my dad can actually hold Bible Studies with them. There was also a time where a guy came to work with him because he was unemployed and the same situation. No Spanish for my dad, no English for the guy. They got along just fine. We have good reason to believe that when my dad speaks English these guys hear Spanish and visa-versa. I would say this gift of tongues is more prevalant than the other.

Gotta run to work now.

Hello all;
Again, this is such an intriguing conversation that I want to say much more than I have time to say. However, the essentials are these:

1. It has been brought to my attention that I have not acted in a Scriptural manner toward the couples that left our church over the music issue. I do not know how best to act in this situation. The moment I discern that and have a Scriptural foundation upon which to act, I will do so, but I want everyone to know that the situation is not as simple as the few things I have (perhaps mistakenly) reported here, and that part of my reason for mentioning that these people have not approached me is to give them the benefit of the doubt; since they have not approached me, I can only discuss the matter based on third-hand information. Some will argue that if all I have is third-hand information I oughtn't be discussing it.

2. Using correct words is important. I fear that certain words are being unintentionally misused. There is a difference between “proscribed” and “prescribed”. At some point during the discussion the word “prescribed” morphed into “proscribed” and I’m not sure that the way it is being used carries the meaning we all seem to intend. For reference:

PREscribe
a : to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action : ORDAIN
b: to specify with authority
2 : to designate or order the use of as a remedy

PROscribe

2 : an imposed restraint or restriction

3. While I probably wouldn’t have approached the subject in the same way (I would most likely try to take each misuse of scripture point by point and show a more accurate hermeneutic), I appreciate what wisewoman had to say. 220, it seems to me that you are making some assumptions that you need to back up with scripture. I personally have a rather jaded view of the Pentecostal definition of and use of the “gifts”. I’m not completely cessationist, but I don’t believe a hermeneutically sound scriptural basis for the Pentecostal definition and use of these gifts can be made. You’ll have to show me with better scriptural proofs than you have yet presented before I’ll be able to follow your line of thinking.

Time does not allow me to type anymore at the moment. If possible I will come back over the weekend and attempt a point-by-point refutation of the points made at least on Scriptural worship…not for the purpose of continuing the music-in-worship discussion, but for the purpose of explaining proper hermeneutics as best I can.

Further, I will point out that while I do know that it is difficult sometimes to keep up with the conversations point-by-point, some of my original points have yet to be addressed. This could lead readers to come to the conclusion that a device Dr. R. called a "bait-and-switch" is being used. I'm not sure that's what's happening here, 220 (and anyone else, for that matter), but if you were more diligent to answer the points made by posters, we'd be less likely to make that assumption.

Gotta head out to school...studio class today: hope I'm ready to sing those 4 German pieces!

mm

Wow. The previous posts by The Black Glove, WiseWoman and Shadowlander have left me with little to add. And at this point, 220, you may feel like everyone's expecting you to drink fruit juice out of a fire hydrant (and you may not even care for the flavor of fruit ).

So I'll try to halve my usual length (though it's still too long ).

And it's meant not just for one person, but for anyone who may not yet see the real issues here. Yet I will ask you again, 220 to think hard and consider the above responses first, and secondarily my additions below:

1) Trying to think the best of you here, I'm guessing that your resorting to "we must be discerning" points is automatic, because the only criticism you've heard from your views is from people who don't care about discernment at all.

Similarly, once upon a time I reflexively argued against them darn Calvinists because I had only met the mean ones. When the grace-living kinds of Reformed Christ-followers came along, with nuanced, balanced, Christ-honoring ways of asking questions and getting me really to think, I no longer could use my usual (often unspoken) response (you're mean anyway, so I won't bother).

Again, realize that what is being advocated here is a more-nuanced, in-between view that has greater Biblical balance than either "side." It takes into consideration both the commands to conform to Christ (as in Romans 12) and the truth that some things are gray areas and will remain gray areas (Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8). Nothing in Scripture, nowhere, supports the idea that the Spirit's silent job is to make everyone conform in these gray areas. Paul in those chapters only dealt with how believers with differing gray-area preferences should respect, love and interact with one another, mindful of unity and diversity. He gave no higher respect to those with meat/idols scruples than to those without them. He did not insist either side conform, but he did insist on mutual love and respect with God's glory in mind. Again, do we accept this truth? Or do we "yes-but" it?

The issue is also not simply about those with weaker or stronger "consciences," but rather growth beyond temptation. In the example of Narnia: 220, do not let any other Christian make you feel guilty for enjoying even the "redeemed pagan" elements of Lewis's stories, if you do. Unless such people are themselves recovering pagans who are actually personally tempted back into those lifestyles (such as recovering alcoholics would be if you drank occasionally), enjoying the Chronicles is not an actual "stumbling block" to them, and they have no Biblical cause even to insist you keep your fandom hidden from them. And it is not that they have "higher standards" or "more sensitive consciences," either; they are simply being legalistic, locked onto that un-Biblical autopilot.

Similarly, Romans 14 is clear: do not judge a fellow Christian for enjoying something (such as Narnia, contemporary worship, Harry Potter books, the Batman film The Dark Knight, etc.) by which you would feel personally tempted. Simply recognize the differences, and respect and love your different brother/sister in Christ, just as they must do for you (while not abusing their freedom; 1 Corinthians 8). The Word and Spirit are not about enforcing conformity in these areas -- only conformity to the revealed righteousness and mind of Christ.

For more about what is and isn't an actual "stumbling block" according to Scripture, see Randy Alcorn's excellent article.

2) Viewing "spiritual discernment" as a kind of "inner lie detector" gift would be devastating in the body of Christ if taken to its logical conclusion, as Shadowlander pointed out.

I have heard of many cases where this is done, often by the kinds of people who view spiritual gifts as Marvel-Comics-style superpowers (and thus certain special believers as the X-Men). "The Spirit told me this personally," rather than, "The Bible says this to all believers," is a trump card for too many people. (You still can't consistently answer back if someone claims that "the Spirit" told them it's okay to enjoy hip-hop music! -- if someone did, you're in the same pickle yourself.)

True discernment is done with more than a polite nod toward Scripture; it is only based on knowledge of Scripture, as Fencer said. It is done in the context of a local church, for the edification of God's people.

The idea of "lie detector" heart-test-style discernment not only violates those Biblical qualifications, but throws all of Scripture's admonitions about Godly conflict resolution out of whack. If certain Christians could really just "heart-read" other people, why would Jesus (Matthew 18) and Paul (1 Corinthians 5) outline methods of personal and local-church conflict resolution that said nothing about spiritual "lie detector" people? Rather, their methods are very "practical" by comparison, involving people talking together, trying to hash out offenses or differences, with the help of other friends and/or church leaders, and Bible-based accountability.

Matthew 18: In personal conflicts, first try to get the conflict resolved personally; if that isn't working, involve third parties; if that doesn't work, tell it to the church; and if that doesn't work, don't be nasty about it, but do act as if you are separate from the unrepentant offender.

1 Corinthians 5: Even in conflicts that clearly involve someone violating a Biblical standard, it is never said anywhere in the process of church discipline that you have anything other than an attitude of care toward such a person, even if you're throwing him out of the church because he won't stop the sin. And never, ever is the idea raised of having someone just "heart-read" such an offender, with that as a standard. Paul never recommends a Jedi-council-esque tribunal of those who have the special gift of discerning people's hearts -- as surely he would at least mention if this is an actual ability given by the Holy Ghost! He uses Scriptural standards, and even issues of clear disobedience are dealt with that way.

As Shadowlander said, the "lie-detector" idea is much too rooted in a single personality, and either downplays or completely ignores the truth that such a person's "intuition" is completely vulnerable to being confused with mere opinions.

If someone walked into my church, with the idea that they could "sense" true or false believers based on a "heart-reading" gift, the needle would be jumping all over the place. My church has plenty of conservative, short-hair WASPish guys; a guy who looks "worldly," complete with spiky hair and earrings; a young pastor who doesn't wear a tie and sometimes wears pink shirts (for you fashion-conscious types: he has Latin American heritage and thus a darker skin tone, so it works); women who could look like right-wing homeschooler types; women who could look like "worldly" perky cheerleader types; and a pastor's wife who looks like a smaller version of Tasha Yar (from Star Trek: The Next Generation) and who has really short blond hair.

From spending time with each of these people, seeing the fruit in their lives and getting to know them, I can say personally that each one of them has deep, lasting, genuine love for Christ, His Kingdom and His righteousness.

By contrast: a "heart-read" "gift" notion would see all kinds of "problems" with these people and judge them right and left for supposed states of faith or maturity, sin issues in their lives, or perceived failures to be holy and discerning about their lifestyle and appearance choices. Such a person would be turned off from these people, not just because it's different and they need to go separate ways, but because she truly believes she's "discerned" all these issues.

The "heart-reading" idea will only result in disaster, gossip, and to be honest, valuing personal intuition more highly than others' words and placing one's own opinions above those of others, and above the Bible.

3) Attention has been called repeatedly to the frequent misuse of Scripture -- this may not be intentional, but it contradicts how anything must be read plainly and in context, and is inconsistent with the times you do read Scripture rightfully to encourage focus on an eternal perspective and such.

This is more vital than the whole "spiritual discernment" question, because how we read Scripture determines how we'll approach this issue.

WiseWoman has said it most plainly so far: 220, last night, you cited four Old Testament references about prophets' actions, then acted as if those are expected to be the norm for Christians today. As I've said before, you can't do that in any Scriptural narrative and either preserve real Biblical hermeneutics and logic or do this consistently. After all, Elisha later in 2 Kings 4 raised the woman's son to life; will we decide that a resurrection "gift" is Scriptural? Also, if I were a woman, why couldn't I go to the book of Ruth, then, and get instructions for how to get a man to marry me? Where does this end? Again, such twisting of Scripture cannot be done consistently, and worse, is unfaithful to the meaning.

Last night in your sermon notes, you favorably quoted author/pastor John Piper about a definition of worship. I would encourage you to research Piper's view (also held by many others solid preachers) about expositional preaching. What this does is go through a Biblical chapter, and book, and the whole Bible itself, systematically, doing our best to read out of the text. That's as opposed to grabbing verses here and there and "using" them indiscriminately to prove a point.

EDIT a little while later: A minute ago I updated my signature to point to a book review I wrote Wednesday for my church's website -- Christless Christianity offers sobering critique of Western churches. And I remembered that it was from reading this book, and Horton's reference to "In the Garden," that started all this!

Don't feel like talking today. Don't know how to respond to anyone. I'm just tired.

Lessons I drew from Spurgeon's smoking:
1. It didn't bother him. But it bothered others. Did they have a weaker conscience? Or a more sensitive one?
2. He gave it up, not for his own sake, but for others. -- Romans 14...
3. I think he died of Bright's disease, at age 57.
4. Why I don't smoke [or drink]: I want to be filled with the Spirit, not with a potentially harmful substance. The latter can deaden me to the Spirit's voice and influence, or drag me down spiritually.

Spiritual discernment: I'm not talking about people who look questionable physically. I'm not talking about a lie-detector test. I'm talking about people who are wolves in sheep's clothing and know it. They intentionally try to hoodwink others. I'm also talking about people who are demon-possessed. Can we discern motives, where Christians are spiritually on their journey? I don't think so. But that seems like an abuse of this gift anyway.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Your thoughts?

People featured on the TBN network: Christians? fakes? mix of both? how do you know [or not know]?

1 Corinthians 14: Paul says that if someone gives a message in tongues, there should be an interpreter. Otherwise, we should keep it to ourselves. The purpose is to have godly order and peace in our meetings. I've spoken in tongues in prayer and in worship, but not that frequently. I've never given a message in tongues and I've never interpreted. But every time someone at my church gives a message in tongues, there follows an interpretation. And if no one interprets, we wait, asking the Spirit for someone to interpret. And someone always does. Messages in tongues don't happen at my church that often either, maybe 2-3 services a month [that includes Sunday evenings].

Elisha and Shunammite woman's son in 2 Kings 4: resuscitation, not resurrection. There is one resurrection in the Bible: Jesus Christ. He is the firstfruits. And we'll be resurrected someday. Resuscitating someone isn't a "gift." It rarely happens, even today. And yet I know someone who was resuscitated. And what did Jesus tell His disciples when He sent them out to preach? "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils, freely ye have received, freely give" [Matt 10]. Jesus said we would do greater things than Him, i.e. greater in proportion if we're filled with the Spirit [John 13]. We won't do anything "new," anything outside the Word. Does that mean we walk around trying to resuscitate people? Of course not! We must be led by the Spirit to do so.

The Black Glove: I like your *cough* jokes.