Dr. Brown and author and theologian Dr. R. T. Kendall discuss his new, highly-praised book “Holy Fire,” and then Dr. Brown answers your emails and takes your calls. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: How wonderful that the biblical outpouring of the Holy Spirit is for all people until the end of the age for those who call on the name of the Lord!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The same Jesus who calls us to holiness is the one who gives us the way and the means to holiness.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week when you order a copy of Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire, we’ll send you a free e-book that was specially put together by Dr. Brown. For more details on how to buy Authentic Fire in print or e-book, and on how to get your free e-book, click HERE!
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
I appreciated Dr. Brown’s answer to that woman who wondered if her ADHD was from a generational curse.
I agree that the biblical notion of generational curses and blessings are better understood as the persistent influence of our actions, for good or bad.
It can be genetic, parental, societal or whatever else.
It’s fascinating, to me, how “generational curses” can also apply to groups, like churches, corporations, countries, etc. It seems like group “personality” can be persistent, even as the individuals change. I’ve heard a very similar descriptions about this from both denominational and corporate leaders.
For example, a church that is born out of a church split will remain divisive long after the original members have passed on.
I know of one denomination that will completely close-down a problematic church for a year (or so) before trying to revive it with a new pastor and hopefully whole new congregation.
Every denomination is from a church split. You would have to be a catholic to not be part of a church split…but then you would have the were the only one syndrome. So all in all every church has baggage from your point of view. What if the split was for righteousness sake? Holiness is by definition, divisive.
I am still waiting for Dr. Brown to address my main question about tongues.
How can we possibly know if the current Pentecostal practice of “tongues” has any resemblance to what was practised by the early church?
Obviously, what the Pentecostals re-invented in Los Angeles 100 years ago doesn’t resemble Pentecost, the only description we have of tongues.
Yes, we know that something called “tongues” was existed in the first century church but how can we know anything about how it was actually practiced?
Surely in the almost 1,900 that tongues went unpracticed means that we have lost our understanding of what exactly it is.
Pentecost in Acts 2 is not the only description of tongues that we have. We have Acts 10 and Acts 19 and esp. 1 Corinthians 14 where teaches about it. How many times will I have to tell you this before you stop asking a question that has been thoroughly answered?
Oops!…where Paul teaches about it.
I suppose you could see it that way, with Protestant churches, anyway … if you view all churches as ultimately a split off of Catholicism.
But, there are all the Eastern churches. Or the Coptic church? Who did they split from? And, even many of the Protestant churches — many, that I’m aware of, were started as mission efforts to ethnic groups. Etc.
But, I think you understand my distinction. There are churches and denominations that emerge and begin for a positive reason, rather than from a contentious split.
– – – – –
But, yes, I would say that all churches have “baggage.”
That baggage can be good or bad, BTW.
For example, on MLK Day I complimented the Pentecostals for being racially inclusive. As far as I know, this goes back to their very beginning when they defied the segregationist norms of the day.
But, I can not more strongly disagree with your point that holiness is, by definition, divisive.
Self-righteousness _masking_ as holiness is divisive.
Regarding tongues, you have NOT answered my question.
Teaching _about_ something is not describing it. Paul wasn’t even teaching about tongues, he was counseling people to be less contentious when they do it.
Of course, we can _infer_ some things from I Cor. 14. That tongues is self-centered, for example (not in the bad use of that term.)
At what times was it done? How often was it done? What did it sound like? Was it done as a group or did they take turns? Was it also done at church? Were women required to remain silent or where they allowed to do it as well? Paul likens it to music — can we infer that tongues sung back then? Was it directed by the church leaders or did it break out spontaneously? Did “everyone” speak in tongues at once or did they take turns? Did they do it in their seats or stand in front of the church? Were the tongues like a prayer to God or a sermon to the church? Were they generally similar or radically different? Were people taught or coached how to speak tongues or did it genuinely come out-of-the-blue. Were tongues a broader cultural practice done by non-Christians as well?
Even if you can infer answers from the text to a few of my questions, you really can’t know for sure.
(Act 19, says next to nothing about tongues, except that it was done.)
Here is my point:
Because the re-invented worship practices is called “tongues” people assume that it is what the bible calls “tongues.” I think this is highly unlikely.
It’s like assuming that a modern American “salon” is the same as a 17th Century French “salon” because they have the same name.
I AM NOT against tongues. Clearly it is a fulfilling practice for many Christians. I bless them in it!
But, the modern practice of tongues is certainly not “sola scriptura” because there is not enough scriptural information to work with.
This means we all have to be humble in our debate about them. And, we’d all be better off if we were.
I meant to say… “was tongues done at home?” or in public? Or by young children?
In any regard, my questions were a riff about tongues illustrating that there is probably more we DON’T know about the early Church practice of tongues than we do know.
I’m fine with this, by the way. There is a whole lot of our modern church practice that surely doesn’t resemble the first century.
My main point is that we have to be humble about these things.
It is a gigantic and surely flawed presumption when people claim that ones own church is “sola scritura” and another is not.
It appears that you believed R.T. Kendall’s encounter which gave him certainty in Jesus to be true. But if I understood Dr. Kendall correctly, it was at that time that he also learned via the Holy Spirit of the truth of Calvinism. But if this is true, it leaves us in the position described by Norman Geisler as having an all loving God Who just loves some. Can we believe in the validity of the experience that led Dr. Kendall to know the truth of Christ with certainty without also accepting the validity of the simultaneously revealed truth of Calvinism? Or does the association of the former in light of the fact that the latter is false mean we should discount the whole experience as but the result of an active imagination? It seems hard to have take one as revealed truth by the Spirit while rejecting the other.
What say you Dr. Brown?
Sorry for the typo the next to the last line should read: It seems hard to take one as revealed truth by the Spirit while rejecting the other.
I simply asked Dr. Kendall to share his experience. Ultimately, theology is tested by the Word, and since I’m not a Calvinist, I’d have some differences with him here. But I have no issue with God assuring us that we are eternally His!
I think you missed or side stepped my point. If I understood your purpose correctly you had Dr. Kendall on in order to show that rational, orthodox, well credentialed people believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Now this rational well grounded man had an experience in which he came to know the reality of Christ with certainty and ALSO through the SAME Spirit came to a new understanding of Scripture. So this leaves those who believe in Dr.. Kendal’s integrity and believe in the Holy Spirit but don’t believe in Calvinism (like me) with a problem. Did the same Spirit that convinced Dr. Kendal of God’s reality and that of Jesus, then at the same time reveal in Scripture what many consider to be a false interpretation of Scripture.
Or Do you believe the Holy Spirit that will teach all things (John 14:26) is limited so that He cannot show us truths that have been there all along, but we missed–or was such teaching only for the apostles? But if that is the case then are the gifts of the Spirit only for the apostle too?
I fully believe in the propositional plain truth of Scripture such that we unlike the Bible critic, should not try to look beneath the words, or behind the words or between the words but at the words. But even when we look AT the words, does the Spirit not guide us to find timely relevant applications in our lives? Does the Spirit not help us make connections and take us to deeper Spiritual truths than we would find on our own?
I am confused. In listening to you, it sounds like you believe that Dr. Kendall had a real life changing “Holy Fire” experience with the Holy Spirit and yet you only want to believe the part of his experience that aligns with your own theology and reject the rest. How do you explain the REAL conviction by the Spirit of the Truth of Jesus and reject the rest? If you are certain that Calvinism is false, would it not be more logical to reject Dr. Kendall’s WHOLE experience as imagination? But then that would seem to defeat the whole purpose of having him on the show.
What say you Dr. Brown?
Comments are closed.