[This Day] The federal government yesterday raised the alarm that many states in the country may soon run out of bed spaces for COVID-19 patients at their isolation centres due to the increasing number of Nigerians testing positive to Coronavirus.

[Nation] Ethiopian forces in Somalia have admitted to shooting down a Kenyan cargo plane on Monday, leading to six deaths, on 'mistaken identity'.

[Premium Times] In February, PREMIUM TIMES exclusively spoke with Chris Elias, the President of the Global Development Division of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Paulin Basinga, the foundation's country director, on the role the foundation played in the eradication of wild polio in Nigeria and a range of other developmental issues.

[Observer] President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has cautioned the general public to always wear masks whenever they are out of their homes. The president said wearing mask will help combat the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and its infection to other people.

[Dalsan Radio] The African Union Mission in Somalia, AMISOM, expresses its heartfelt condolences to the families of those who perished in the plane crash of 4th May, 2020. The aircraft which left Baidoa, had six people on board and was approaching Bardale, south of Somalia and 300km northwest of the capital Mogadishu when it crashed.

[WHO] The WHO country office and the Delegation of the European Union (EU) to Somalia have joined hands under a new collaboration in the country to strengthen operational response activities for COVID-19. The new collaboration aims to accelerate support for the frontline work of WHO in combating COVID-19 in a seemingly vast country where transportation of vital medical supplies and personnel needed for rapid response to the outbreak remain a perpetual challenge owing to suspension of commercial and cargo flights

[Shabelle] The African Union and the UN have welcomed the decision by leaders from Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia to investigate Monday's plane crash in southwest Somalia which killed six people on board.

[Dalsan Radio] US military operations in four countries in 2019 left 132 civilians dead, according to a report released Wednesday by the Pentagon.

[Dalsan Radio] The United States Embassy in Mogadishu calls on the Somali Government and people to allow and encourage transparent reporting on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate the critical efforts to protect and preserve the health and safety of the people of Somalia.

Loyalist terrorists in the North have issued threats against journalists working for the Sunday Life and Sunday World newspapers.

The Government has been urged to consider a 'staycation' package, to salvage something from the 2020 season, by one of Ireland's most successful marine tourism officials.

The executives of the country's two second-level teacher unions met last night to consider the implications of a newly-devised 'calculated grades' system that will replace this year's cancelled summer Leaving Certificate exams.

Australia's most populous states have held back from relaxing coronavirus restrictions although other states began allowing small gatherings and were preparing to open restaurants and shops.

I remember my childhood as a kind of idyllic dream where we Jews lived in big houses on large plots surrounded by magnificent gardens.

COVID-19 is typically signaled by three symptoms: fever, an insistent cough and shortness of breath.

The Labor Department's monthly employment report also showed the unemployment rate surging to 14.7% last month, shattering the post-World War II record of 10.8% touched in November 1982.

'This is every parents' nightmare, right, that your child may actually be affected by this virus,' said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The new guidelines focus on 13 principles that are designed to guide the decisions and planning of synagogues and communities throughout the United States.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce has pledged its support to government in the formulation of a new Iindividual Investor Programme to ensure the new scheme is compatible with good governance

Maltese government to inform EC it will no longer provide boarding team to Operation Irini, which is attempting to stop Turkish weapons to Libyan GNA

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expresses ‘deep concern’ over reports of failure to assist and coordinate pushbacks of migrant boats in the central Mediterranean

Court turns down alleged Caruana Galizia assassination mastermind's request to have compilation of evidence continue 

The 48 year old man, who understood to have a substance abuse problem, had been aggressive towards a doctor sent to treat him and died after force had to be used to subdue him.

The 39 year old man was taken to hospital, where he was certified as suffering from grievous injuries 

A weekly selection of opinions and analyses from the Arab media around the world.

We will never fully know what Iran and Russia actually think of Assad or each other’s historic role in Syria.

The US has argued that the Assad regime is involved in “brutality and repression” and that its actions create instability in the region.

The pandemic has led to a series of changes, including the separation of US and coalition forces from locals.

This signals an increase in pressure on Jordan to extradite Ahlam Al-Tamimi, who facilitated the bombing of a Jerusalem Sbarro restaurant that killed 15 people, including two Americans, in 2001.

Fourteen more were wounded during the protest - sparked by growing unhappiness at the distribution allegedly favouring people with political connections, said Gulzaman Nayeb, a local lawmaker.

“Keep in mind that Abbas is a status quo man. He does not like to rock the boat and this is not something that he would do easily, to do what he threatens to do,” said Professor Khalil Shikaki.

Bank branches attacked with gunfire, petrol bombs.

After two decades of dryness, enough rains have finally come to bring Hamoun wetland back to life in the southeastern Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan, reviving agriculture in the region as well. Hamoun is the third-largest lake of Iran after the Caspian Sea and Urmia Lake.

With the aim of expressing appreciation for the medical staff from around globe, the Iran's National Instruments Orchestra performed ";The Avicenna Suite"; by maestro Farhad Fakhreddini. The work has been recorded and edited by cell phone at home.

More than 12,000 Iranian lawyers have protested to a draft bill that undermines their independence and in effect replaces the Iranian Bar Association with a group of judiciary officials appointed by the government. Based on the draft the Judiciary will form a new body named the ";Supreme Council for the Coordination of Lawyers' Affairs"; that will be based at the Judiciary branch of the government ";to coordinate matters relating to attorneys.";

Iran's parliament has voted to slash four zeros from the national currency, the rial, to fight hyperinflation caused by crippling U.S. sanctions and the coronavirus pandemic. Lawmakers also decided on May 4 that the rial, which has been Iran's national currency since 1925, will be replaced by the toman, which will be equal to 10,000 rials, according to the IRNA and ISNA news agencies.

Sarasadat Khademalsharieh, also known as Sara Khadem, who had announced her retirement from Iran national chess team, has returned to the national team. On January 12, Khadem had published a photo on her Instagram account and said she has retired from national team.

The body of Ali Ajami, an Iranian human rights activist, was discovered in McGovern Lake at Hermann Park, Houston, Texas, on Wednesday. The cause of death remains unknown. Houston Police on Wednesday started an investigation into the death of a deceased male found in a pond at Hermann Park but said no other information was available yet. Iranian social media users have reported that the body belonged to thirty-seven-year-old Iranian human rights activist Ali Ajami.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on September 21, 2015. -ed.

Few things are more destructive than misinterpreting God’s Word. A wrong interpretation can lead to physical harm (e.g., handling snakes based on Mark 16:18) or spiritual harm (e.g., consternation over one’s salvation in the absence of speaking in tongues).

Aside from misunderstanding the text as it is written, misinterpretation often happens when we ignore, or are ignorant of, the historical background of the text. We can easily forget that the divine words we read in each biblical account rise out of the milieu of each human author’s cultural context. And when we do, we run the risk of wrongly assuming why the authors wrote certain things, and what they meant, and how it applies to us. On the other hand, Scripture becomes so much clearer and more profound when understood in its original context.

Christ’s warning to the lukewarm Laodicean church takes on a new flavor when we understand how the city of Laodicea sat on an aqueduct of putrid water that was neither hot nor cold (Revelation 3:14–16). Exhortations to the suffering Philippians carry a greater force once we realize that Paul wrote them from his prison cell (Philippians 1:28–30). And Christ’s confrontations with the Pharisees are all the more condemning when we understand the blasphemy and hypocrisy of their works-righteousness (cf. Luke 20; John 8:12–59).

The modern trend of Christian contextualization is antithetical to a historical interpretation. Rather than taking the audience back to the original setting of the text at hand, many of today’s preachers labor to sever the biblical text from its historical moorings and transport it into a contemporary setting. Hence the explosion of sermons based on pop culture, racy subject matter, and social justice. Even the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) juggernaut is symptomatic of this problem, by speculating about what Jesus might do, rather than examining what He did do.

Moreover, such an approach relegates the biblical text to the role of supporting cast in the preacher’s consumer-driven production. And when Scripture no longer holds primacy, the ability to play fast and loose with the biblical text grows. Nowhere is that trend more evident than in churches where growth is measured numerically rather than spiritually. By widening the narrow gate, seeker-sensitive churches have filled vast auditoriums with people who do not understand the cost of faith and repentance. Instead of being sensitive to the only true Seeker, they have pandered to the preferences of unbelievers.

Recently we discussed the dangers of a man-centered theology of salvation. Seeker-sensitive pastors routinely provide a path of least biblical resistance for the unbeliever to gain entry into God’s kingdom. And for many, Romans 10:9 is the shortcut they’ve been looking for: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”   

Paul could never have imagined his glorious, hope-filled promise would be exploited 2,000 years later as a two-step altar call formula—simply confess and believe. It has become a comfortable, spiritual Fast Pass for people who have no interest in submitting to the lordship of Christ.

Joseph Prince, a mega-church pastor, best-selling author, and TBN regular, offers this cheap invitation to those who visit his website:

The Bible tells us how to be saved and have eternal life: Believe in our hearts that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the grave, and confess with our mouths that He is our Lord and Savior. . . . To be saved and to receive all that Jesus has done for you, you can make Him your Lord and Savior today by praying this prayer: “Lord Jesus, thank You for loving me and dying for me on the cross. Your precious blood washes me clean of every sin. You are my Lord and my Savior, now and forever. I believe that You rose from the dead and that You are alive today. Because of Your finished work, I am now a beloved child of God and heaven is my home. Thank You for giving me eternal life, and filling my heart with Your peace and joy. Amen” (emphasis added). ^[1] http://support.josephprince.org/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/124/22/a-is-jesus-christ-the-only-way-to-heaven-what-must-i-do-to-be-saved-and-have-eternal-life

Unfortunately, Joseph Prince’s textploitation is nothing unusual in the current evangelical climate. Regardless, reading the rest of Romans would be far more beneficial than tuning into Prince’s next broadcast. Paul made it clear elsewhere that our confession and faith are proven false if there is no fruit of repentance in our lives (Romans 6:1–18).

So with that in mind, what do we make of Paul’s simple confession of faith? Is it really all that’s required for salvation? This is why the original context is vital.

Paul wrote his theological magnum opus to Christians whose lives were under constant threat from the Roman government. The god-complex carried by deluded emperors developed into a cult of Caesar among the residents of Rome. Citizens needed to express their primary allegiance to their self-deified ruler by confessing “Caesar is lord.” Failure to do so was usually met with a grizzly death.

Paul’s readers needed to be encouraged to remain steadfast in their faithfulness to Christ under the threat of execution. The promise of salvation through confession and belief was never intended to provide a ticket to heaven by jumping through two easy hoops. It was the promise of eternal life to Christians who could very well lose their physical life because they confessed Jesus—not Caesar—as Lord.

The greatest tragedy of Prince’s mishandling of Romans 10:9 is that he has taken a profession of faith that cost many Christians their lives and turned it into a profession of faith that avoids any personal cost whatsoever. It may create more converts, but what exactly are they converting to?

John MacArthur warns strongly against treating Romans 10:9 as a minimum requirement for salvation. He points out that words like “Lord” and “believe” are loaded with implicit meaning that far exceeds a path of least resistance into God’s kingdom:

Many people acknowledge that Jesus is both the Son of God and Lord of the universe. But Paul is speaking of the deep, personal, abiding conviction that, without any reservation or qualification, will confess . . . Jesus as Lord, that is, will confess that Jesus is the believer’s own sovereign, ruling Lord, in whom alone he trusts for salvation and to whom he submits.

James teaches that even demons acknowledge truth about God. In a purely factual sense, they are completely orthodox in their theology. “You believe that God is one,” he writes. “You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). In other words, demons are monotheists. Satan and his fallen angels are also confirmed creationists, having watched God form the heavens and the earth simply by speaking them into existence. . . .

James’s point is that men can hold such demon belief, belief that is theologically correct but that does not include reception of Jesus as Lord. People may be well aware of their sin, be under deep conviction about it, and even have a great emotional sense of guilt from which they long to be delivered. But they do not repent and forsake the sin that causes the guilt, nor do they trust in the Savior who can forgive and remove the sin. Speaking about such people, the writer of Hebrews gives one of the most sobering warnings to be found in Scripture: “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame” (Hebrews 6:4–6). ^[2] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 9–16 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) 73.

In other words, a person can verbally confess Christ’s lordship and affirm His resurrection, and still go to hell. Confession and belief are not hoops to be jumped through. They are the affirming signs of genuine repentance from sin, true saving faith in the resurrected Savior, and authentic obedience to His commands.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. Of our previous blog series, none better embodies that emphasis than Frequently Abused Verses. The following entry from that series originally appeared on February 10, 2016. -ed.

Next week will mark the second anniversary of Jamie Coots’s death. He was a father, pastor, and one of the stars of the National Geographic Channel’s reality series, Snake Salvation. The show followed Coots’s life and ministry as a prominent leader in a sect of Holiness Pentecostals who incorporate handling poisonous snakes into their worship in fulfilment of the promise of supernatural power and protection in Mark 16:17-18.

Coots died from a snakebite.

Snake handling—once popular throughout the Appalachian states—has dwindled to a tiny subculture of Pentecostals who believe in the practice of the extreme signs and wonders described in Mark 16:17-18. Specifically, they teach that they have the ability to cast out demons, speak in tongues, handle poisonous snakes, drink poison, and heal the sick (they also expose themselves to open flames, although that particular sign is not included in Mark’s gospel). And every couple years, the movement garners headlines because another pastor or congregant has died attempting to fulfill those supposed promises.

Virtually all other charismatics would disavow such extreme behavior, while holding just as tightly to the promises conveyed in the closing verses of Mark’s gospel—albeit more selectively.

For example, charismatic prosperity preacher Benny Hinn cites the passage in defense of his faith-healing ministry: “I knew the Lord had told me to pray for the sick as part of preaching the gospel, just as He told the disciples, in Mark 16:18: ‘They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” ^[1] Benny Hinn, The Anointing (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997) 49.

And in his book When Heaven Invades Earth, Bill Johnson—pastor of Bethel Redding, one of the most influential charismatic churches in the country—points to the end of Mark’s gospel as a promise of God’s ongoing miraculous work.

As our ministry teams travel around the world, we have come to expect certain things. Healing, deliverance, and conversions are the fruits of our labors. While healing is seldom the subject we teach on, it is one of the most common results. As we proclaim the message of the Kingdom of God, people get well. The Father seems to say, Amen! To His own message by confirming the word with power (see Mark 16:20). ^[2] Bill Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth (Shippensburg, PA: Treasure House, 2003) 89.

We could go on with examples of how charismatics of various traditions lean heavily on the closing verses of Mark’s gospel, but you get the point. For many it’s a foundational passage—one that explicitly promises all believers the power to perform signs and wonders.

But is that really the point of the passage? And more importantly, do those verses even belong in your Bible to begin with? Even a simple reading of the text raises some significant questions about its Scriptural authenticity.

Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.] (Mark 16:9-20)

As you can see, there are actually two endings to Mark’s gospel contained in the above quote. Verses 9-20 are referred to as the longer ending, while the portion in brackets at the end of verse 20 is called the shorter ending—on its own it would appear immediately after verse 8. Both have appeared individually in a variety of translations—the NASB includes both.

But neither ending appears in the earliest and most reliable New Testament manuscripts. No ancient book has been more carefully preserved than the Bible—we have several thousand manuscripts, with some dating all the way back to mere decades after they were first written. And through the science of textual analysis, scholars have determined that the final verses of Mark were not in the original, inspired text.    

On top of that, as John MacArthur explains in his commentary on the passage, there are also several internal indications that Mark didn’t write either ending.

First, the transition between verse 8 and verse 9 is awkward and disjointed. The conjunction now (from the Greek word de) implies continuity with the preceding narrative, but the focus of verse 9 abruptly shifts to Mary Magdalene rather than continuing a discussion of the women referred to in verse 8. Moreover, it would be strange for Mark to wait until the end of his narrative to introduce Mary Magdalene, as if for the first time . . . when she was already mentioned three times in the prior context (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1). A similar discontinuity regards Peter, who is singled out in verse 7 yet not mentioned again in verses 9-20. The “shorter ending” . . . attempts to rectify those incongruities by highlighting both Peter and the other women. . . . But this shorter ending has even weaker manuscript evidence to support it than the longer ending.

Second, the vocabulary, style, and structure of the longer ending is not consistent with the rest of Mark’s gospel. There are eighteen words in this section that are not used elsewhere in Mark. For example, the title “Lord Jesus” is used here (v. 19) but is never used anywhere else in Mark’s account.

Third, the inclusion of apostolic signs does not fit the way the other three gospels conclude their accounts of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Though many signs mentioned in this section parallel portions of the book of Acts (cf. Acts 2:4; 9:17; 10:46; 28:8), some are clearly without biblical support, such as being able to “pick up” venomous “serpents” (though perhaps loosely based on Paul’s experience in Acts 28:3-5) or “drink any deadly poison.” ^[3] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16 (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2015) 411-412.

Summing up the case against the scriptural credentials of Mark 16:9-20, John MacArthur writes,

The evidence, both external and internal, conclusively demonstrates that verses 9-20 were not originally part of Mark’s inspired record. While they generally summarize truths taught elsewhere in the New Testament, they should always be evaluated in light of the rest of Scripture. No doctrines or practices should be established solely on them. The snake-handling preachers of the Appalachians provide a prime example of the errors that can arise from accepting these verses as authoritative.

Nonetheless, knowing that Mark 16:9-20 is not original should give believers more confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament, not less. As noted above, the science of textual analysis makes it possible for biblical scholars to identify the very few passages that were not part of the original. Such places are clearly marked in modern translations, making it easy for students of Scripture to identify them. Consequently, believers can approach the rest of the text with the settled assurance that the Bible they hold in their hands accurately reflects the original. ^[4] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16, 412.

That conclusion then begs the question: Where did these verses come from?

Most likely, they were added in by a scribe who felt Mark’s original ending was missing something. However, it does not appear that he was so audacious as to concoct an ending from his own imagination. Instead, Mark 16:9-20 is a patchwork quilt of other biblical passages concerning the life of Christ after His resurrection, His commissioning of the apostles, and stories from their ministry in the founding of the church.

Time and space don’t permit me to break down the probable origin of each verse, but let me encourage you to listen to John MacArthur’s sermon on the passage, called “The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel,” or consult his commentary on Mark 9-16 for more details on how this extrabiblical passage was likely assembled.

And what of Mark’s original ending? Why was it deemed so deficient in the first place? True, it is abrupt and to the point: “They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8). But as John MacArthur explains, that abrupt ending perfectly fits both Mark’s style and his purpose for writing at all.

Mark’s ending is abrupt but it is not incomplete. The tomb was empty; the angelic announcement explained that Jesus had risen; and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed those events. The purpose of Mark’s gospel was to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). Having amply made that point, no further proof was necessary.

Throughout his gospel, Mark consistently punctuated key events in the life of the Lord Jesus by emphasizing the wonder He evoked in the hearts and minds of others. Mark simply moves from one point of amazement about Christ to the next. So the narrative ends where it ought to end. It climaxes with amazement and bewilderment at the resurrection of the crucified Savior (cf. John 20:31). In so doing, it leaves the reader in a place of wonder, awe, and worship, centered on its glorious subject: the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. ^[5] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16, 417-418.

So while Mark 16:9-20 may be a significant proof text for many charismatics, their interpretation is invalidated when we understand that those verses never belonged in Scripture to begin with.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 5, 2017. -ed.

God told me.

The Holy Spirit laid it on my heart.

The Spirit is compelling me.

Those phrases and others like them are frequently thrown around the church today without giving many people pause. In fact, it seems the Holy Spirit’s primary role is laying burdens on believers and compelling them to deliver specific, timely messages to the church.

But how do we know when it’s actually the Holy Spirit, and not just a heavy conscience, a strong personal desire, or emotion-driven enthusiasm? For that matter, what’s to say it wasn’t simply some bad pizza? For all the talk about the Holy Spirit directing us, speaking to us and through us, and compelling us this way and that, how do we know when God is truly leading us?

We recently asked John MacArthur about how we can discern the Spirit’s ongoing work in the lives of believers. Here’s what he said:

We ought to look for the Holy Spirit’s leadership, but we must be cautious about assigning to Him responsibility for our words and actions. Our feelings are not necessarily a trustworthy source of information, nor are they an accurate indication that God has a special message to deliver to us or through us.

God’s people need to be circumspect when it comes to His leadership, particularly through subjective impressions and inclinations. Moreover, we need to be wary of those who highjack the prophetic seat and presume to speak for God.

In the days ahead, we’re going to look at some landmark teaching from John MacArthur regarding the propensity of many believers to look for eternal truth in all the wrong places. You won’t want to miss this engaging, insightful series that deals with the pitfalls of subjectivity and postmodernity, and the sufficiency of Scripture.

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 12, 2017. -ed.

You have undoubtedly heard people say things like, “God is calling me to the mission field,” or “God led me to attend this college,” or “We feel God wants us to get married.” Perhaps you have even said such things yourself.

Christians who use expressions like those often mean they have had an impression or a strong feeling that they interpret as a disclosure of the divine will. Even people who believe prophecy and divine revelation have ceased sometimes fall into the trap of thinking God speaks directly to us through subjective means.

Normally people who make such claims have no intention of equating their mental impressions with divine revelation. They regard the subjective “leading of the Lord” as something far less than prophetic. Yet they believe God somehow communicates His will personally to individuals through inner promptings, signs, feelings of peace or uneasiness, strong impressions on the mind, or other similar means.

For reasons we shall examine, it is not wise to seek divine guidance through subjective impressions like these. Nowhere does Scripture encourage us to attempt to discern God’s will through such means. As we shall see, that sort of decision making can lead to confusion, disappointment, and sometimes spiritual tragedy.

And the truth is that treating subjective impressions as messages from the Holy Spirit is not really much different from claiming to receive divine revelation. Though most Christians who follow subjective impressions would not dream of listening to extrabiblical “prophecies,” in effect they are doing the same thing.

In fact, some advocates of modern prophetic revelation want to erase any distinction between subjective impressions and the gift of prophecy mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12–14. Professor Wayne Grudem, for example, who has produced the most thorough theological defense of the modern prophecy movement, believes God is giving revelation today chiefly through mental impressions. He even defines revelation as “something God brings to mind.” ^[1] Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 42, 115. He suggests that when God providentially brings a thought to a believer’s mind, that is the New Testament gift of prophecy in operation. Thus he has elevated mental impressions to the level of prophetic revelation.

Grudem’s work has had widespread influence. And it is in many respects a fine study. He shows biblically why important distinctions must be made between Old Testament prophecy, apostolic prophecy, and the New Testament gift of prophecy. In places (but not everywhere) his exegesis of the pertinent texts is very helpful. He includes a crucial appendix on the sufficiency of Scripture which, if heeded by his friends in the modern prophecy movement, would provide a remedy against the serious abuses that have so plagued the movement. And he offers another important appendix showing that the canon of Scripture is closed.

But it is at this very point that Grudem’s position seems most inconsistent. If the canon of Scripture is really closed; if (as Grudem rightly suggests) “it is in Scripture alone that we are to search for God’s words to us”; ^[2] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 299. and if, in his words, “the Bible is sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life” ^[3] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 300. —then what point is there in seeking additional “revelations” like the prophetic messages Grudem advocates? It is unfortunate that Grudem relegated his thoughts on the canon of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture to the book’s final appendixes. If this had been the starting point for his study of prophecy, perhaps he would have reached very different conclusions.

Grudem’s defense of prophetic revelation has opened the door to a host of bizarre and misleading “prophecies” that have plagued evangelical Christianity over the past several years. Scores of churches worldwide have implemented Grudem’s theology and are encouraging people to share mere mental impressions as if they were prophetic messages from God. Ironically, Grudem’s work is frequently summoned to defend even the most outlandish aspects of a movement that has utterly ignored his many clear warnings against abuse of the prophetic gifts.

To his credit, Grudem appeals for a view of prophecy that “would still include a strong affirmation of the closing of the New Testament canon (so that no new words of equal authority are given today), of the sufficiency of Scripture, and of the supremacy and unique authority of the Bible in guidance.”^[4] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 15. He writes, “I am asking that charismatics . . . stop calling [prophecy] ‘a word from the Lord’—simply because that label makes it sound exactly like the Bible in authority.” ^[5] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 14. Elsewhere he writes, “Remember that what is spoken in any prophecy today is not the word of God, but is simply a human being reporting in merely human words something which God has brought to mind.” ^[6] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 262. He also warns that modern prophecy

should not be thought of as “God’s very words,” nor should the speaker preface his or her remarks with words which would give that impression, such as, “Thus says the Lord,” or, “Hear the words of God,” etc.—those statements should be reserved for Scripture alone. Something like, “I think the Lord is showing me that . . .” or, “I think the Lord is indicating that . . .” or, “It seems that the Lord is putting on my heart a concern that . . .” would all be much more appropriate, and far less misleading. ^[7] The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 133.

If those warnings were consistently heeded, charismatic “prophets” could save their churches much grief and confusion.

But even in the denomination Grudem himself once identified with—the Association of Vineyard Churches—his words of caution are frequently ignored in the prophets’ actual practice.

James Ryle is himself a Vineyard pastor [Ryle passed away in 2015, Ed.]. He does give lip service to Grudem’s caution. He writes,

How often have you heard someone say casually, “The Lord spoke to me,” or “The Lord told me” to do this or that?

. . . Many within the church use these terms to justify their own desires and opinions. Possibly they feel that this puts what they are saying beyond challenge. After all, how does one argue with a “word from the Lord”?

In light of this problem I have found it a good policy to avoid such expressions and simply say, “It occurred to me” when I am sharing some insight which I’ve received in prayer or devotions. This removes unnecessary stumbling blocks and allows more people to hear the message without being distracted with the way the word is being presented. ^[8] James Ryle, Hippo in the Garden (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1993), 30-31.

But note the significant difference between Grudem’s position and Ryle’s. Grudem believes prophecy is merely “something God brought to mind”—not “God’s very words.” He seems eager to avoid confusion on this point. Ryle’s perspective is markedly different. He says he employs terminology like “It occurred to me” to avoid “unnecessary stumbling blocks.” But he clearly does think of prophecy as God’s very words. After analyzing the dangers of saying things like “God spoke to me,” he states, “Nonetheless, the Lord does speak to us today.” In practice he cannot avoid placing modern words of prophecy on the same level with the written Word of God.

Ryle does this perhaps without even realizing it. He repeatedly cites Matthew 4:4 in defense of modern prophecy: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” ^[9] Hippo in the Garden, 32, 39, 62 (emphasis added).—taking a verse that clearly speaks of Scripture and applying it to modern words of prophecy.

Furthermore, despite his stated preference for expressions like, “It occurred to me,” Ryle never once uses that expression or any like it in his book. Instead, the book is filled with statements like, “I heard the voice of the Lord,” “The voice of the Lord spoke to me,” “God was speaking to me again,” “The Lord Himself was standing before me . . . speaking directly to me,” “Again I heard the voice of the Lord. . . . The Lord continued [speaking]. . . . The Lord seemed to pause. . . . Then He delivered the knockout blow,” “The Lord was saying to me,” “The Lord spoke to him, telling him to call [me],” “He speaks to me,” “I received a word from the Lord,” “I sensed the Holy Spirit say to me,” “I treasure these words from the Lord, holding them in my heart with the deepest regard,” “These were the exact words I was given,” “The prophetic word from the heart of the Lord was spoken,” “This is what the Holy Spirit showed me,” and similar expressions. ^[10] Hippo in the Garden, 13-14, 15, 18, 20, 25-29, 83, 91, 113, 115-116, 142. All Ryle’s interpretations of his own dreams and visions are stated with dogmatic conviction.

Ryle continually uses terminology that suggests he has canonized modern prophecy—at least in his own mind. “The Holy Spirit inspires us to speak through any number of means,” he says, referring to his prophecies as “inspired utterance.” ^[11] Hippo in the Garden, 99.] At the end of the book, Ryle suggests that when the hippo of modern prophecy comes into the garden of mainstream evangelicalism, “the church will be found in the midst of the world, speaking forth the words of God to a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we will shine as light, holding forth the word of life.” ^[12] Hippo in the Garden, 292 (emphasis added).

So in practice, Ryle finds it impossible not to equate his own prophecies with the words of Scripture, even though he appears to be trying to avoid this error. (In one place, Ryle says, “We must stop putting our own words in the Lord’s mouth. . . . Scripture alone is our sure foundation.” ^[13] Hippo in the Garden, 54-55. To that I add a hearty amen.)

He is not alone in this failing. Anyone who is truly convinced that God is speaking fresh words of revelation will inevitably view the later prophecies as somehow more relevant and more personal than the message of Scripture, which is more than two thousand years old. Inevitably, wherever personal prophecy has been stressed, Scripture has been deemphasized. Two thousand years of church history confirms that this is true.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

Es significativo que uno de los nombres bíblicos de Cristo sea Admirable, Consejero (Isaías 9:6). Él es el Consejero Supremo y Definitivo a quien podemos acudir en busca de consejo; y Su Palabra es la fuente desde donde podemos extraer sabiduría divina. ¿Qué podría ser más admirable que eso? 

De hecho, uno de los aspectos más gloriosos de la perfecta suficiencia de Cristo es el consejo admirable y gran sabiduría que Él suple en tiempos de desesperación, confusión, miedo, ansiedad y tristeza. Él es el Consejero por excelencia. 

Ahora, esto no es para menospreciar la importancia de los cristianos aconsejándose unos a otros. Hay ciertamente una necesidad crucial de consejería bíblica sana dentro del cuerpo de Cristo. No debatiría ni por un momento el importante rol de quienes están dotados espiritualmente para dar aliento, discernimiento, consuelo, consejo, compasión y ayuda a otros. 

De hecho, uno de los problemas que ha llevado a la actual plaga de mala consejería es que las iglesias no han hecho tanto bien como deberían, permitiendo que las personas con esos dones espirituales ministren con excelencia. Las complejidades de esta época moderna hacen mucho más difícil que nunca el tomar el tiempo necesario para escuchar con atención, servir a otros a través de la entrega personal compasiva y proveer la comunión cercana, necesaria para que el cuerpo de la iglesia disfrute de salud y vitalidad.  

 Las iglesias han mirado a la psicología para llenar el vacío, pero no va a funcionar. Los psicólogos profesionales no son sustitutos de gente dotada espiritualmente; y el consejo que la psicología ofrece no puede reemplazar la sabiduría bíblica y el poder divino. Por otra parte, la psicología tiende a volver a la gente dependiente de un terapista, mientras que aquellos que ejercitan dones espirituales verdaderos, llevan a la gente hacia un Salvador todo suficiente y Su Palabra toda suficiente.  

Un Salmo sobre la Suficiencia de la Palabra de Dios 

El rey David fue un ejemplo de alguien quien ocasionalmente buscó consejo de consejeros humanos, pero al final, siempre recurría a Dios en busca de respuestas. Como muchos de los salmos revelan, él era especialmente dependiente únicamente de Dios cuando luchaba con problemas o emociones personales (Salmos 18). Cuando le golpeó la depresión o confusión interna, se volvió hacia Dios y luchó en oración (Salmos 73). Cuando el problema era su propio pecado, él se mostró arrepentido, quebrantado y contrito (Salmos 51). La persona madura espiritualmente siempre se vuelve a Dios por ayuda en tiempos de ansiedad, angustia, confusión o inquietud en el alma ––y se aseguran consejo sabio y liberación. 

Eso es debido a que toda necesidad del alma humana es básicamente espiritual. No existe algo llamado ‘problema psicológico’ no relacionado a causas espirituales o físicas. Dios suple recursos divinos suficientes para suplir todas esas necesidades por completo. David entendió eso. 

Sus escritos reflejaron la profundidad de la experiencia humana, emoción y conocimiento espiritual de alguien quien ha experimentado plenamente los extremos de la vida. Él conoció el regocijo de pasar de pastor a rey. Él escribió acerca de todo, desde el triunfo absoluto, hasta el desaliento amargo. Él luchó con un dolor tan profundo que apenas podía soportar vivir. 

Su propio hijo Absalón intentó matarlo y luego, fue asesinado. Él sufrió una culpabilidad horrible debido a la inmoralidad y asesinato. Sus hijos le trajeron constante aflicción. Él luchaba por entender las dos cosas ––la naturaleza de Dios y su propio corazón. De Dios, él dijo: “Grande es Jehová” (Salmos 145:3), mientras que de sí mismo él dijo: “Lávame más y más de mi maldad, y límpiame de mi pecado” (Salmos 51:2). Él le dijo a Dios lo qué sentía y clamó por alivio ––a pesar que admitió que Dios tenía todo el derecho de castigarlo. 

Al final de algunos de los salmos de David, él miró por una ventana de esperanza, y otras veces, no. Pero David siempre fue a Dios, porque entendió la soberanía de Dios y su propia depravación. Él sabía que sólo su todo-suficiente Salvador tenía las respuestas a sus necesidades y el poder de aplicar las respuestas. Y sabía que esas respuestas eran encontradas en la verdad acerca de Dios revelada en Su Palabra, que es en sí misma perfectamente suficiente. El Dios suficiente se reveló a Sí mismo en Su Palabra suficiente. 

El Salmo 19:7-14 es la declaración más monumental sobre la suficiencia de las Escrituras, que jamás se haya hecho en términos concisos. Escrito por David bajo la inspiración del Espíritu Santo, ofrece un testimonio inquebrantable de Dios mismo acerca de la suficiencia de Su Palabra para cada situación. Refuta las enseñanzas de aquellos que creen que debemos ampliar la Palabra de Dios con verdad obtenida de la psicología moderna. 

En los versículos 7 al 9, David hace seis afirmaciones acerca de las Escrituras. Cada una de las seis afirmaciones resalta una característica de la Palabra de Dios y describe su efecto en la vida de quien la recibe. 

La Escritura es perfecta, convierte el alma. 

En la primera afirmación (v.7), él dice: “La ley de Jehová es perfecta, que convierte el alma”. La Palabra hebrea traducida “ley” es torah, que enfatiza la naturaleza didáctica de la Escritura. Aquí, David la usa para referirse a la suma de lo que Dios ha revelado para nuestra instrucción, sea un credo (lo que creemos), carácter (lo que somos) o conducta (lo que hacemos). 

“Perfecta” es la traducción de una palabra hebrea que significa “entero”, “completo” o “suficiente”. Comunica la idea de algo que es integral, al punto de cubrir todos los aspectos de un problema. La Escritura es integral, corporizando todo lo que es necesario para la vida espiritual de uno. El contraste implícito de David es con el razonamiento imperfecto, insuficiente e incorrecto de los hombres. 

La ley perfecta de Dios, dijo David, afecta a las personas porque “convierte el alma” (v.7). La palabra hebrea traducida “convierte” puede significar “restaura”, “revive” o “refresca”; pero mi sinónimo favorito es “transforma”. La palabra “alma” (en hebreo, nephesh) se refiere a la persona de uno, uno mismo o el corazón. Es traducida de todas esas maneras (y muchas más) en el Antiguo Testamento. La esencia de ella es la persona interior, la persona completa, el verdadero usted. 

Parafraseando las palabras de David, las Escrituras son tan poderosas e integrales que pueden convertir o transformar toda la persona, convirtiendo a alguien exactamente en la persona que Dios quiere que sea. La Palabra de Dios es suficiente para restaurar mediante la salvación incluso a la vida más destrozada, un hecho del que David mismo dio abundante testimonio. 

La Escritura es digna de confianza, imparte sabiduría. 

David desarrolla aún más el alcance de la suficiencia de las Escrituras en el Salmo 19:7, “El testimonio de Jehová es fiel, que hace sabio al sencillo”. “Testimonio” habla de la Escritura como un testigo divino. La Escritura es el testimonio seguro de Dios sobre quién Él es y lo que Él requiere de nosotros. “Fiel” significa que su testimonio es inquebrantable, inamovible, inconfundible, confiable y digno de confianza. Proporciona una base sobre la cual construir nuestras vidas y destinos eternos. 

La Palabra fiel de Dios convierte al sencillo en sabio (v.7). La palabra hebrea traducida “sencillo” viene de una expresión que significa “una puerta abierta”. Evoca la imagen de una persona inocente que no sabe cuándo cerrar su mente a la enseñanza falsa o impura. Él es falto de discernimiento, ignorante, crédulo. Pero la Palabra de Dios lo hace sabio. “Sabio” no habla simplemente de alguien que conoce algunos hechos, sino de uno que es hábil en el arte de la vida piadosa. Él se somete a las Escrituras y sabe cómo aplicarla a sus circunstancias. De esta manera, la Palabra de Dios toma una mente simple y sin discernimiento, y la capacita en todas las cuestiones de la vida. Esto también es en contraste con la sabiduría de los hombres, que en realidad es necedad. 

La Escritura es recta, produce gozo 

David agrega una tercera declaración acerca de las Escrituras. Él escribe: “Los mandamientos de Jehová son rectos, que alegran el corazón”. Los mandamientos son principios divinos y guías para el carácter y la conducta. Ya que Dios nos creó y sabe cómo debemos vivir para ser productivos para Su gloria, Él ha puesto en las Escrituras todos los principios que necesitamos para vivir una vida piadosa. 

Los mandamientos de Dios, dijo David, son “rectos”. En lugar de indicar simplemente qué es correcto y qué es erróneo, la Palabra tiene el sentido de enseñarle a alguien el camino verdadero. Las verdades de la Escritura establecen el camino correcto a través del difícil laberinto de la vida. Esa es una confianza maravillosa. Muchas personas hoy están angustiadas o abatidas porque carecen de dirección y propósito. La mayoría busca respuestas en las fuentes equivocadas. La Palabra de Dios no solamente provee la luz para nuestro camino (Salmo 119:105), sino que establece la ruta enfrente nuestro. 

Debido a que nos conduce a través del camino recto en la vida, la Palabra de Dios trae gran gozo. Si usted está deprimido, ansioso, temeroso o dudoso, aprenda a obedecer el consejo de Dios y comparta el deleite resultante. No recurra a actividades autoindulgentes como la autoestima y la autorrealización. Enfóquese en la verdad divina. Ahí encontrará el gozo verdadero y duradero. Todas las otras fuentes son temporales y fugaces. 

¿No es la Palabra de Dios asombrosa en su suficiencia? Es perfecta, no le falta nada, es confiable y establece el rumbo para una vida productiva. Como tal, nos transforma a la imagen de Cristo, nos otorga sabiduría para cada momento y nos llena con gozo eterno.

¡Qué trágico que es cuando dejamos de lado la fuente de sabiduría divina, prefiriendo la sabiduría del hombre, que es impotente e insuficiente! 

La próxima vez, veremos las siguientes tres declaraciones de la suficiencia de las Escrituras, y saborearemos la dulzura de la Palabra de Dios. 

Únase a la conversación                                                                                                                           

¿Qué Escrituras han tenido un impacto profundo en su vida durante tiempos de lucha con el pecado o el sufrimiento? 

(Adaptado de Nuestra Suficiencia en Cristo) 

In the lead-up to the Truth Matters conference in October, we will be focusing our attention on the sufficiency, authority, and clarity of Scripture. One of our previous blog series, Looking for Truth in All the Wrong Places, strongly emphasizes those doctrines. The following entry from that series originally appeared on June 21, 2017. -ed.

If God is still speaking to His people today—particularly through mental impressions and premonitions—how can believers exercise discernment when it comes to interpreting and applying these divine messages? Put simply, how is following the private, subjective “leading” of the Lord any more reliable than gazing into a crystal ball?

As we saw last time, biblical discernment runs contrary to the kind of subjective mysticism many promote in the church today. Without any objective criteria, there is no means for determining truth from error. Such blithe subjectivity leaves people at the mercy of whatever mystical “voice” they’re listening to.

Upper Abdominal Distress

It is therefore ironic that advocates of mysticism inevitably treat discernment itself as if it were some kind of subjective, mystical ability. One author speaks of discernment as “a spiritual function,” by which he evidently means that discernment does not involve the intellect. ^[1] William DeArteaga, Quenching the Spirit (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1992), 55. For a further discussion of DeArteaga’s work, see chapter 6 of Reckless Faith. In one of my earlier books I quoted Bill Hamon, one of the leading proponents of modern revelatory prophecy. Hamon’s recipe for discernment is a classic case of mystical anti-intellectualism. He believes prophecies can be properly evaluated only by people willing to set reason and logic aside:

I have sometimes heard people say, “I did not witness with that prophecy.” But after questioning them, I discovered that what they really meant was that the prophecy did not fit their theology, personal desires or goals, or their emotions reacted negatively to it. They failed to understand that we do not bear witness with the soul—the mind, emotions or will.

Our reasoning is in the mind, not the spirit. So our traditions, beliefs and strong opinions are not true witnesses to prophetic truth. The spirit reaction originates deep within our being. Many Christians describe the physical location of its corresponding sensation as the upper abdominal area.

A negative witness—with a message of “no,” “be careful” or “something’s not right”—usually manifests itself with a nervous, jumpy or uneasy feeling. There is a deep, almost unintelligible sensation that something is wrong. This sense can only be trusted when we are more in tune with our spirit than with our thoughts. If our thinking is causing these sensations, then it could be only a soulish reaction.

On the other hand, when God’s Spirit is bearing witness with our spirit that a prophetic word is right, is of God and is according to His will and purpose, then our spirit reacts with the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We have a deep, unexplainable peace and joy, a warm, loving feeling—or even a sense of our spirit jumping up and down with excitement. This sensation lets us know that the Holy Spirit is bearing witness with our spirit that everything is in order, even though we may not understand everything that is being said, or our soul may not be able to adjust immediately to all the thoughts being presented. ^[2] Bill Hamon, “How to Receive a Personal Prophecy,” Charisma (April 1991), 68 (emphasis added).

Notice that Hamon’s emphasis is entirely on feeling, while he derides the intellect, theology, reason, understanding, and by implication, true biblical wisdom. A reaction in the upper abdominal region is supposed to be a more reliable gauge of truth than all those things.

But that is superstition, not discernment. How your upper abdomen feels about a thing is certainly no measure of truth or falsehood. Neither is “a nervous, jumpy, or uneasy feeling” apart from any rational cause. “A deep, unexplainable peace and joy, a warm, loving feeling—or even a sense of [your] spirit jumping up and down with excitement” is no proof that a supposed prophecy is reliable. Those who practice this sort of “discernment” epitomize reckless faith.

And those who seek truth by analyzing inner feelings are likely to wind up with nothing but confusion.

Dueling Prophets

My editor once attended a service at the Anaheim Vineyard where two “prophets” gave contradictory prophecies. It happened in a Sunday morning worship service. When the congregational singing was over, John Wimber stepped to the platform. Before he could say anything, a young man in the congregation stood and began loudly to prophesy judgment against the leaders of the church. “Jerusalem! Jerusalem!” he began, echoing Luke 13:34, “you persecute My prophets and stone My messengers. My displeasure burns hot toward the leadership of this church for the way you have scorned My prophets and ignored My prophecies. . . .” and so on. The man evidently was disgruntled at the treatment he had received at the hands of church leaders, and this “prophecy” seemed to be his way of striking back. He prophesied in that manner for five minutes or more, earnestly calling the elders of the church to repentance. His entire message was in first person as if from God.

Immediately when he finished, before John Wimber could respond, another “prophet” from the other side of the congregation popped up and began to prophesy exactly the opposite message. This prophet began with a loose paraphrase of Jeremiah 29:11: “Oh, pastors and leaders of this church, I know My thoughts toward you—thoughts of mercy, and not of judgment. I have loved you with an everlasting love and have laid up for you a crown in heaven, My beloved. You have done according to all My good pleasure, and henceforth all men will rise up and call you blessed. . . .” etcetera, etcetera.

When the second man finished, a woman stood and sang a song, another person spoke in tongues, and one or two others quoted Bible verses or shared something brief. Then the service continued with Wimber making announcements. No reference was made to the two contradictory prophecies. No attempt was made to explain the dilemma or interpret either prophecy. Members of the congregation were simply left to draw their own conclusions about which, if either, of the two prophecies was correct.

That illustrates the impossible situation that arises when people are encouraged to voice their own subjective impressions as if they were divine prophecy. And it also reveals the predicament we are placed in if we must allow a sensation in our upper abdominal area to determine the truth or falsehood of a prophetic message.

Notice that both prophets’ messages echoed biblical terminology. Both of them were delivered with great conviction. Both of them employed first-person pronouns, as if God Himself were doing the speaking. Yet they flatly contradicted each other. They might both be false prophecies, but there is no way they could both be true. How were the people in the congregation supposed to determine which, if either, was correct? If they followed the gut-feeling approach, all the disgruntled people in the church undoubtedly opted for the first prophecy, believing they now had a word from the Lord to confirm their displeasure with their leaders.

The obvious fact is that once we stray into the realm of subjectivity, we have no way to determine what is really true.

(Adapted from Reckless Faith.)

Have you ever attended a church where public prophecies are allowed, or even encouraged, during the service? Have you heard professing believers claim to have special prophetic insights or words of knowledge directly from God? Such behavior is commonplace in charismatic circles, even in many churches that would verbally affirm the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Our culture has a growing fixation on diet. That’s understandable considering the undeniable connection between the quality—and source—of the food we eat and the health of our bodies. But as Christians, how much attention do we pay to our spiritual health?

Biblical sufficiency has been the heartbeat of John MacArthur’s teaching—he has continually used Scripture to interpret, defend, and illustrate itself throughout his five decades of ministry. With the conference fast approaching, we recently asked John why he remains so relentless in his defense of the absolute sufficiency of Scripture.

The language of therapy has a stranglehold on our culture. Children don’t lie anymore, they tell stories. Serial adulterers have been re-branded as sex addicts. Drunkenness is now an alcohol disorder—in fact, addiction itself is treated like a disease. Even the gross perversion of pedophilia is listed as a psychiatric disorder in the ever-expanding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Ecumenism is nothing new. Satan always works to mingle the truth with error, and the evangelistic co-belligerence of evangelicals and Catholics is just one example. But for some reason, this unlikely doctrinal mashup has been growing in popularity for the past two decades.

The Bible isn’t some mystical transmitter of truth. It’s not a coded message with numerological keys. Nor does its text require ethereal insight to unlock its meaning. God has kindly chosen to communicate with man by engaging the mental faculties He has blessed us with—through the clear, objective, and rational expression of His revealed Word.