My Comments to and From David James - Part Four

Jose says:
October 9, 2012 at 11:03 am
Dear David,

Thank you so much truly for your gracious reply/ies to my own posts and what I have written on yours – I mean this from my heart, it is important for you and your readers to know this. In the area of discernment and apologetics it is often difficult to separate an assessment of a teaching, doctrine, or opinion while keeping oneself from appearing to be personal, that is; from writing in such a manner that will allow for a “fair and balanced” (no pun intended) assessment of another person’s writing that does not appear to be of a personal nature.

Having said that, I must clarify for the sakes of your readers and for those who read my own posts on this topic; there is much evidence on the web, and I can cite the names here of the sources, but will leave it for a post on my own website I will be writing soon; of people who have called Jonathan Cahn a Theosophist, a Kabbalist, an Existentialist, and a Mystic, although you have not made this charge in your book from what I’ve been able to read thus far.

I have written several posts about your book, and responding to others like T.A. McMahon, Jimmy DeYoung, Brannon Howse, and some others, and although by your own assessment, I have been harsh, I will break down sentence by sentence what these men have written and said about Rabbi Cahn’s book and about Rabbi Cahn, and will allow the reader to determine for themselves if I have been harsh.

Again, it is difficult in the area of Apologetics and Discernment not to appear to be personal when in fact one is critiquing another’s writings, and sometimes the very core of what they fundamentally believe. This is why I believe I’ve struck a chord here, because it indicts statements and reviews and brings those who made them before the light where everyone can determine for themselves whether or not these statements are warranted, because all things are laid bare by the light of God’s Word and those who serve Him in spirit and in truth.

I write to you with all sincerity brother, I am very concerned for you and for those who are your associates, just as you say you are about Cahn and his book. It is understandable that you would be concerned over his book, but consider this; how will you in your theology react when God’s two witnesses appear on the scene of human history (if we live to see this in our lifetime)? Because according to your theology, these things ceased with the closing of the New Testament Cannon – a theological supposition that is as dangerous and destructive as hyper Pentecostalism is with its acceptance of anything that is miraculous without first testing the spirits to see if they are from God, as we are commanded to do.

Let me explain; there are four schools of Cessationism and they are the following, I do this for yours and my readership who may not know what these are:

Concentric Cessationists believe that the miraculous gifts have indeed ceased in the mainstream church and evangelized areas, but appear in unreached areas as an aid to spreading the Gospel (Luther and Calvin, though they were somewhat inconsistent in this position).

Classical Cessationists assert that the “sign gifts” such as prophecy, healing and speaking in tongues ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canon of Scripture. They only served as launching pads for the spreading of the Gospel; as affirmations of God’s revelation. However, these Cessationists do believe that God still occasionally does miracles today, such as healings or divine guidance, so long as these “miracles” do not accredit new doctrine or add to the New Testament canon. Richard Gaffin, John F. MacArthur and Daniel B. Wallace are perhaps the best-known classical Cessationists.

Full Cessationists argue that along with no miraculous gifts, there are also no miracles performed by God today. This argument, of course, turns on one’s understanding of the term, “miracle.” B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, F.N. Lee.

Consistent Cessationists believe that not only were the miraculous gifts only for the establishment of the first-century church, but the so-called fivefold ministry found in Eph. 4 was also a transitional institution (i.e., There are no more apostles or prophets, but also no more pastors, teachers, or evangelists).

(From A Twisted Crown of Thorns Website which cites its origin at Monergism, a Reform site.)

I don’t know which one of these you fall into, and of course, you may even find yourself in disagreement with some of your own colleagues in this respect, because one may hold to one school of thought whereas another holds to another school of thought. I do not fall into any of these and I am not a Pentecostal, nor am I a Charismatic, though because of my beliefs in the gifts and calling of God, some may call me that – I’ve been called a lot of things in my lifetime, and I’ve learned that the only important thing is what the Lord Himself will call me on that day that I stand before Him. I do not ascribe to the so-called New Apostolic Reformation, though I do know enough about it at this juncture to throw it entirely out without first thoroughly examining its claims – its proponents, and what it’s all about – in light of Scripture.

I have spent thirty-two years in the study of Judaism and Christianity, (should’ve gone to seminary as you did, but I am self-taught), and during that period have been working on a concise history of what is today called Messianic Judaism and its various permutations and differences. I am currently teaching this at Beth Israel as part of a multi-part series.

I am also at work on my own study of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the accompanying signs and wonders which followed up until the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. But, I’ve noticed that in your book there is a section where you criticize Cahn for quoting extra-Biblical passages such as from the Talmud, the Zohar, and may I assume also from Josephus’ writings, the writings of the Church Fathers?

In your book, you question their use as historical narratives, on the basis that they are not part of the cannon of Scripture and therefore cannot be accepted a “authoritative” for that reason. If one were to follow that reasoning, then no historical work outside of the Bible is of any value, and therefore cannot be used when studying the historical aspects of the Holy Bible.

Then others like F.F. Bruce, Josh MacDowell, Francis Schaeffer, and yes; Jonathan Cahn’s use of these in Apologetics is to be dismissed en toto. This is untenable, because it is precisely the extra-Biblical narratives which the effective apologist employs in support of the historicity and reliability of the Holy Bible. Think it through.

No true apologist advocates that extra-Biblical works such as The Talmud, The Zohar, the Rabbinic, Midrashic, and Haggadic writings of the rabbis and the works of Philo of Alexandria, or Flavius Josephus, or the writings of the Church Fathers be placed on an equal footing with Holy Writ, and I believe you realize that; it must go without saying. And I can tell you with full knowledge and authority on this, neither does Jonathan Cahn. It is simply not true.

As a believer I agree with you in Sola Scriptura; the Word of God alone as our sole authority, but as a historian, to infer, as you do in your book, that to cite an extra-Biblical source for use as evidence is to equate that source and give it the authority that only Scripture possesses; is a simplistic method of over-generalization, and conclusions based upon an incorrect understanding of what Cahn has written. Before you retort, I will explain to you why this is so, and I will cite just one example. Citing all of the examples from our book requires a volume all its own and I am at work on that as I write this, so I will only cite the following example for now, and that should suffice.

Let us begin by examining own writing in this regard straight from your book specifically on pages 198-200, where you dismiss Cahn’s use of the Talmud, the Zohar, and other rabbinic writings, and equate his use of both as promoting classical Jewish mysticism – and I quote here directly from your book:

“Cahn appears to uncritically accept the writings of the Talmud concerning this miracle (the story of the seven branch Menorah’s miraculous lighting for eight days with just one day’s worth of oil), even though there is no scriptural support, and presents it to his congregation as absolute fact. In this eight-minute segment of the message, he also refers to other miracles associated with the temple service in 30 A.D.

“Perhaps such miracles did occur, but without scriptural support, there is no way to know for certain. At best, this account makes for an interesting historical footnote, but it cannot be treated as factual in the way that Cahn has. There is no way to know what really happened and there is no way that Cahn way to know that this was not simply a Jewish myth.

“Unfortunately, this treatment of the rabbinic material is consistent with Cahn’s frequent practice of ‘discovering and revealing’ hidden mysteries – be it in the Bible or in extrabiblical (sic) Jewish writings like the Talmud or even in mystical Kabbalistic writings like the Zohar. Although it seems unlikely that Cahn would subscribe to classic Jewish mysticism, as a messianic rabbi he certainly seems to have developed his own variation.

“Have untold numbers of Christians unwittingly accepted mystical Jewish thought? And after having done so, how many pastors, teachers, and other ministry leaders have preached messages connected to the claims of The Harbinger and have publicly endorsed, promoted, and defended the book and Jonathan Cahn? How many have shared this book and the documentary with unbelieving family and friends? How many millions of dollars have gone into keeping The Harbinger on so many best-seller lists, including at or near the top of the theology category on Amazon.com for weeks? Something seems to be very wrong.”

The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? , page 200, the Berean Call, 2012

This is the problem of the letter versus the spirit of what is written. Am I to assume that we should not accept for example, a report about something as being less than reliable because its occurrence is not found in the pages of Scripture? As a historian, I find a good many facts outside of the Bible when reading history, and the finest Evangelical writers when teaching Biblical History have often used extra-Biblical sources to teach their classes. But I need not remind you of that, you’ve been to seminary, and you know what I am referring to here.

But how, you can equate as you do with Cahn above, that his use of “the rabbinic material is consistent with Cahn’s frequent practice of ‘discovering and revealing’ hidden mysteries” and claim as you do in your own words that “as a messianic rabbi he certainly seems to have developed his own variation,” is unwarranted as are all of your other claims about his book. I will point this out as the Lord wills in my own study of what you’ve written.

In conclusion to what I’ve written above; I would say that you’ve made a conscientious effort to over-examine another’s work and have concluded by making much to do about nothing. Others who have followed in your wake, have taken the ball, and have developed their own arguments to support you, but when all is said and done, all of you reflect ironically the national conscious reaction to God that The Harbinger warns about when Israel reacted two thousand five hundred years ago to His warning then, and most of our countrymen are reacting in the same manner today; with skepticism and defiance.

It is understandable such a behavior and reaction from those who do not know Christ, and who see everything pertaining to the Scriptures and God as beyond their comprehension, because such things are mysteries hidden from them and such things are spiritually discerned through God’s Word by the indwelling Holy Spirit of God in the believer who is given insight into these mysteries, these signs if you will. And yes, the Word of God does speak of signs and wonders and false signs and wonders in the days preceding Christ’s return.

Can we before an unbelieving and skeptical age bring before this people – the unregenerate and unbelieving – a mixed message and expect them to even understand what we are saying?

To them they are mysteries, and as such this is what Cahn calls them, but to us who are the chosen and called by God through Christ, they are spiritually discerned and laid bare for us to heed or not to heed. The ball is in our park. And herein lies the rub; your book and TBC, and Apprising Ministries, World View Weekend, et all; have taken out the baby with the bathwater, and have totally missed the warning.

You’ve missed it and stand against it; a sign to be spoken against in defiance of it; because you oppose both the message and the one who wrote it. It is fitting that this would happen this way, because it will not be charged that there was no religious opposition when God warned America. You’ve provided it, and to my utter dismay so has the Berean Call, a ministry that I have both loved and respected for years. It is most disheartening for me as one who has for many years been a fan of the Berean Call’s superlative work in Apologetics.

Your opposition is based in large part by your own well-developed, but flawed metric in the use of Biblical Hermeneutics based upon Dispensational Theology (again, good for the organizing and study of Biblical History – I know I’ve used it on occasion – but poor in theology. I will go into that in my own study of your book). A sidebar here; I highly recommend Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum’s work Israelology: the Missing Link in Dispensational Theology, an excellent book (might put you to sleep though so drink lots of coffee). Dr. Fruchtenbaum is himself a Dispensationist, though I am not certain that he ascribes to a Cessationist Theological Viewpoint.

David, I believe I’ve said much here. I thank you for the opportunity. For now, I must disagree with you. I highly respect your work, I commend you for it, but with regards to The Harbinger, as we shall see, Lord willing; you have totally missed the mark, though you will succeed in convincing a lot of people otherwise, and have already. This is part of the defiance that must take place. As it was with ancient Israel, we are ironically seeing the same through The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction? I am so sorry that you are front in center of it, because you too are a servant of the Most High God. I love you in Christ and hope someday, Lord willing; we will meet. It will be my honor and pleasure, though I hope it will be under different circumstances. I must return to my writing now. Maranatha.

Yours for God’s kingdom, His righteousness, and His truth in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Dave James says:
October 9, 2012 at 11:13 am
Faith,

Cherie wrote to me this morning requesting that her post be deleted. She was upset and didn’t think it through before hitting “send.” It happens.

I have read, re-read, prayed, considered, thought through, and evaluated this a lot. The Lord knows my heart, so I’m not going to try to do defend myself – but each time I come away even more persuaded that we got it right. At the same time, I have considered all of your observations and comments – and, to be very honest, much of the time I have a difficult time seeing how you’re making a cogent argument.

For some reason, there is a huge disconnect between godly people who normally agree (and probably still do) on most things. I know you’re sincere and believe your arguments and logic are right on target, while you have difficulty seeing how anyone could think mine are. I and others have exactly the same situation concerning yours and others who support The Harbinger.

I’ve been disappointed to see how WND has been reporting recent developments since the Understanding the Times Conference. Although I understand WND’s “schtick” – it feels quite disturbing to draw specific attention to the standing ovations that Jonathan Cahn received – making him sound more like a rock-star than a prophet and man of God, and then yesterday’s article which attributes “slick marketing” to part of The Harbinger’s success, as if that’s a good thing.

I think we are watching and will continue to witness this spin further out of control – to the point that many or most of the more discerning supporters begin seeing the layers peel back and begin to recognize exactly what others have been seeing. I think it is just a matter of time.

But, for now, you’re right – no point in rehashing the details at the moment. I don’t think there are any further arguments either of us can make that will cause an “aha” moment.

Dave

Dear Dave,

As I have made this observation before, and I do so here again, it will become evident as the wheat and the tares grow, whose works are those that will be consumed by fire, and whose works those will be that will endure.

You have an obligation to defend your book., as Cahn his. I have no stake in this, but to serve Jesus Christ, and to admonish you and our colleagues to end this charade. You are doing damage to yourselves by it, inasmuch as you are bearing false witness against your own brother in Christ, and are giving others less gracious than yourselves grist for the mill. It doesn't end there, where is the time dedicated to share the Gospel with a fallen humanity. My gosh man, don't you realize how much time this circular argument can go?

This is why I am returning to a thorough examination of your book, and I will publish my findings in due time, as the Lord wills. I am only very concerned over you and over others who are relentlessly engaged in this crusade.

Now may the Lord Himself bring to light and make evident to everyone what needs to be revealed pertaining to all of this, let the works become evident, and may God's truth prevail.

I ask you a question brother, and pleaes do take this the wrong way, but are you are ready to ofer Jonathan Cahn a public apology if the day ever comes that you realize just how wrong you've been about him all along? If indeed you do discover that you've been wrong about him and his book all along?