Another poor use of scripture. These verses have nothing to do with judgment and everything to do with hypocrisy. So, if I was engaged in fleecing the flock, I should not be criticizing others that are doing the same. If I liked to pretend to knock people over with my magical suit coat during my free time, I should not criticize Benny Hinn. If I regularly taught God must heal you, stand by dead raising teams, believe in grave sucking, operate a false school of the fake supernatural and pump smoke into my prayer meetings to pretend a glory cloud has fallen, I should not criticize Bill Johnson. Are we getting the point here? Also, once again, correctly stating what someone has said or done, is not "passing judgment."
"11. They often judge superficially, in violation of John 7:24." - Dr. Michael Brown
There is nothing "superficial" about proper discernment. Pointing out that Benny Hinn has made 50 million dollars by lying about God is not a superficial argument. Pointing out that Mike Bickle was a horrible wolf is not a superficial argument. Remember, what is the undercurrent here for Brown is he fundamentally disagrees with the assertion of discernment ministries that his friends are wolves. But they are. He can make no cogent biblical argument, so it always boils down to the fact that "he knows them." To that I say, I don't care. I know their teaching.
"12. They use one set of standards when judging their own camp and another set of standards when judging those outside their camp." - Dr. Michael Brown
This is the latest argument Brown has been making that he thinks is a winner. He calls it the equal weights and measures argument. I reject the premise however that everyone must be firmly entrenched in two camps. He probably gets this from years of writing politically. The reality is that neither extreme, Charismania or cessationism has it right. My standard and the standard of most discernment ministries is to apply the bible to any teacher to determine correct doctrine. The argument as Dr. Brown has been wielding it is essentially the strategy known as whataboutism. So, someone says that Benny Hinn is a heretic and instead of answering that charge, he dives back into church history and attacks Luther for his antisemitic words. He does not do this because of genuine critique of Luther but rather to avoid answering the charge on Hinn. I live in the world that says Martin Luther can be a raving antisemite and Benny Hinn can be a raving lunatic false teacher/huckster. Those are my equal weights and measures. The point however is that one has nothing to do with the other. What Martin Luther said hundreds of years ago does not change if Benny Hinn is false or not.
"13. They call for the violation of explicit New Testament commands such as, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire the gifts of the spirit, especially prophecy," commands which the word never rescinded." - Dr. Michael Brown
This is an argument against cessationists, to which I kind of agree. We should desire the gifts of the spirit but that does not make Dr. Brown's version of prophecy correct. For example, nearly all of the prophets he respects called the 2020 election for Trump. They said God told them so but he lost by seven million votes. To Dr. Brown, while they were wrong and he has admittedly been critical of them, he still considers them prophets and that is just insane. It is disconnected logically and biblically. It requires a wholly unreasonable view of the New Testament. It literally changes something God instituted without instruction from God to do so.
"14. They tear down more than they build up." - Dr. Michael Brown
