Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Brannon Howse

  • Brannon Howse and Justin Peters Dissing Visions

    The following video comes from Worldview Weekend, and is a conversation between Brannon Howse and Justin Peters. What’s interesting about this post is that pretty much every accusation they make against modern people who claim visions of or visits to heaven could be made against various Bible writers.

    In fact, they run into this difficulty in the middle of the video, just after 8:00, when they are criticizing Jess Duplantis for referring to God as having fingers. Suddenly they remember that the Bible also refers to God as having body parts, so they bring out the metaphor defense. Of course, that is a very good defense — it is metaphorical language. But why can’t Jesse Duplantis use metaphorical language?

    They refer to Paul’s statement that he heard things he couldn’t speak of when he was taken up into the third heaven, and thus suggest no modern person should do so. Can anyone say, “Revelation?” Yes, they notice Revelation as well, but apparently don’t notice the problem.

    The fact is that if you want to find weird things, you can find plenty of them in the Bible itself. My intent isn’t to defend everyone who claims a vision of heaven. I just don’t see any reason to exclude such modern visions if one accepts, as these men do, that such visions were ever possible.

    I’m putting the video below the fold to keep it from autostarting on views of the home page.

    (more…)

  • Brannon Howse Quotes an Etymological Fallacy

    Well, not a terrible one, at least not in the quoted material, which is from John MacArthur. But Howse makes an even bigger error. He first quotes Romans 16:17-18:

    Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. [as quoted in referenced article, emphasis his]

    In commenting, he then quotes John MacArthur:

    The little word simple of the Hebrew language is real concrete, not abstract like Greek. Simple comes from a root word that means an open door. And a simple-minded person was somebody whose mind was always open… the simpleton was the person who had not enough discernment or discrimination or knowledge or understanding or wisdom to know what to accept and what to reject. And the Word of God will teach you how to close the door. It will teach you how to be wise. Wise is chakam in Hebrew, it means skilled in all aspects of living. [Howse’s source: John MacArthur, The Nature and Sufficiency of Scripture: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY111_The-Nature-and-Sufficiency-of-Scripture?q=simpleton]

     

    Do you notice the interesting error there? Howse quotes Romans, written in Greek, and then quotes John MacArthur, commenting on a Hebrews word. Now while I don’t think MacArthur’s definition of the Hebrew word is too bad (and he gives the actual reference, Psalms 19:8 [7 Heb], from which one can discover the intended word, pethiy), I still think demonstrating it from the etymology in this case is not the best plan. The word can be studied quite well by usage as it occurs 19 times in Hebrew scripture.

    A second issue for me would be whether this word is indeed more concrete than the Greek word used in Romans 16:18, akakõn. That seems plenty concrete to me. But of course, John MacArthur made no reference to Romans 16:18. He was dealing with Psalm 19:8, so we don’t know that MacArthur thinks pethiy is more concrete than akakõn.

    Howse, on the other hand, borrowed the etymology of a Hebrew word in order to apply it to a Greek passage. I’m not concerned with whether you agree with Howse’s position on the major topic. The problem here is demonstrating a lack of good procedure and knowledge in applying biblical languages.