No, the blood of Jesus did not buy forgiveness of sins from God (Matthew 26:28) - By Jeremy Myers

Found here. We have come to understand that the death of Jesus for our sins was a sacrifice, not a transaction. The author ably explains this concept. A very good article.

-----------------------------

The End of Independent Agencies - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Dr. Reich is worried about the president gaining too much power, something he never worried about with Democratic presidents. He does his best to tilt the argument into a dangerous situation, appealing to a Constitution he hates, in opposition to a Supreme court he hates, to put down a president he hates.

The Left is only worried about power when they don't have it.

---------------------------

7 Reasons God Takes Pleasure in Election - by: John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------

What an odd title.

We've commented on Dr. Piper's explanations several times before, and we have yet to find a truly good teaching. Too often, they have even been sub-par, which surprises us given his reputation.

As is his habit, Dr. Piper is going to once again explain his Calvinism. That's what Calvinists always do. They will never explain the Bible unless they can explain Calvinism. Today's article is about the Calvinistic doctrine of Election. 

This is mostly a rehash of other Calvinist teachings we have  examined in our blog. We consider these doctrines to be largely useless to the Christian life. But, there are some novel claims, so we will comment on them.

Since Dr. Piper doesn't clearly explain election, We shall. Election is one of the five "petals" of TULIP, collectively known as the "doctrines of grace:"

Total Depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace 

Perseverance of the saints

The idea is, God has already chosen those people He will save, long ago [U]. He doesn't just have foreknowledge of who will get saved, He deliberately preselected them. Which of course means that He also chose those He would send to hell. Which means your destiny was set before you drew your first breath.

Because the Elect are chosen without their participation in any way [because they are powerless to do so, T], they cannot resist their salvation [I] and cannot lose their salvation [P]. A derivative of this is that the atonement of Christ is limited only to the Elect, because only their sins are forgiven [L].

We hope Dr. Piper will explain how his seven things are uniquely applicable to the the doctrine of Election. Alas, he will not.

In addition, we need to note that Dr. Piper writes 1800 words, and 260 of them are quotes from other teachers and theologians. This is more than the number of words of Scripture quoted. And of those Scriptures, only a couple of them even speak to the topic of election.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------

The Phoebe Hoax - by Denny Burk

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

The author quotes the subject Scripture (Romans 16:1-2) and one other (1 Timothy 2:12)  in 1900 words. He wastes over 400 words quoting various "egalitarians" (a term he never defines, though he uses it fourteen times). He's attempting to bolster his doctrine against women church leaders, and uses these "egalitarians" as the opportunity.

Let's quote the verses:

Ro. 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

In verses 1-15 Paul commended a number of people to the church in Rome, beginning with Phoebe. She gets the most extensive treatment of anyone. Clearly Paul held her in high regard, so high in fact that his instruction included the directive that they should give her anything she wanted. 

Since the author discusses the meaning of a couple of the Greek words, we shall expand his efforts in order to capture the magnitude of Paul's commendation.

The Greek word for "commend" is sunistémi, which means to stand in union with. Paul was not giving a tepid recommendation, He was standing together firmly with Phoebe.

"Sister" is adelphé, a part of the family, a woman believer. Paul included her as a precious part of the community of believers.

"Deaconess," a word the author generically defined, is diákonos (diá, "thoroughly" and konis, "dust") – properly, "thoroughly raise up dust by moving in a hurry, and so to minister." The author does his best to separate Phoebe from church leadership, but this is not about authority, it's about how hard Phoebe worked on behalf of the Church. She was rather remarkable in this, according to Paul. 

The idea that we must decide whether or not Phoebe was a church leader is completely irrelevant. She was a servant, like Paul described himself: 

1Co. 3:5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

Further, she was described specifically as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, she was not simply a generic servant or a helper like all the others in Paul's list. She was associated with a specific church as a deaconess, and recognized for this work.

"Receive" is prosdechomai, expectant waiting where a person is ready and willing to receive... So because of this remarkable woman, Paul instructed the Roman church to be completely open to her coming.

"Worthy" is axiós. Paul's thought here is to tell the Roman church the manner in which Phoebe should be received, to "mirror the honor Christ bestows on all His people." Phoebe clearly worked very hard for the cause of Christ within her church and also as an itinerant servant. She was not some nameless worker, but a person worthy of note.

So from these words we see that Phoebe was a special woman to both Paul and the Church, a woman of position in a local church who worked very hard serving the saints all over the region. Having a position is not the same as being in authority. She had a high position, but that does not speak to church leadership. In fact, being a deacon by title still does not place a person in leadership. A deacon is not an elder.

Why is the author trying so hard to put Phoebe in her place?  He microanalyses these verses because he wants to make sure we don't think too highly of Phoebe. The reason? If Phoebe is in any sense a leader, this would violate the author's doctrines. Mistaken doctrines, that is. 

The author thinks Phoebe cannot be a deacon in the church because of the second Scripture he quotes:

I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12)

We discuss this verse here. Suffice to say, it is not a verse about church leadership structure.

Our last observation is regarding the author's statement: 

Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that male headship was something that was observed by all the apostles and all the churches (1 Cor. 11:16). Are we really to believe based on some specious historical background that Paul intended for Phoebe to do in Rome the very thing he prohibits women from doing in every other church? 

The author misrepresents this unquoted passage. Paul was not talking about church government. If he was, that would mean ALL women must submit to ALL men, which of course is nonsense. No, this submission is a wife to her husband in the context of the gathering of the saints. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------------

Bad worship songs - Names (Cook, Ingram, Hudson)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Names.
--------------------

The Danger of NAR Church Leven (sic) - by Don Pirozok

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

We have commented on the author's writing before and have not been impressed.

1665 words, but not a single word quoted from any of the author's adversaries. Not even a quote from a source he agrees with. Every single assertion and accusation the author makes is undocumented. He makes claim after claim, dire warning after dire warning. The NAR may indeed be false, dangerous, and heretical like he says, but that is the case he must prove, not just make empty claims.

We are not here to defend the NAR, we intend to evaluate the author's presentation. And that presentation is embarrassing. Beyond Bad Bible Teaching, this is just bad.

-------------------

Five Points in My Pain How God’s Sovereignty Comforts Me - by Joni Eareckson Tada

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

We suspect we might get accused of beating up on a helpless disabled person. We will take that risk, because it's not about Ms. Tada's disability, it's about her doctrine. She has presented her doctrine publicly in the below article, and as such has invited scrutiny.

Ms. Tada writes about her theology, a very specific kind of theology known as Calvinism. As a Calvinist Ms. Tada does what every Calvinist does: Teach Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. 

Their theology revolves around the "doctrines of grace," also known as TULIP. Ms. Tada appeals to TULIP as a comfort to her in her disability. We are happy for her, but we require Ms. Tada to explain how TULIP specifically and uniquely provides this comfort.

We believe that TULIP is irrelevant to the daily Christian walk. By virtue of our salvation, Total Depravity no longer matters. Unconditional Election no longer matters. Limited Atonement no longer matters. Irresistible Grace no longer matters. Perseverance of the Saints no longer matters.

These all reflect on our past, not our current situation. Not our future. None of them come to bear as a benefit to our holiness, generosity, worship, or evangelism.

TULIP doesn't matter.

-----------------------

Discipleship Does Not Equal Shepherding: A Crucial Distinction in the Female Pastor Debate - By Jonathon Woodyard

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author writes over 2000 words, for the sole purpose of bolstering his tradition. He wants to keep pastors at the top of the leadership pyramid, with everyone else as underlings at the pastor's beckon call.

The mistake he makes is to assume that the Bible's overseers, pastors, shepherds, teachers are the same thing as his tradition's overseer/pastor/shepherd/teacher.

They are not.

The author quotes the snippets of three Bible verses, a mere 20 words. That's it. How can one teach the Bible while barely quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------

What It Means That Christ is Praying for You Today - by Dave Harvey

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------------

It is clear that the author is a Calvinist/Reformist, because although he provides some good, biblical information, it is infected with the traditional understandings that derive from this doctrinal stream. 

We have discussed these misleading, and sometimes false doctrines many times in our blog.

-------------------

Glory Only in the Cross - by Mike Ratliff

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

Mr. Ratliff makes another appearance in our blog. He is a Reformed/Calvinist, and as is typical for those of this persuasion, he is entirely convinced of his doctrinal superiority. Many Calvinists have an overconfidence bordering on arrogance.

Also typical for the Calvinist is a singular, almost obsessive focus on the particular doctrines of Calvinism. They will never talk about the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. This always makes us pause because this kind of dogmatism can be cultic. 

Today we can only manage to examine an excerpt of a long, unfocused ramble that is supposed to be about the cross. Mr. Ratliff will devote only about a half of one paragraph to the actual topic, but again, since he's a Calvinist he must insert his Calvinism. 

Note that Mr. Ratliff will make numerous undocumented claims in this one paragraph, some of which are not found in the Bible, some that are true, and others which are completely false.

Because Mr. Ratliff cites no Bible verses for any of these assertions, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------------

What is “the gift of God” in John 4:10? - gotquestions

Found here. One of those rare times when we can shout a hearty "amen" about gotquestions. They nailed this one.

-------------------------

Question

What is “the gift of God” in John 4:10?

Answer

Separate Ways - by J.V. Fesko

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The author presumes that any person who wants to attend a Reformed/Calvinist church is automatically correct, but if this person's spouse doesn't want to, well, they need to be "gently" persuaded.

Doctrine is the measure. And it's a very particular set of doctrines. These doctrines are an end to themselves, doctrine for doctrine's sake. Such doctrines don't edify, don't encourage holiness, and are in the end of no practical use. 

The fact that these odd doctrines occupy such prominence in a church is telling. While we don't doubt that Reformed/Calvinists on the whole are Christians, this article has troubling cultic undertones. It's presented as practical advice, but it is a bit creepy.

-----------------------

What Is God’s Providence? Learning to See God’s Hand in Everyday Life - by Danson Ottawa

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

The author is Reformed/Calvinist, and as is typical for these kinds of teachers, uses his 1600 words to make seemingly endless assertions and presumptions. He teaches relatively basic concepts using terminology that requires advanced knowledge. He doesn't really explain anything, presuming that the reader already possesses this knowledge and agrees with it.

The author uses the word "providence" and its variants nearly two dozen times, but never really defines it. He uses the term "sovereign" about a dozen times and does not actually define it either. The closest he comes is to describe it as the "providential rule of God," which of course uses an undefined word to define the word. Ugh.

Then he connects the two without explanation, all the while introducing additional new terminology without explanation.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

------------------------------------

They don't want you to know the REAL reason Social Security is in trouble, But I'm going to tell you anyway - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

One can be sure that if a leftist is going to explain something, it will not be accurate, it will not clarify, and it will not be intended to impart information.

That's because leftists like Dr. Reich are only interested in The Narrative, that is, the talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated by Central Command. The Narrative is circulated throughout the media landscape every day, and leftist writers, commentators, and news operations dutifully regurgitate it.

So Dr. Reich pretends to be a truth teller, but he's simply doing his duty to repeat The Narrative, spouting agitprop in service to The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling of the system. The system, being racist, unfair, and hurtful to the worker and minorities, must be replaced. 

But in actual fact, none of these issues are important to the Left. They are simply excuses for advancing the leftist dream. So, nothing you will read below will be true, accurate, logical, or helpful. 

Dr. Reich is a calculating liar. He's sold his soul to The Agenda, and that is the only reason he supports Social Security. 

-------------------------

Bad Worship Songs - Tremble, By Mosaic MSC (Bentley, Fieldes, Figueroa, McManus)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Tremble.

-----------------------

Does Prayer Make a Difference? - by Justin Huffman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

We have commented on Mr. Huffman's articles before, and have found him to be a doctrinaire Calvinist/Reformist, though a somewhat gentler variety. Nevertheless, his Calvinism colors his doctrine and his thinking process to the point where we cannot trust that he is telling us the truth.

The crux of this article is that God does not change, and He does not change His mind. This would mean that prayer does not influence God in any way. God has already purposed the entirety of existence and what He has purposed will come to be. Prayer will not change that.

Ancillary to this, the author states that God determines both the ends and the means. The necessary conclusion from these premises is that human activities are completely moot. If God has pre-ordained everything that will happen and does not change His mind, then his creation merely goes through the motions of existence.

That can only mean that if we pray or don't pray, there is no effect. If we say yes or no, it doesn't matter. Sin or believe. Nothing changes our destiny. These conclusions are inescapable. If God predetermines everything, nothing matters because nothing happens outside of God's direct purpose and pre-chosen will. Life is merely theater. 

The Bible has some other things to say about the issue, but the author will either ignore or omit every bit of contrary biblical information. We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------------

Bernie Sanders: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies - By Scott Baker

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

After reading this, our conclusion is inescapable: Socialists are dumb. Stupid, dim, cognitively impaired, idiotic. Period. 

Socialist Bernie thinks that the government should own 50% of AI companies, so he intends to simply take it. That's right, he wants the government to just help themselves. On what basis? He wants the government to redistribute the profits. And the author of the article admires him.

Truly dumb.

-------------

God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Why They Are Friends, Not Enemies - by Alistair Chalmers

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------

The author uses the words "sovereign" and "sovereignty" nearly thirty times in his article, but astonishingly, he never defines it. Nearly as astonishing is the fact that though the author does manage to quote a few Scriptures regarding ancillary topics, he never quotes a single one that deals with God's sovereignty.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

It is interesting that Calvinists and Reformists give so much emphasis to the sovereignty of God. The KJV doesn't use the sovereign/sovereignty at all, while the ESV first uses the words in Acts 4:24, then again in 1 Tim. 6:15, and lastly in Rev. 6:10. Strangely, the old NIV (the version we use) employs the words over 300 times. Very odd indeed.

Let's explain what sovereignty is, since the author never does. Acts 4:24 reads, 

Act 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them..."

The Greek word for "sovereign" is despotés, a word used ten times in the NT: (despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints..." 

Mostly used in terms of a monarchy, sovereignty describe a position of highest authority and absolute rulership. A king has unquestioned authority, with even the law itself being subject to him. His commands are law, his desires are carried out without question.

Sovereignty is a position, not an activity. Sovereignty doesn't describe actions, because the king as sovereign determines his own actions as he chooses. His subjects operate according to his rulership, but he does not go to every field and tell the plower how to do his plowing. He does not show up to explain to the baker how to make bread. He does not personally go to the seamstress to see if she's sewing correctly.

The king is the ultimate authority, but he has no need to control every single thing in his kingdom, because he delegates his authority. He has agents to do his bidding, and they operate with authority under the king's authority. We see this in Gabriel's words: 

I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. Lk. 1:19

The centurion amazed Jesus when he placed himself in subjection to Him: 

For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, "Go," and he goes; and that one, "Come," and he comes. I say to my servant, "Do this," and he does it. Lk. 7:8 

This chain of authority descends down to the lowliest subject in his kingdom. Even the poorest sap has a modicum of authority as he lives out his life in the kingdom. That is why the king has no need to dictate every action of every soul in his kingdom. His authority descends down to the lowest place.

So we must understand that sovereignty doesn't speak to actions. Sovereignty doesn't require action or forbid his action, because the king determines his sovereignty as it pleases him. He is not subject to any required action. He is not forbidden from any action. If he was required to to act, he would not be sovereign. If he was required to stand there and make sure the baker made every single loaf of bread correctly, he would be at the mercy of what he was required to do.

Thus sovereignty is a position, not an action. The actions of a sovereign are a matter apart from his position.

-------------------------

Are We Forgiven for the Sins We Can’t Remember and Therefore, Don’t Confess? - by Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

A very good article, reminding us of the goodness and faithfulness of God, who forgives all our sins. Mr. Alcorn explains Scripture, encourages and exhorts, and teaches the topic quite well.

Except for him quoting John Piper. Inexplicably, he inserts statements by Dr. Piper that are unbiblical. We are going to quote the entirety of it and insert our comments in italics:

"John Piper reminds us that “'The payment was perfect. You can’t add to it at all. You can’t add to your sin-covering at all.'” (We do not have a "sin-covering," our sins are completely washed away. We explain this here.)

"He says in a message about why we confess sin, when we are aware of it:

'Jesus, once for all, by his life and death, purchased our forgiveness (Jesus did not purchase our forgiveness, His blood was spilled and washed us clean. There was no transaction.) 

 

'and provided our righteousness. (Jesus made us righteous, He did not "provide" our righteousness.) 

 

'We can add nothing to the purchase or the provision. We share in the forgiveness and the righteousness by faith alone. But in view of the holiness of God and the evil of sin, it is fitting that we appropriate and apply what he bought for us by prayer and confession every day. “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:11–12). Daily request for bread, because he has promised to meet every need; daily pray appropriation of forgiveness, because it is fully purchased and secured for us by the death of Jesus.'" (Dr. Piper doesn't seem to understand Jesus' sacrifice.)

Dr. Piper enjoys a reputation as an excellent Bible teacher, but we have examined several of his explanations and have found them lacking. 

Particularly this article, where he completely botches the nature and purpose of Jesus' death, all the while imposing his Calvinism on the entire equation. We examine this article here.

Which means Mr. Alcorn's otherwise excellent article is made into Bad Bible Teaching by the inclusion of Dr. Piper's false doctrine.

Unfortunate, indeed.

--------------------------------

Why Don’t Our Sermons Change People? - by Alistair Chalmers

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

We have reviewed several of the author's teachings and found them lacking. But credit given where credit is due. The author provides a good teaching here, contrary to one we evaluated previously. 

There is a glaring exception, however. The author does not explain the crucial element of the Holy Spirit's work through the preaching. It takes the author over 850 words of this 1300 word essay to get to the true transformative agent of men's souls, but he never discusses this element.

But on the whole, a good article.

------------------------