Keeping Sovereign Grace in Gospel Partnerships - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

He is Reformed/ Calvinist in his doctrine. Reformed/Calvinists do what they always do: Explain Calvinism. They never explain the Bible unless they can transform it into an explanation of  Calvinism. This is exactly what happens here. Dr. Piper is asked about why his group identifies itself as Reformed/Calvinistic, but instead of answering he devotes his long response to explaining Calvinism.

More to the point, Dr. Piper never defines the terms he uses and never explains Calvinistic concepts like "sovereign grace." He presumes his audience is Calvinistic and therefore already knows all the ins and outs of these doctrines. So in the end Dr. Piper doesn't really explain anything, he's just reciting and reinforcing Calvinism, and assumes his audience is nodding their heads in agreement.

But worse, the question he is asked is never answered. And, he produces not a single Scripture that proves his doctrines. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

A Decent and Orderly Case for Raising Hands in Worship - by Sean DeMars

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

The author of this article is a part of the Reformed stream of Christianity. He is writing because his church tradition demands conformance to a particular way of doing Sunday church. Generally speaking, Reformed church services are characterized by somber, emotionless, reverent proceedings, which means no physical expressions of worship. It's considered chaotic and perhaps even sinful to express any physical response during a church service.

The author courageously advocates for obeying the biblical command to raise one's hands in worship. The Bible does not recommend it or leave it to a matter of preference. It's required. The author himself cites some of these biblical commands. Therefore, we would suggest that Reformed churches are violating Scripture by not raising hands, and should immediately repent. 

This deeply entrenched tradition is why the author is treading so lightly. One can almost feel the reluctance to simply come out and say what the Bible tells us. He couches things in terms of carnality and offending one's brothers, but never considers the fact that this reserved, non-physical worship might also be carnal and offensive. The bottom line is he is worried who will be offended by his advocacy. 

And that may be the key concept. The author is primarily concerned about offending people with his raised hands. What will people think? Will they disapprove? Will he cause them to stumble? The author deems it a matter of edification, but we think that's a diversion. Lifting hands or not lifting hands has no impact on edification, but has a lot to do with offending peoples' sensibilities. And sometimes those sensibilities should be offended.

In any case, we welcome our Reformed brothers and sisters to biblical worship.

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

The Agonizing Prayer - by Jerry Bridges

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This may be one of the worst Bible teachings we've ever read. We don't say that lightly. The author completely perverts the work of the cross, rejects the meaning of terms because they conflict with his doctrine, and lies to us about the Bible.

This is so astonishing that we found ourselves at loss for words. He writes:

The theological term for Jesus’ act of drinking the cup is propitiation. A modern dictionary will say that to propitiate means “to appease” or “to placate.” I find these definitions unsatisfactory...

Did the reader catch that? The meaning of a word is unsatisfactory because it is at odds with his doctrine. This is the unfortunate logical extension of the author's Calvinism/Reformed doctrine, the precepts of which are, we believe, deception. Yes, we must conclude that if one's doctrine supersedes the meaning of Bible words, it can only be deception.

On what basis does the author reject the propitiary nature of Jesus' sacrificial death? Certainly not a biblical one, because he supplies no Scripture that tells us the Father punished Jesus in our place. Here's the author's problem. If Jesus did propitiate (turn way the Father's wrath), then the Father, being satisfied, had no need to punish Jesus. The author cannot accept this, because His doctrinal tradition teaches that the Father punished Jesus in our place.

This article eminently qualifies for our label, Bad Bible Teaching. We discuss the substantial problems related to Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss how substitution contradicts propitiation here.

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

What False Teachings Should Make Me Leave a Church? - John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

It's interesting that Dr. Piper's advice is generally good regarding what to do if a person is in a church where the pastor is falsely teaching, but the subject verse is not about that. John was warning "the chosen lady" about itinerant false teachers. Such people ought not even be guests in her house.

Side note: Who was this lady? Was she in the leadership of a church needing encouragement and exhortation? Was she a nobody trying to decide whether or not to stay in a church? Why does John refer to her in such glowing terms?

This is important because Dr. Piper is applying the subject matter as if it's advice to a person or to a church. This muddles the issue considerably when we read the letter as a whole.

Ironically, though Dr. Piper provides some good teaching he misses the point of the letter, which means we must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

Lastly, in the midst of good teaching he reveals his Calvinism/Reformed doctrine. We have written extensively about the false teaching that Jesus was punished by the Father.

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

The courts of heaven - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
----------------

The Silent Drift Inside the Charismatic Church - By Stephen Strang

Found here. We agree with author, this is a great concern, not only for Charismatics but also regarding conservative and fundamentalist churches. Mr. Strang makes the clarion call for us to be the Holy people God has called us to be. This is applicable to the whole Church, not just charismatics.

It's an issue near and dear to us, as we have recognized the pressure of the Holy Spirit ourselves to repent and be obedient. This conviction was recently reinforced by Mitch Wong's song "Stronger Man," which contains the lyrics, 

A Holy God lives in a holy house

If it's not holy then get it out

So although Mr. Strang is a charismatic, his word must not be dismissed by conservative Christians.

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

The Real Reason Many Reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement - by Phil Cotnoir

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

After we read this article we were dismayed to find no biblical arguments. In fact, we found no Bible verses or references at all. So we asked the author for some biblically-based commentary. He first recommended an article by Derek Rishmawy, which we had already critiqued back in August. It had very little in terms of biblical documentation.

When we pressed farther for a biblically documented article, he referred us to Thomas Schreiner's article, which we critiqued here. He also referred us to Geoffrey Butler's article, critiqued here.

Sadly, none of these articles provided us with the needed biblical documentation. When the Bible was quoted, it was most often to bolster ancillary ideas. When the moment came to document the key claim, Bible documentation disappeared.

We supply our biblical reasons for rejecting PSA in the links above, but we take a deeper dive here. To summarize:

• The Father did not punish Jesus for our sin because the Blood alone is enough to appease the Father's wrath.
• The Father did not forsake the Son. Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 because it's a messianic Psalm. Jesus was not bemoaning His abandonment, He was pointing to the Psalm as being fulfilled right at that moment.
• Jesus did not die so we wouldn't have to. We must die too.
• Jesus death was not atoning, it was propitiating. 
• Jesus did not pay for sin, He paid for us.

The reader is encouraged to read our links and come to his own conclusion. 

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

Why the Church of Christ worships without mechanical instruments

 Meme found on Faceborg. Our comments in bold.

The Church of Christ is particularly known for refusing to worship with musical instruments. It might have other distinctive doctrines as well, but we are here only to consider the issue before us.

As we reviewed the information provided above, it soon became apparent that most of it was not relevant to this particular doctrine. Generally it's sound, biblical information, but very little of it comes to bear on using musical instruments in worship.

The salient point seems to be, if it's not in the NT we don't do it. A sub text to that would be, some historical personages agree with us, along with unnamed scholars agree with us. This is thin stuff, indeed. The foundation of this doctrine is essentially an Argument From Silence.

The principal issue in our minds is the arbitrary nature of the line being drawn. Upon what basis is doctrine determined by dividing the NT from the OT? Upon what basis should a doctrine be derived only if the information is repeated in the NT? 

We could draw our own arbitrary lines. How about the 10 commandments, for example? The only one not repeated in the NT is the Sabbath. So we should work seven days a week. Or, maybe we should only embrace the commandments Jesus Himself reiterated: 

Matt 19:17-19...“There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments." 18“Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, 19 honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

These are the only ones that are important because Jesus didn't repeat the others.

Let's take the matter further. The Bible never records the early church as constructing houses of worship. The Bible makes no mention of pastors leading churches. The entire structure of a Sunday service as practiced today is not found in the Bible. 

But this one thing, musical instruments, is made into an issue worthy of causing disputes and divisions in the Churches, yet it's not even a key doctrine regarding how to be saved or how to live a holy life.

Therefore, in our view it's not relevant.

It is a precarious thing to derive doctrines from what the Bible doesn't say. 

As a final note, we have no opinion about the Church of Christ in general. We are only intent on analyzing one of their doctrines.

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

Transcript:

What Democrats Must Pledge to America - Ten ways to make America more affordable - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich isn't even a Democrat, he's a progressive, a Bernie socialist. But he has advice for Democrats, the ones who most closely align with his totalitarian tendencies. And that advice is to do more of the same. Increase taxes, alienate and divide people, and most importantly, tear down the System in order to replace it. He wants them to go even more Left with the exact same strategy. 

So everything on this list is old news, old agitprop, the same things that the Left has been complaining about for decades. In our view, it's astonishing that their rhetoric continues to work on people. Even though we no longer have capitalism because of the incremental installation of Socialism, and haven't for a long time, capitalism is always to blame. And people seem to buy it.

It's tried-and-true, by the book revolution. That's what Dr. Reich wants.

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

Substitutionary Atonement - An Essay By Thomas Schreiner

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In our blog we have looked at articles by Mr. Schreiner before, and invariably have found them to be lacking. Today's article is no exception.

Like too many so-called Bible teachers, Mr. Schreiner tells us just enough of the truth to make us nod our heads in agreement, then slips in his doctrine right when we least expect it, completely out of left field.

This is a common technique with Calvinists/Reformists. They begin by accurately conveying a Bible truth in order to set the stage for their Calvinism. They never explain the Bible unless they can include some tenet of Calvinism. It's a disturbing tendency, which suggests spiritual deception is at work.

We consider the idea that the Father would punish Jesus for our sins to be offensive and pernicious. Jesus died to spill His blood as the Lamb of God. His sacrifice is sufficient for our sin. His blood is efficacious. His death is enough. Nothing else is needed for our forgiveness, certainly not the additional act of punishing Jesus. The shed blood is enough.

We cover Penal Substitutionary Atonement in some depth here. Elsewhere we examine the idea that the Father's wrath in fact was not propitiated by the blood if He punished Jesus. 

Lastly, we note that the author will state and restate his premise repeatedly, but never really make the case for it. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Appeasement of a Monster God? A Historical and Biblical Analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - By Geoffrey Butler

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Though this article clocks in at over 6000 words, we were only interested in the section dealing with the author's biblical case for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That section, quoted below, is about 2450 words.

What we will find is the author is steeped in Reformist/Calvinist theology, so much so that he cannot see any other possibility. He does what all Calvinists do, explain Calvinism. That's what they do at every opportunity. They don't teach the Bible per se, they teach their doctrines.

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss propitiation here.

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

The White House Press Tracker Is a Parody of Media Criticism - Chris Lehmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

At a little over 1600 words, the author has ample opportunity to explain the supposed problem. He does manage to cite a couple of somewhat relevant issues, which of course are viewed through his Leftist lens, but he simply denies and moves on. The very media Trump criticizes is what the author relies on for his rejoinders.

But at its base, the purpose of the article is not to discuss the Press Tracker website, it's to hurl invective at Trump and consevatives. These same tired tropes are recycled again and again. We've heard it all before, and we know it's nonsensical. But that's the way the Left does things. 

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

A Propitiation for Wrath - by RC Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul was a Reformist/Calvinist, and this doctrinal perspective infects his explanation of propitiation. He provides the correct definition, only to immediately revert to his Calvinism.

Perplexing.

So the reader understands, Reformists/Calvinists believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is the unbiblical idea that the Father punished Jesus in our place, turning the wrath of God away from us.

We discuss Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss propitiation here.

Lastly, Dr. Sproul quotes but a single Scripture, one that does not support his pernicious doctrine. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

How Many Keys Are There? Who Has Them? - Rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

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

The Trump Administration Is Quietly Preparing to Bring Back School Segregation - by Chris Lewis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an astonishingly self-unaware article. The Left has long advocated for and implemented segregation to this very day:

• Exclusion of Jews from campus
• Black-only housing
• Women-only colleges
• Gay-only campus safe zones
• Exclusion of unapproved points of view

The author decries the actions Trump is taking to dismantle the Office of Civil Rights, but he tacitly admits it has been engaging in reverse discrimination by favoring disadvantaged races in order to undo the historic damage done by racism. It's very nearly laughable that the author is concerned about the danger Trump might pose when the Left has already been doing this very thing for decades.

We have deemed this phenomena Mountain Man's Law, which is the Left's propensity to accuse its opponents of doing what it has been actually doing.

We should also note that the author actually doesn't care about segregation. The plight of blacks does not concern him. The author isn't intending to inform, explain, or increase understanding. His sole purpose to to disseminate The Message. The Message is the daily talking points provided by Central Command. These slogans are repeated day after day by talking heads and media pundits regardless of truth or accuracy. 

The objective is to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling of The System. The Left wants revolution. It wants the Proletariat to rise up against the Bourgeois. It wants to convince people that they aren't getting their fair share, that the rich whites are keeping the poor down, that billionaires are getting rich by stealing from the poor.

The system itself is guilty. Systemic racism, sexism, and repression means the System must be replaced. That is the goal of these revolutionaries. They have been persistent in incremental change, being satisfied with slowly infiltrating our institutions, traditions, government positions, and corporate boardrooms. Though preferring to execute a bloodless coup, they are more and more willing to spill a little blood for the sake of The Agenda.

The reader would do well to keep this in mind as he reads the below article.

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

Why I Stopped Being a Calvinist (Part 4): The Heresy of Monergism - by Robin Phillips

Found here. The author takes a deep dive here, and does some excellent work.

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

If all Calvinism were to be encapsulated by a single term it would be the word Monergism. The term comes from the Greek mono meaning “one,” and erg meaning “work,” and describes the notion that salvation is affected by only one agent, namely God. As R.C. Sproul explains it, “A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person… A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things.”

While there is certainly a sense in which the Bible teaches that God is the only agent effecting salvation, Monergism goes wrong in denying that human beings are able to co-operate in the process of regeneration and salvation.

Monergism arises out of the fact that Calvinists are deeply uncomfortable acknowledging any synergy between the divine will and the human will. Indeed, a Calvinist will say that when a man or woman appears to co-operate with God, this is only because the Lord first predetermined that he or she should do so, thus preserving the sense in which only one agent is operative.

The total depravity of Total Depravity

Introduction

The so-called doctrines of grace continually and annoyingly cross our path, because Calvinists always teach Calvinism. They never teach the Bible unless they can cover some aspect of Calvinism.

"Total Depravity" is one of those doctrines. It is important to Calvinists because it interfaces with other parts of Calvinistic doctrine. Calvinists believe in predestination, that long ago God chose those who will be saved. His will is irresistible; therefore, if a person is predestined he will inexorably be saved and cannot lose his salvation.

Thus Total Depravity is required because God does everything. It's all previously lined out by God's will. You cannot assent to salvation or put your faith in Jesus. That's deemed a "work." Or, perhaps more accurately, your participation is irrelevant because you are chosen to be saved or you are chosen for hell. You are essentially a robot. Your destiny is already determined. Nothing you can do will change this.

Calvinists will go to the mat to defend their doctrines. It is difficult to understand why. Why is it important to know we as Christians are totally depraved? What difference does such knowledge make in our service, worship, or daily walk? How does it change our generosity, our evangelism, or any aspect of holiness?

Well, it doesn't. Calvinism makes absolutely no difference in any obligation or privilege we possess as Christians.

Theology is foundation of knowledge - by John C. Wright

Originally titled "The Ship of Theseus and the Demon of Descartes."

Found here. A very good article.
------------

This is a reprint of a column from a few years ago, but which bears repeating. Once the Church is restored to primacy, philosophy and related arts and sciences will likewise be revived, and the shameful neglect of generations undone. 

Philosophy traditionally was divided into seven major branches:

• Epistemology: the study of knowledge. What is truth?
• Logic: the study of formal reasoning. What follows truth? Wither leads it? What conclusion must be true if a given statement is true?
• Metaphysics: the study of first principles. What precedes truth? Whence come it? What premise must be true when a given statement is true?
• Ethics: the study of virtue. What ought men do to be true?
• Natural Philosophy: the study of the visible order of creation.
• Aesthetics: the study of beauty, both in creation and created by man.
• Theology: the study of the invisible order of creation.

Theology includes the study of revealed truth, which of necessity touches all these foregoing studies. Theology alone unifies all branches of philosophy, hence is rightly called their summit, culmination, and queen.

From these seven, several further branches spring:

• Epistemology includes Empiricism, Rationalism, Revelation, and perhaps more.
• Semantics, which asks how words are used, is a handmaiden to Logic, as statements must be put in signs or words. Geometry is logic applied to figures and ratios; Arithmetic is geometry expressed as magnitudes.
• Metaphysics, the study of first principles, includes Ontology, the study of first substances.
• Ethics includes Politics, which is the art of how to live in civilization, which necessarily includes Economics, the study of the trades in goods and services.
• Natural Philosophy includes the study of the inanimate world, Astronomy and Ballistics, Geography and Geology and Meteorology, and the various elements and energies of which they are composed, and includes also naturalism, which studies the growth and decay in due season of flora and fauna, their origins and destiny, and includes the study of man, his nature and his works.
• Aesthetics, ironically, also informs Rhetoric, which is the study of the figures of pleasant and persuasive public speaking, since persuasiveness is a type of beauty.

(...)

Six Ways Zohran Mamdani Can Make New York City Affordable Again - by Kiren Gopal

Found here.
----------------

New York City is a textbook example of repeated leftist intervention into the economy. These interventions have yielded the current destitution that is NYC. Having endured decades of Left wing governance, the city is falling apart, unlivable and unaffordable. 

So what does the author propose? Even more of the same. Astonishing. 

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

Three reasons Russell Brand should not be baptising anybody - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Out comments in bold.
------------------------

The author doesn't reference or quote a single Scripture in over 1800 words. Neither does he explain any Bible principle. He's actually writing an opinion piece, not a Bible teaching. Essentially, the author is explaining his church's traditional practice and how Russell Brand is violating that, as if Brand should conform to the author's preferences.

That's really the issue here. But Brand is not a member of the author's church or denomination, so his opinion about Brand is really irrelevant. In fact, we are gladdened by Brand's obvious passion resulting from his truly powerful salvation. So if Brand eschews dead tradition in favor of something that violates the author's sensibilities, well, we're ok with that.

Lastly, because the author neither quotes nor teaches the Bible, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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