What Does the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit Produce in the Life of a Local Church? - by JOSH BUICE

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

The author does not teach the Bible. One cannot teach the Bible without quoting it. The author manages to quote but a single phrase of a verse, plus a couple of verse paraphrases and a closing, semi-relevant verse. So yet again we find a self-styled Bible teacher who can barely quote the Bible. 

Astonishing.

But he can quote John MacArthur...

He has a lot to say about nameless charismatics who are supposedly doing all sorts of incorrect things. But he is unable to cite a single example or even explain the relevance of his criticisms. After all, he's supposed to be teaching us about the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, not critiquing charismatics.

He asks a question in the title, but never actually explains the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit who reaches out, desiring to connect with us and fill us. He discusses how the Body should interact with each other, but does not tell us how the Body should interact with the Holy Spirit, or how churches facilitate fellowship with the Holy Spirit.

How does the Holy Spirit have fellowship with us? Paul writes:

Ph. 2:1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit...

Paul concludes this "if" statement with: 

Ph. 2:2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

Carefully consider this: For Paul, fellowship with the Spirit is a pre-condition of being like-minded and loving. So we need to have fellowship with the Spirit (vertical) in order to properly engage our brothers and sisters (horizontal).

Further, the Greek does not have "with the" in  ...if any fellowship *with the* Spirit... The literal translation is "if any Spirit fellowship." Spirit-fellowship is how the church ought to be characterized.

The author will never discuss any of this, preferring instead to make vague assertions and general statements that teach little and edify even less.

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

How Does the Spirit Work Through Scripture? - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur is continuing his series. We have commented on other parts of this series here and here.

This is a troubling presentation. First, Dr. MacArthur completely misrepresents various Scriptures, especially regarding "The Word." We love and honor the Scriptures, so please don't think we are minimizing them. But just to be clear, the Bible itself almost never refers to the Word as Scripture. When God speaks, generally this is the Word of God speaking. That is, His speaking is a person, titled the Word of God, the pre-incarnate Jesus.

The Son is the Word, and the Bible is the written Word of God. But the Son, the Word, and the Bible are not interchangeable. The Son exists independently from His titles. His Word exists independently from what has been written down. And what has been written down does not address the totality of what He has said. 

The Word is the things God speaks through His Word Jesus. The Bible is a record of some of that Word, just like a book is a record of some of its author's thoughts. Jesus Himself as a person is both the pinnacle of God's communication as well as the vehicle of His communication in these last days (He. 1:1-2). 

God is recorded as having written only three things: The ten commandments (Ex. 31:18), on Belshazzar's wall (Da. 5:5), and in the dirt (Jn. 8:6). Every other message from God is by Him speaking. This speaking is known as prophecy. Prophecy is God speaking His Word to man. Everything we know about God is because He revealed it by speaking. 

Some of that speaking was written down and collected together into what we call the Bible. The entire Bible is composed of God speaking His Word. There is nothing in the Bible that was not spoken by God. Certainly the Bible records the words of people who spoke, and even the words of spiritual entities, both good and evil, but even those words are in the Bible because of God's intention.

Second, Dr. MacArthur wants there to be a difference between illumination and revelation. The former is for contemporary believers, but the latter is only for the apostles 2000 years ago. We believe this is incorrect.

The Greek word "illumination" is 

phótizó, bring to light, make evident, reveal

We find the word here, translated "enlightened:"

Ep. 1:17-18 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know...

Notice that Paul also uses the word "revelation" in this passage. That word is 

apokalupsis, revelation, unveiling

So Paul uses BOTH words in his prayer for the Ephesian church. He wants them illumined and he wants them to have the Spirit of revelation. And both things are so that they will "know." Lest we think that Paul was not referring to direct revelation, later in his letter he writes:

Ep. 3:2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation...

This passage uses the same word, apokalupsis. Here Paul wants the Ephesian church understand the revelation he was given, which happens to be the same word he applied to them in Ep. 1:17-18 regarding THEIR understanding. Thus it is clear that Paul does not claim that receiving revelation was unique to him. He wants the Ephesian church to have revelation like he did. 

With these things clearly in mind, we will be able to see the profound errors of Dr. MacArthur's presentation.

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

Rush Limbaugh’s Toxic Legacy - By Nathan Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Nathan Robinson is supposedly one of the bright young socialists coming up through the ranks. He's not a particularly rigorous thinker, but none on the Left really qualify for such an assessment. We have commented on several of his articles in this blog, and he is reliably loquacious and superficial. This article is no exception, clocking in at nearly 2000 words, replete with leftist slogans and bumper sticker invective.

He's most notorious, perhaps, for behaving in a very non-socialist way when he fired his staff for trying to organize. This is again is typical for the Left, who rarely live their lives in a way that is consistent with their philosophy. Usually leftists are among the richest, greediest, and most racist people in the room, spouting talking points about equity, social justice, and environmentalism while simultaneously keeping their money, their low paid all-white staffs, and their large carbon footprints.

So today Mr. Robinson critiques Rush Limbaugh, or more precisely, a book about him. Mr. Robinson truly doesn't understand Rush, conservatives, or why leftism fails to resonate with people. He spouts the typical leftist agitprop about conservatives, and is unable to see past it, so he's surprised at finding out that conservatives like Rush are not evil, greedy, hateful, bigoted, racist, stupid people.

We can give him a bit of credit, however. He actually does articulate some facts about Rush's generosity, talent, and popularity. But he does his best to mitigate this with snarky comments and more talking points.

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

Todd White Says Jesus’ Disciples Weren’t Saved or Born Again - by Staff Writer

Our comments in bold.

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

Both Protestia and Disntr hyperventilate in concert, this time about Todd White. Now, Mr. White may indeed be problematic. Maybe even a heretic. Or maybe he's just a guy who has a differing view on certain doctrines. However, we don't intend to defend Mr. White, we are here to evaluate the claims of his critics. And the issue here is a matter of reviewing and interpreting Scripture, a process neither Protestia nor Disntr undertook.

Mr. White claimed the disciples weren't saved when they were casting out devils and praying for the sick. This is claim we can examine. Disntr, at least, posted this video, where the host says the disciples were saved because Jesus breathed on them to receive the Holy Spirit:

Jn. 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

Was this really when the disciples were saved, as the video claims? Thomas wasn't there at the time, so when was he saved? And did they actually receive the Holy Spirit at that moment? The text doesn't say, only that Jesus told them to receive the Holy Spirit.

But more importantly, this moment when Jesus breathed on them was after the crucifixion, which of course was well after the supernatural activities of the disciples. 

Another issue is, performing the miracles of God does not indicate salvation:

Mt. 7:22-23 Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" 23 Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" 

And of course there was the unidentified miracle-working man in Mark 9:38. Was he saved?

There is, therefore, enough wiggle room to accept Todd White's statements as at least falling into the realm of possibility and considered evaluation.

Let's pursue this farther. We would want to separate out the issue of salvation as it applies to the First Covenant (He. 9:1). We recognize that the administration of grace during OT times worked differently, as it is described in Romans chapter 4 regarding Abraham's faith. 

So any sort of salvation prior to the New Covenant (He. 9:15) must have occurred under special circumstances. However, it is not within the scope of our remarks to explore how salvation might have worked in the OT.

Jesus' ministry was an even more unique period of time. Jesus was present on earth, ministering in the full grace and power of the Father. We would suggest that is is not the same situation as the OT times or the New Covenant.

Many put their faith in Him (Jn. 8:30) during His ministry, but we don't know how that plays out. He forgave the sins of some, but others committed sin that will not be forgiven. So, when people are recorded as believing Jesus as He spoke to the crowds or performed miracles, is that their moment of their saving faith, or is it simply a matter of believing His words at the moment? 

The time we can be most certain of how to be saved is after Pentecost (Ac. 2:17). Salvation in the New Covenant is contingent on the poured out Holy Spirit in these Last Days:

Ro. 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

According to Reformed theologians, the ordo salutis (order of salvation) is

1) election/predestination (in Christ) 

2) Atonement 

3) gospel call 

4) inward call 

5) regeneration

6) conversion (faith & repentance)

7) justification

8) sanctification

9) glorification (Rom 8:29-30). 

Regeneration would seem to be a pivotal moment:

The SOURCE of regeneration is Christ (1 Pet 1:3; Eph 1:3, 2:4, 4:24; 2 Cor 5:17) The AGENT of regeneration is the Holy Spirit (Jn. 3:3-8; Titus 3:5) The INSTRUMENT of regeneration is the Word of God (Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23, 25) which precedes and causes faith (Jn 6:63-65, 1 jn 5:1, Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13)

One is not a New Creation until regeneration occurs. You must be born again... And regeneration cannot occur until the Holy Spirit does so. And regeneration is required for conversion, which is the moment of faith. 

John makes the direct point that the Holy Spirit had not been given:

Jn. 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

The Holy Spirit would be given after Jesus was glorified. 

Jesus told them it was a good thing He was going away, for the Holy Spirit would not be sent until He did leave:

Jn. 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

And most critically, John tells us they didn't actually believe until after Jesus was raised from the dead:

Jn. 2:22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

The resurrected Jesus told the disciples: 

Ac. 1:4-5 ...“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit was not poured out until Pentecost:

Ac. 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

It seems to us that a person cannot be saved without the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit. In our opinion, the disciples were likely not saved until the Holy Spirit was poured out and regenerated them. 

Notice how we engaged an extended discussion, quoted Scripture, and then made our conclusions? At no time did we did accuse Protestia or Disntr of rank heresy. We simply evaluated the issue, looked at the Scriptures, and determined that it is not entirely clear when the disciples became saved. So we issued what we think is a considered, thoughtful opinion.

Protestia and Disntr would do well to do the same.

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

Can We Add to God's Word? - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a completely mystifying post. There are few if any Christians who believe we can add to the Bible. No one believes the canon is open. But Dr. MacArthur seems to think that somehow the canon is in danger of being violated, but he never says how. 

Yes, the crucial part of his string of logic is simply not there.

The question in the title seems to be pretty easily and obviously answered: No, we cannot add to God's word, and frankly, no legitimate Christian believes we can.

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

Bad Stuff to Good Stuff: Theological Song Review of Graves Into Gardens - David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have reviewed Mr. Morrill's writings several times, and sadly, we have found his presentations wanting. Today's song review is no exception.

Since he cannot do the courtesy of actually quoting the song lyrics, we shall do so:

1) I searched the world, But it couldn't fill me
Man's empty praise And treasures that fade
Are never enough

Then You came along And put me back together
And every desire Is now satisfied
Here in Your love 

Chorus 

Oh, there's nothing better than You
There's nothing better than You
Lord, there's nothing
Nothing is better than You

2) I'm not afraid To show You my weakness
My failures and flaws Lord, You've seen 'em all
And You still call me friend

'Cause the God of the mountain Is the God of the valley
There's not a place Your mercy and grace
Won't find me again

Bridge

You turn mourning to dancing
You give beauty for ashes
You turn shame into glory
You're the only one who can

You turn graves into garden
You turn bones into armies
You turn seas into highways
You're the only one who can
You're the only one who can

Contrast the way Mr. Morrill will characterize the lyrics with the lyrics themselves. The lyrics are not heretical, controversial, or offensive, yet Mr. Morrill blasts away at them.

We suspect that Mr. Morrill cannot get past his bias, a bias common to those we've deemed the Doctrinal Police. That bias is, there must be complete and total doctrinal conformity. Therefore, a group, church, or person cannot produce anything of virtue or spiritual value if their doctrine doesn't perfectly line up. It isn't possible for them to teach, preach, or write a worship song that honors God. They're likely heretics and probably not saved. 

This is cultic thinking.

Forensic Justification and the Doctrine of Imputation: Where We Divide From Works-Based Religions - Disntr

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

This apparently is an authorless article. Ordinarily we find these disntr articles published under the cowardly moniker "publisher," but we don't even get that for this article.

Frankly, the phrase "forensic justification" is new to our ears. And like so many theological terms, it obscures more than it illuminates. Thus the author finds need for today's article, to explain the doctrine.

Happily, the author quotes some Scripture, an all-to-rare event among these supposed Bible teachers. Unfortunately, however, the quoted Scriptures do not bolster the author's point. We are looking for biblical evidence for the doctrine of "forensic" justification, but the author cites only verses that document justification. He doesn't cite Scriptures that document the "forensic" part. 

Most likely because there aren't any.

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

Jesus Received Our Paycheck - by ROBIN SELF

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In recent years we have modified our thinking about certain doctrines and assumptions about doctrines. In particular, we have found that what Bible teachers teach and what pastors teach is simply what they've been taught, and is too often misleading, incomplete, or just plain wrong. 

And we are guilty ourselves for simply accepting what were were taught without examining these things in light of the Bible.

Today's article is one of those situations. Romans 6:23 is one of the better-known verses in the Bible, and is a profound statement of salvation. But the problem is, we want to personalize too many things in the Bible, even when the subject matter is clearly about someone else or in some other context.

We think Romans 6:23 is a good example:

Ro. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We instantly want to insert ourselves into this verse. We think the wages of OUR sin is the topic, but the verse doesn't say that. It says that the wages of sin, all sin, is death. And it says the gift of God is, for all people, eternal life. Paul was writing about something different than the what we think. 

Be patient as we explain. First, note in the verse that death is the result of sin. Paul's context is specific. Leading in to this verse he had written about the results of a particular sin, the sin of Adam. We find in the previous chapter of Romans where Paul discusses this:

Ro. 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...

See it? Adam's sin brought death and condemnation into the world. The wages of Adam's sin resulted in death to all mankind. It isn't about our individual sin. Paul was not referring to you. 

This is not a isolated verse. Paul makes the same point in his first letter to the Corinthian church:

1Co. 15:21-22 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

So because of Adam's sin death came into the world, the resulting death is man's actual problem. Death and condemnation is the default state of mankind: 

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Your first breath was as a dead man. Condemned already. You weren't born in sin, you were born in the death that came from Adam's sin. Yes, your sin is grievous to God, but sinning is what dead, condemned people do. 

Sinners will not be judged for their sin, because they are dead already, they in effect are already judged. Condemned already. 

We realize this might be an astonishing statement. But look it up. Try to find a verse that says God will examine or review unsaved peoples' sins and then execute judgment.

So, when we are saved, the precise transaction is that we pass from death to life:

Jn. 5:24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Without the resurrection, we are still dead (1Co. 15:17). But a particular thing happens beyond getting our sins forgiven. It's even more than being born again, justified, and baptized in the Spirit. Jesus defeated Death (1Co. 15:53-54), and those He saves are written in the book of life:

Re. 20:15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

At the beginning of creation, no one's name was in there. Everyone starts dead and condemned. Everyone who has lived and will live is not currently written in the book of life, yet when they are saved their names get written down. 

It's an important distinction, because we have this idea that a transaction or payment or legal determination happens. We think Jesus made payment for every person's individual sin. He didn't. We think the Father punished Him instead of us. This simply isn't true. The only transaction that ever happens is the moment when Jesus speaks our names and washes us by the blood: When we come alive, He gives us a new name (Re. 2:17) as born again people and writes that name in the book of life (Re. 3:5).

With all that in mind, let's consider Ms. Self's presentation.

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

God laid it on my heart? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In today's article Ms. Prata will assert the Holy Spirit brings information to the believer, but denies this information is revelation. She will call it "illumination," but will not tell us where the Bible describes this distinction. Her intent is to limit the Holy Spirit's work to illumination because she doesn't believe God speaks to people in our day apart from the Bible.

Her position is that revelation is direct information from God, which the apostles then wrote down in the form of what became the Scriptures we have today. Since that is finished, she would therefore deny contemporary Christians can receive any sort of revelation from God. The Holy Spirit now only illuminates, which is the making clear of the words of Scripture.

Unfortunately, there isn't a single Bible quote in this article. Ms. Prata wants to teach about the Bible without using it. This is a widespread phenomena among these Correctors Of Doctrine, troubling indeed. So she will never explain the biblical basis for her claims.

So let's go ahead and explore what the Bible actually says, to see if Ms. Prata's distinction between illumination and revelation exists. The Greek word "illumination" is 

phótizó, bring to light, make evident, reveal

We find the word here, translated "enlightened:"

Ep. 1:17-18 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know...

Notice that Paul also uses the word "revelation" in this passage. That word is 

apokalupsis, revelation, unveiling

So Paul uses BOTH words in his prayer for the Ephesian church. He wants them illumined and he wants them to have the Spirit of revelation. And both things are so that they will "know." Lest we think that Paul was not referring to direct revelation, later in his letter he writes:

Ep. 3:2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.

This passage uses the same word, apokalupsis. Here Paul wants the Ephesian church understand the revelation he was given, which happens to be the same word he applied to them in Ep. 1:17-18. Thus it is clear that Paul does not claim that receiving revelation is unique to him. He wants the Ephesian church to have revelation as well. 

And by the way, notice the definitions of apokalupsis and phótizó are very similar. However, Ms. Prata wants them to be very different, where being enlightened is restricted to obtaining understanding about Scripture, while revelation is for a former time and does not happen today. This is a forced distinction not justified by the word meanings themselves or the Bible.

Another word, closely related to apokalupsis, is

apokaluptó to take off the cover, i.e. Disclose -- reveal.

If revelation was restricted to apostles to write Scripture, then we would expect that the Bible would use this word only with regard to the apostles:

Ep. 3:5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

But this isn't the only use of this word. It is also used in reference to other believers:

1Co. 14:30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.

1Co. 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

When we actually examine the Bible, we see that Ms. Prata is wrong.

Lastly, we will find that Ms. Prata relies on bad teaching to form her opinions. She approvingly quotes this quote from an unnamed source:

How can I know the will of God? First, I need to realize that God’s revelation has been “once for all delivered” (Jude 3), which means no further revelation will be made. Second, I need to accept that God’s revealed will in His Word is complete and all-sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16-17), supplying me with everything I need to live and to serve God (2 Pet. 1:3). Third, I need to admit that if I believe God laid something on my heart, then someone else has an equal right to claim that God has laid the complete opposite on his heart, and who is to say who is “right” and who is “wrong”? That’s why God’s Word is the perfect, complete and final standard in all things (John 12:48)

There are several errors here. The first is the unnamed author's statement that Jude 3 means no further revelation will be made. Let's quote the verse:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Notice right off the bat that the verse is not telling us about revelation. It is not discussing Scripture or the closed canon. It is referring to the faith. The faith is once delivered, i.e., the sum of what we believe. The faith is final. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time Jude was writing, it is impossible for him to be telling his readers that there will be no further revelation.

Second cited verse, 2Ti. 3:16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

This Scripture does not say that His Word is complete. It says Scripture is useful.

Third cited verse, 2Pe. 1:3:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.

The unnamed author writes, His Word is complete and all-sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16-17), supplying me with everything I need to live and to serve God (2 Pet. 1:3). But wait! Peter wasn't writing about Scripture. It says it right in the verse. He was writing about God's divine power. This is a serious misrepresentation of Scripture, written by a Bible teacher and quoted by Ms. Prata. Something is quite amiss here.

Last is this vapid idea: ...if I believe God laid something on my heart, then someone else has an equal right to claim that God has laid the complete opposite on his heart, and who is to say who is “right” and who is “wrong”? We find that the unnamed author answers his "gotcha" question in his very next sentence: God’s Word is the perfect, complete and final standard in all things. 

So by the unnamed author's own admission there is a standard. It is possible to tell which message is right and which message is wrong.

In addition to the Bible, we can also test the message with the gift of discernment, and we are to test the spirits as well. Further, we also have the counsel of the saints to assist us. There is little uncertainty regarding the correctness of a prophetic revelation to those whose counsel is rooted in Scripture.

We say this is a vapid assertion because the same criteria applies to doctrine. Doctrine is also subject to "he said/she said," and we have no problem testing those things in the exact same way. We don't simply dismiss it by saying we can't tell who's right and who's wrong.

Therefore there is no problem regarding competing claims about what God said.

Lastly, Ms. Prata provides a reference for further reading: Ligonier: The Holy Spirit’s Ministry We commented on this poorly-reasoned article here. This article has appeared at Ligonier at least three different times, sometimes with a different title.

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

How Did God Inspire His Word? And, How Did God Guide the Biblical Writers? - by John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Second article here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur intends to explain inspiration, but doesn't really do so in this first excerpt. We redacted a large section, which was nothing more than an explanation of what inspiration isn't. Since he has published another installment (found at the end), we will see if he actually gets around to not only explaining inspiration, but also why this understanding is important to know. 

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

I Did Not Sign-Up for This: The Fourth P of Pastoral Ministry - YING YEE

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

This is an astoundingly bad teaching. There's no other way to put it. We're sorry to say so, since the author has all of the appearance of being a good-hearted, well meaning pastor. 

First problem: The author neither quotes nor references any Scripture, scriptural principle, or even something that would be edifying or instructive. Nothing. How can one teach about pastoral ministry or any Bible topic without mentioning the Bible?

Second, the author writes enviously of his friend's ministry activities: What a dream job! This is why we went into ministry. If this is indeed his calling, then why is he not being obedient? Why envy someone who is doing what you're supposed to be doing? If the author didn't sign up for what he is doing now, the obvious solution is to do something else.  

Third, it appears the author must be some sort of super-apostle, because he compares his pastoral role to the NT apostles while not seeming to do anything related to pastoring:

Like the apostles, we signed up to give ourselves fully to the ministry of the word and prayer and not to be bogged down with endless administrative matters...

Though it is certainly good for a pastor to pray, there's nothing in the Bible that indicates a pastor has a ministry in the Word, let alone any endless administrative matters. He claims that these administrative matters duties are an unavoidable part of gospel ministry. 

Apparently he doesn't understand what a gospel ministry is, what biblical pastor does, or what the Bible says about who leads the local church.

Fourth, he does concede that a pastor should delegate, but then claims that you may not have the luxury of delegation. What??? If this man is presiding over a local church body, right there in front of him every single Sunday are his delegees. If a church is in such a state that there is no one to delegate to, then the pastor is failing to train up the flock to maturity. 

Further, if there is no one to delegate to, then there can't be very much TO delegate.

Fifth, a church is not led by a pastor. There is but a single mention of the English word "pastor:" 

Ep. 4:11-12 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service...

The Greek word is poimén, a shepherd, a word that appears 18 times in the NT. A shepherd is a lowly person who tends flocks. Shepherds were among the lower strata of society. They certainly weren't standing before adoring crowds pontificating about their great insights into Scripture.

So in the local church a pastor/shepherd is down amongst the sheep. He cares for the flock. He's kind and compassionate. He's good with people and building relationships. He's protective. He's a father:

Jn. 10:13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

1Co. 4:15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Biblically, he is not a teacher, apostle, evangelist, or prophet, although it is possible for a him to be gifted one or more of these and/or other areas. He's not a top-of-the pyramid leader. He's not even a delegator, since a biblical pastor/shepherd has nothing to delegate. 

A pastor/shepherd is not the singular CEO leader of a church. Biblically, the leadership is a plurality of elders:

1Pe. 5:1-3 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

It's certainly possible a pastor could be a part of the elder/leadership team, but it's not required. It would be based on the man's gifting and calling, not on titles, position, or expectation.

We are convinced that the reason so many pastors fail, stray, or burn out is because they are not embracing the biblical model. As such, they, like the author, get bogged down in things with which they should not be concerned. It's no wonder the church is in such a dysfunctional state, because the leadership is dysfunctional.

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

Jesus was a refugee - hegetsus.com

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have seen numerous advertisements recently about how Jesus really isn't really like what people think He's like. The ads do their best to make Jesus relatable, while studiously avoiding anything that might be threatening or controversial about him. They present Jesus as plain vanilla, inoffensive, and non-threatening. The Gospel is conspicuously absent. Repentance is not mentioned, nor is sin.

Jesus is just a regular guy. He gets us...

So who's behind all this? Their website says, We’re also not affiliated with any particular church or denomination. There website also says, He Gets Us is an initiative of Servant Foundation.

So we were curious and started digging. 

According to nonprofitlight.com, the Servant Foundation is headed by Steve French, President and CEO. This non-profit is associated with and funded through The Signatry, which seems to be an organization that organizes and facilitates funds aggregation. Interestingly it also is also headed by Steve French, President and CEO. 

Turns out that we can trace it all the way back to Church of the Servant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. So hegetsus.com IS associated with a church, and with a denomination. Church of the Servant is a United Methodist church. 

Church of the Servant seems to be a pretty conventional church, at least as presented on their website. Lots of happy, smiling people doing happy smiling things, but really nothing of substance. In particular, there is no statement of faith, which almost every church features rather prominently. The Church of the Servant's website only tells us that if one wants to become a member, that person will then receive the statement of faith. 

So it seems that the Church of the Servant is also intended to present itself as plain vanilla, inoffensive, and non-threatening, just like hegetsus.com. So if we want to get a hint of the substance of Church of the Servant, it seems safe to assume that the messages found at hegetus.com are sourced from the church. 

So the article we wish to examine makes the claim that Jesus was a refugee. First, let's read the biblical account:

Matt 2:13-15: ...an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. 'Get up,' he said, 'take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.' So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod.

Now let's define "refugee:"

A refugee, according to the Geneva Convention on Refugees is a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country.

Refugees are part of a group that is being oppressed. They want to escape their bad situations, but they have nowhere go. However, Joseph and Mary were not part of a persecuted group. They we not being threatened. They did have a place to go. The definition simply doesn't fit. 

Therefore, they were not refugees, they were simply assassination targets. More specifically, they were warned in advance that they were going to be targeted. This makes them exiles:

1. The condition or period of being forced to live away from one's native country or home, especially as a punishment.
2. The condition or period of self-imposed absence from one's country or home.
3. One who lives away from one's native country, whether because of expulsion or voluntary absence.

The narrative of the below article is pretty conventional, until we get to the end. It says, ...the impact of being displaced always stuck with Jesus. We can see it in his compassion toward others... Is it really true that Jesus' life experience shaped His way of dealing with people? Well, it's possible, but the Bible doesn't tell us this. It's nothing more than speculation.

We think that Jesus was compassionate and merciful because His Father is compassionate an merciful:

Mk. 6:34 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd.

2Co. 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion...

Ja. 5:11b The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

Jn. 5:19 I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

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

From Rich Theology to Emotionally Charged Shallowness: The Evolution of Worship in the Modern Church - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a gigantic Appeal To History based solely on the author's personal preferences. 

"Publisher," the author, neither quotes nor even cites any Bible verse. This is astounding. He presumes to evaluate the worship of people he doesn't like, who are singing songs he doesn't like in churches he doesn't like, but cannot bring himself to explain biblical precepts, let alone quote the Bible.

If the author has a biblical case, we would love to consider it, but alas, he does not. That makes this article into nothing more than an opinion screed.

Also, we want to note that the title provides a false choice. There is much contemporary worship music that is theologically rich, and there are hymns that are theologically shallow. 

Further, upon what basis should worship be about theology? There is nothing in the Bible that tells us we must sing deep theological treatises. Worship is the bowing low before a Holy God, declaring His wonders, His mighty works, and glorifying His character. We of course must be theologically accurate in this endeavor, but nothing in Scripture demands a doctrinal tour de force.

Ps. 107:1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures for ever.

This simple and powerful worship statement, which does not require a Bible dictionary to decipher, was often accompanied by glorious manifestations of God's power (2Ch. 5:13, 2Ch. 20:21, 2Ch. 7:1-3). 

If it was good enough to elicit the Glory back then, we suspect that simple, honest worship should suffice today.

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

Taken Captive By False Teachers & False Doctrines – 10 signs - By Rick Becker

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

This is not an explanation of false teachers or false doctrines. The author does not quote anyone, he doesn't explain anything, and her doesn't clear up any misconception. He doesn't even bother to teach what he believes to be true. All this is is a long, pedantic list of accusations and undocumented claims. Happily, he does quote Scripture, a rare occurrence among the Doctrinal Police, but for the most part he uses Bible verses as a bludgeon.

He has a bogeyman, the "NAR." He doesn't even explain who they are. But he does manage several extended tirades against them.

This man is not a teacher of the Word, he's a guns-ablazing polemicist with really nothing to say. A such, there is little to learn from this screed. If the reader wants an in-depth discussion of charismatic beliefs, he may wish to consult our cessationism series.

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

Does God Change? 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 what we think are 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 too 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 there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

Popular Rising Star in Contemporary Christian Music is Putting Out Nothing but Garbage - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are not here to defend Mr. Lake. We intend to examine the author's presentation.

What Is an Apostle? - by SCOTT ANIOL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is simply bad Bible teaching. There's no other way to describe it. The author doesn't get a single thing correct. He misreads Scripture, overlooks critical concepts, and simply misrepresents what the Bible says.

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

The January 6 Committee Dropped the Ball When It Failed to Call for Abolition of the Electoral College - By John Nichols

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Narrative apparently has changed back to the Electoral College. This must be the new talking point sent out from Central Command to the minions on the Left. Mr. Nichols dutifully pumps out yet another article in service to the Narrative. 

Mr. Nichol's purpose is not to inform, explain, or clarify. He's not intending to impart information or understanding. This is not even written to contribute to the debate. He marches in lock-step with other leftist agitprop generators to supply the day's bumper sticker slogans.

He is simply bolstering The Narrative in order to further The Agenda. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points of the day, the factoids and topics that always appear simultaneously all over the media landscape, designed as a barrage to overcome the reader's intellect so as to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the elimination of the current system to install Marxism. 

One would think that simply spouting random sentences pulled from various leftist websites would be relatively easy. Regurgitating a couple of leftist factoids shouldn't be much of a challenge, either. After all, a superficial correlation of otherwise unrelated events is what these minions do. But though the central point of Mr. Nichol's article is to establish that the Electoral College caused the supposed insurrection, he doesn't even discuss this. All he does is state it as if it were true and move on. Astonishing. 

We should also note that he is engaging in Mountain Man's Law, which is: "Everything a Leftist Democrat accuses someone of doing is actually being done by Leftist Democrats."

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

SBTS Dean, Hershael York, Reveals Unbiblical *Nuanced* Mindset Behind Restoring Adulterous Pastors - Paul Brown

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have grown accustomed to Protestia's superficial and often errant Bible exposition. Mr. Brown, the author, does manage to quote a pertinent Scripture, which warms our heart in an era of Bible-free teaching by various "discernment" ministries. But he focuses on a single aspect, "the husband of one wife," in the narrowest possible interpretation.

While we share the author's concern when these pastors quickly re-appear in the pulpit, sometimes after very serious sin, we reject the idea that there is no possibility for restoration to the pulpit for each and every case of sexual sin. We would embrace a broader criteria, since sin of every kind is present in the Church and potentially disqualifying for every person (1Co. 9:27, Col. 2:18), not just pastors.

The church has a responsibility:

Ga. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

The word "restore" means exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function. So a leader or pastor or any Christian who sins needs to be put back to full function, if at all possible. This requires repentance, counseling, examining of subsequent fruit, and continued accountability and evaluation.

No sin should disqualify any truly repentant person to return to their God-given gifts.

We should also mention that the Bible does not teach that pastors lead churches, the elders do (1Pe. 5:1-3). We therefore think the greatest problem is not that pastors fall, it's that pastors are placed too high. They occupy unbiblical positions at the top of the pyramid. They have too much power, they are subject to too many expectations, and they carry a burden God never put on them. Of course they would tend to fail in such an environment.

Churches are to be led by a plurality of godly men, not a CEO pastor. This fact could be a least a part of the solution to pastoral missteps.

In addition, much of the author's article is premised upon the idea that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are pastoral epistles. There are no pastoral epistles.

Lastly, the author makes a gratuitous insulting statement regarding Hershael York. Such things are unbefitting a Christian.

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

Secret And Sinister Messages From God: Does God Speak Outside Of His Word? (part 1 & 2) - by MIKE ABENDROTH

Part one excerpted from here.

Part two excerpted from here.

We shall not consider part three, since it only deals with a particular person, and contains no Bible verses or Bible exposition at all.

Our comments in bold.

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

Special revelation. Continuing revelation. Ongoing revelation. New revelation. Extra-biblical revelation. The author assiduously avoids calling prophecy prophecy, preferring pejorative neologisms. 

The author spends a lot of time repeating and repeating his conclusions, but these are for the most part not relevant to the discussion. Ultimately, he presumes the answer to "does God speak outside His word" as no, but never manages to document it.

And by the way, this question is a tautology. God speaking is God articulating His Word. He has never stopped speaking, so His Word is Him speaking. 

Further, the Son is the Word, and the Bible is the written Word of God. But the Son, the Word, and the Bible are not interchangeable. The Son exists independently from His titles. His Word exists independently from what has been written down. And what has been written down does not address the totality of what He has said.

And none of this means that He has nothing more to say.

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

Guest column: Inflation Reduction Act: A win-win for your pocketbook and our climate - By Becky Edwards, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The glib talking points flow effortlessly from the writer's word processor, to the point of ridiculousness. 

It's one thing to favor a clean environment. It's another thing entirely to spout bumper sticker slogans and leftist agitprop in the name of a clean environment. And she is definitely a leftist. Since she is a leftist, we do not accept anything she writes on face value. Leftists never tell the whole truth, they always hide behind fine-sounding phrases, superficial analyses, and obfuscating rhetoric. 

And by the way, to our knowledge, the author is not an economist, ecologist, or credentialed in any field upon which she comments. We can discern no qualifications that would suggest we should accept her ideas.

Let's see what we can pull out of this article.

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