Francis Chan Says God Wants Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox All at the Same Communion Table - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The doctrinal Police are at it again. The unnamed "Publisher" has an opinion about a statement made by Francis Chan about communion. Now, we don't wish to defend the unbiblical doctrines of various sects, nor do we intend to defend Mr. Chan, but we also don't want to dismiss millions of professing Christians (it's not within anyone's ability to know the eternal status of anyone) as far as who is eligible to receive communion. 

In addition, correct doctrine is not a determiner of salvation. Correct doctrine is certainly a desirable pursuit, but regarding the Holy Spirit's action in the human soul, well, that is a matter of divine knowledge and not related to correct doctrine.

But more to the point, eligibility to partake of communion as a sacrament is really a matter of individual church or denominational practice. But this is not described in the Bible. 

Nor is it the solemn ceremony practiced by most churches.

The Bible describes communion as a meal where the saints come together to fellowship. The early church gathered frequently to eat together: 

Ac. 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts...

Paul told the Corinthian church that their divisions were a big problem:

1Co. 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

According to Paul, this was spilling over into their communal meals (1Co. 11:20). They were dishonoring the Body by getting drunk and excluding people, who ended up going hungry (1Co. 11:21). That's why Paul charged them to examine themselves to see if they were properly remembering the Body in the midst of their fellowship together (1Co. 11:28).

Notice that Paul made no requirement regarding the salvation status of anyone. We might presume that all were Christians, but Paul doesn't say. The problem was one of division and exclusion, not of the salvation or doctrine of the attendees.

So let's bring this to today. Biblically speaking, communion ought to be the regular gathering of the saints to eat and to remember Jesus' sacrifice. Though an assembly of the saints, it should be open to all comers. Those who are lost and those who might belong to a deviant church should come and see how much the brethren love one another. 

It might save some of them.

It seems ironic that "Publisher" would want to exclude certain people when that is exactly what Paul's complaint was about. We would therefore hope that attitudes about communion would change to conform to biblical teaching.

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

The Emerging Republican Theocracy - White Christian nationalism is the creed of red America - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The most striking thing about this screed, aside from its irredeemable irrationality, is its irony. Everything Dr. Reich complains about is implemented or about to be implemented by the Left. Dr. Reich goes on and on about the possibility of dangerous authoritarianism of "Christian nationalists" while right now we have the authoritarianism of the Left in operation. He wants freedom of religion while the Left is simultaneously silencing Christians for putting their faith into practice.

Can anyone remember "Christian nationalism" being a thing prior to maybe a few years ago? The idea appeared out of nowhere, doubtless a talking point from the deep state. It's truly astounding how fast these bumper sticker slogans gain traction. 

So, Dr. Reich thinks these "Christian nationalists" are dangerous. They are going discriminate, force people to believe in God, and march people off to the gulag. This nonsense is designed to ramp up outrage against an imagined enemy so as to mobilize the troops. The objective, of course, is to suppress Christianity. 

But the upshot is, even if every "danger" described by Dr. Reich is true, we would still prefer that society over the one envisioned by Leftists. 

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

WHAT DO WE DO WITH DREAMS AND VISIONS? - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Finally we have someone who will be discussing the cessationist view of Joel's prophecy, the pouring out of the Spirit on all people. Astonishingly, the author will completely avoid the plain statements of the passage. Basically, the author will say, "well, it can't mean what it says, so it must mean something else."

In addition, the author will never quote any Bible verse other than the one verse from Joel, so her article will generally be presented without the Bible. And, she never answers the question asked in the title.

Lastly, the author will not quote Peter's restatement of the prophecy:

Ac. 2:16-21 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Joel 2:28-32]

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Joyce Meyer Says Christians Should Never Feel Guilt for Sinning - by Staff Writer

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

Now, we have no intention of defending Joyce Meyer, but we shall examine the claim made by "staff writer" in light of what the Bible says. It's but a single sentence of commentary regarding this supposedly egregious explanation made by Ms. Meyer. 

We begin our excerpt at the point in the article where "staff writer" actually turns to address the subject matter.

We shall comment at the end.

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

Why You Can’t Get to Heaven through the Mormon Faith - by Eric Davis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We fully agree with the author's assessment of the various errant LDS doctrines. But his whole presentation is predicated on the idea that what a person believes has something to do with them getting saved. Or, good doctrine is required to be saved. 

However, good doctrine does not save a person. And errant doctrine doesn't condemn a person. So of course you can't get to Heaven through Mormonism because you can't get to heaven through Christianity either. 

How does one get saved? We suppose that somewhere in the author's presentation is buried the Gospel, but it is never coherently expressed. He does quote a couple of Scriptures, but none of them are about the Gospel.

Yes, Mormons certainly worship a different (or, perhaps, improperly described) Jesus, they have an mistaken view of Scripture, and they add to the Bible. This all is certainly true. But none of this speaks to someone's salvation status. It's quite possible there are many truly saved Mormons, who when sitting in their temples heard enough of the Gospel to put their faith in the one true God and His Son Jesus. 

They were saved in spite of Mormonism, not because of it.

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

What Happened To The Asbury Revival? - SAMUEL SEY

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is basically a "see I told you so" article where the author feels vindicated that the Asbury revival didn't do what he thinks revivals should do. Rather than operate in faith and pray the the Holy Spirit causes people to get saved or Christians to bear fruit, the author celebrates being a nay-sayer.

Revival is not defined in the Bible. But it does describe various times when God moved in various situations, sometimes in surprising or unusual ways. There is nothing in the Bible about local churches receiving benefits from a revival, nothing about "lasting outcomes." There is nothing about "changing churches." The author's criteria is not found.

In fact, we would know nothing about what the Bible says if we were to rely on the author, since he never quotes or even refers to it. He mentions Jesus once and the Holy Spirit exactly zero. 

He claims he called local churches to see what effect the revival had. However, he did not mention calling anyone who had attended, which would be a superior way of ascertaining what God might have done at Asbury. Neither did he contact the college. Yet he is more than happy to report a "fake" revival, even warning of unmentioned dangers to "young Christians."

So the author is an armchair quarterback hoping the home team will lose. 

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

Bad worship songs: Man of Sorrows - Hillsongs, Crocker, Ligertwood

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.

We should note that our title is about worship songs. A bad worship song can be a good song. What makes a song a good 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 as many as possible of 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
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody

Scripture quotes or coherent allusions to Scripture

• Doctrinal soundness
• Further, a worship song should not:
• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is 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 today's song, Man of Sorrows.

Audio link.
-------------------

Is there generational sin/curses? - 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.

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

God Told Me: The Pentecostalization of Evangelical Theology - by SCOTT ANIOL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes some astonishing claims as he presumes his premises. Problem is, one must accept these undocumented premises in order for any of this to make sense. It's a logical and Scriptural nightmare.

But this is what we have too often found as we have examined some of his other articles.

The author will his best to bias the reader by his use of language. Thus he agendizes his explanation to tilt the debate to his perspective.

This is over 2600 words, including quotes. And it takes the author over 1000 words for the author to finally quote Scripture. Then when he finally does quote it in defense of his assertions he misrepresents it.

We don't like being lied to, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Let's quote the entire passage, since the author never does: 

2Pe. 1:16-21 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 

18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

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

Ed Stetzer’s Super Bowl He Gets Us Commercial is the Most Blasphemous One Yet, Depicts Jesus as Affirming of Homosexuality and Abortion - by Publisher

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

On one hand we agree with the unnamed "Publisher" that the He Gets Us campaign often presents an inaccurate/incomplete picture of Jesus. On the other hand we understand the campaign's aim to portray Jesus in a way that contradicts the stereotypes non-believers often have. 

We don't think the campaign always does this accurately. We were critical of another of their commercials here.

However, our intent today is not to critique the He Gets Us commercial, but rather critique "Publisher's" Scriptureless critique.

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

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED-THE LOVESICK SCRIBE

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is answering a question about the NAR, with special attention about people who desire to hear from God. This is part of her answer.

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

We are not told to hold onto or trust a personal experience. We are told to trust in Christ alone. Peter helps us to remember that in 2 Peter 1:16-21. Though Peter’s experience in witnessing the glory of Christ on the mount of Transfiguration was real and powerful, Peter instructed others to trust in the more sure word of prophecy, which testified of Jesus Christ. This was lamp to light their way forward. It was not their reliance of a dream or a personal prophetic word.

***

Let's quote the passage:

2Pe. 1:16-19 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

The author thinks this passage is referring to the sureness of the Bible vs. personal experience. We emphatically disagree. Peter was clearly not attempting to prove the superiority of Scripture over the prophetic. 

Hoax List - John C. Wright

 Found here.

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

I have maintained a list under the tag “Not Tired of Winning Yet” showing the various campaign promises by Trump made and kept. But I did not keep a list of the various lies, hoaxes, prevarications and gaslighting absurdities perpetrated by the mainstream Project Mockingbird assets known as the Fake News, but by the Men of the West called The Mouth of Sauron.

Fortunately, John Nolte of Breitbart has done my work for me:

• Russia Collusion Hoax
• Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
• Jussie Smollett Hoax

What Does It Mean to Be Chosen in Christ? - By Jonathan Landry Cruse

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is writing about the Calvinistic idea that there is a select group of people (the elect), whom God long ago chose to be saved. This is one of the five points of Calvinism, a rough summary known as TULIP:

T - Total Depravity

U - Unconditional Election

L - Limited Atonement

I - Irresistible Grace

P - Perseverance of the Saints

The "U," Unconditional Election, is also known as predestination.

 

We find that the promulgation of Calvinism is largely accomplished via misconceptions and misrepresentations. We don't think this is done maliciously, but rather due to entrenched tradition. People are sucked in to Calvinism unawares. Many of these bad teachings have been examined in the pages of this blog. 

But more importantly, the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism are irrelevant. None of them change the obligations or privileges of a Christian. We still must be saved, grow in faith, be holy, be generous, be worshipers, etc. Not a single doctrine of Calvin comes to bear on living an adequate, proper, or perhaps even remarkable Christian life. 

Happily the author actually quotes Scripture. Unfortunately he misuses it. Badly.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (...Women giving pro-life talks in church) - Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley is back from her blog hiatus and quickly returns to parsing 1 Timothy 2:12, creating yet another micro doctrine about things women cannot do in church.

Here's the verse:

1Ti. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

We note that Ms. Lesley never quotes this verse or any Bible verse. Her presentation is simply another speculation based on a mistaken understanding of this verse. There is nothing here or anywhere in the Bible about a woman giving a "brief, personal testimony" and there is nothing about forbidding a woman from replacing the sermon.

We extensively discuss the role of women in church here.

Further, the Bible does not tell us "pastors, preach the word." Let's quote the verse: 

2Ti. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction.

This was Paul's instruction to Timothy, not to pastors. And Timothy wasn't a pastor, which we discuss here. And, the verse does not tell us anything about preaching in a church service, but rather preaching in season and out of season (i.e., the proclamation of the Gospel in every place at every opportunity). 

There is a difference between preaching and teaching. They are two different things: 

Mt. 4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Here we find that Jesus was doing three different things, teaching, preaching and healing. 

"Teaching" is didaskó, 1. absolutely, a. to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them...

"Preaching" is kérussó, b. specifically used of the public proclamation of the gospel...

Therefore, Paul's instruction to Timothy in 2Ti. 4:2 was to preach (kérussó) the word, i.e., proclaim the Gospel. We can easily confirm this assertion because only three verses later Paul instructed Timothy:

2Ti. 4:5 ...do the work of an evangelist...

Evangelists preach the Gospel.

Now, we should be clear that Paul did command Timothy to teach (1Ti. 1:3, 1Ti. 4:11, 1Ti. 4:13, 1Ti. 6:2, etc.). But that doesn't make him the pastor because the Bible does not tell us that pastors teach. Pastors care for the flock, and teachers teach (Ep. 4:11). Elders lead the church, not pastors (1Pe. 5:2). 

Paul agrees with Peter about elders leading the church: 

1Ti. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Timothy was being instructed about leadership structure in the church. Therefore, Timothy was not the pastor.

Ms. Lesley's answer, then, is wrong from beginning to end. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Is Music Worship? - John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

It seems that every MacArthur sermon or article we read causes us to wonder how this man can be regarded as a stellar Bible teacher. We don't wish to dishonor the man, but we are fully willing to examine and evaluate his teaching.

Today we have excerpted his sermon about contemporary worship music. That's his target. He doesn't tell us about why his opinion is better, only that contemporary worship music is Satan's music and doesn't belong in the church.

Though he does quote Scripture, none of it comes to bear on his assertions.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.)

Leadership in the Church - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------
Dr. Sproul completely misrepresents Paul's statement in the subject passage, 1 Corinthians 2:1–5.  The word "minister" is diakonos, servant. Servanthood in the Kingdom is certainly in view in this word, but Dr. Sproul is not referring to general servanthood. He's talking about church leaders like pastors.

Paul was contrasting rhetorical and intellectual credentials with spiritual power. Dr. Sproul puts words in Paul's mouth that sidestep this, thereby changing the thrust of Paul's statement.

Paul was not talking about leaders avoiding a posture of superiority, he was laying the groundwork for his subsequent argument in chapter three about the Corinthian church following certain people. Therefore, Paul was making a point about members of this church following these people according to how well they preach or how smart they were.

Remember that Paul spent a lot of time defending himself against the accusations of the Corinthians (1Co. 4:19, 1Co. 9:1-2, 1Co. 15:9, 2Co. 11:5, 2Co. 13:2-3). They thought he was an inferior apostle. So his point here is that though he isn't much in person (2Co. 10:10) he had the Spirit of God powerfully, and that should be enough to commend him to the Corinthians.

This passage is not about church leadership at all.

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