Three ways God answers prayer - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is unable to quote or reference a single Bible verse, yet he purports to teach us about prayer. How can one teach about a biblical doctrine without the Bible? On this basis alone we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Further, the author doesn't think God will change His course of action based on someone's prayer. This is so obviously false that we must wonder about the author's competency.

In Genesis 18:20-33 Abraham negotiated with God over the fate of Sodom.

Moses was able to the persuade God not to destroy His stiff-necked people:

Ex. 32:14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

The Psalmist expected God to relent: 

Ps. 90:13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants.

 Which He did:

Ps. 106:45 for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented.

He promises to relent if people repent: 

Je. 18:7-8 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Je. 26:3 Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done.

Jeremiah prophesied that God would stop what He intended to do:

Je. 26:13 Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you.

So why do so many people think God will not change His mind? Probably because of verses like these:

Nu. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfil?

1Sa. 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”

It is interesting that the Bible itself tells us that He does relent yet He does not relent. What are we to make of this? In every case the Hebrew word for "change his mind" is nacham, to be sorry, console oneself. 

The nuances are important. When it says God does not change His mind it is in comparison to man. It may be more simple than we have been led to believe, that the way God does things is not like how man does things. 

If this is true, let's insert some clarifying language into the Numbers verse:

Nu. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie (like men do), nor a son of man, that he should change his mind (in the manner of men). Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfil?

We begin to see the true nature of these statements, that God is not capricious or arbitrary. He is not like men in His ways. They are higher:

Is. 55:9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Thus it is quite possible that God changes His mind in some sense, but it's nothing like what men do or how men think.

The author reasons that the possibility of God changing His mind means His sovereignty would be compromised. But he doesn't tell us why or how this would be true. In fact, God's sovereignty is unaffected by the possibility of Him changing His mind. He still does as He pleases, even if He chooses to do something else. God is still God, even when He has mercy and relents.

Moving on, the author offers three ways that God deals with prayer. However, he does not address the fact that God might indeed answer prayers exactly as prayed. 

Lastly, the author has a deterministic view of how our lives work. He mentions the Elect, that is, those who are predestined for salvation. He says that God will go to some great lengths to ensure the elect get to where they need to go, but doesn't tell us how this in any way changes things. Of course He sent Jesus to die for our sins, which is extraordinary, but what other things would God do that would be considered "great lengths?" And why would God need to ensure the Elect are the Elect? This seems like a tautology.

The author insists that God's great lengths is not a reason for complacency. However, if God is sovereign in the sense that everything will happen exactly as He desires, then why would anyone bother to pray? Even if it's true that failing to pray might make God do something to lead to some consequences that might wake us up from our malaise, such a thing does not change election. Prayerlessness has no impact on one's salvation. 

Most critically, if someone does pray because he fears God might do something to correct him, well, that's not a feature of faith.

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

Can I Tell an Unbeliever ‘Jesus Died for You’? - by JUSTIN DILLEHAY

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

----------

The author grapples with a problem created by his Calvinistic doctrine. He believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that the author cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because he doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around.

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

Responding to Dr. Michael Brown's Questioning of Discernment Ministers - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Discernment" ministers don't like to be discerned. They bristle at being questioned, held to their own standards, or subject to any sort of evaluation.

Rev. Wade is offended at the questions posed by Dr. Brown. He's outraged that anyone might suggest that "discernment" ministers ought to be held accountable. The thing about it is, "discernment" ministers are often worthy of criticism. They are too often over-the-top, insulting, and, yes, down right wrong. 

In keeping with their hyperbolic tendencies, their response to criticism is also hyperbolic.

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person who believe that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers towards false teachers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia) as follows:

hideously ugly

post-menopausal woman 

bizarre wardrobe choices

a penchant for cackling

no personal charisma

a face that scares children

a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard

pugnacious

unladylike

uglier on the inside than she is on the outside

the personality of a Roomba 

 the personal charisma of fetid corpse

unpleasant and evil woman

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• T.D. Jakes might have some problems, but here's what a Rev. Wade himself wrote about him: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men. Like you, he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• Rev. Wade also says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

There are many more examples, including from Rev. Wade, that we could list. We don't want to suggest the above examples are typical, but they happen frequently enough that they're not aberrations. 

Lastly, Rev. Wade's "devotional" doesn't contain a single quote from the Bible or a discussion of any spiritual principle. It's continually dismaying to us how these people think they can be any sort of minister, let alone a discernment minister, without quoting or even discussing the Bible.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Women Bible Translators… Doctrinally sound deliverance ministry… Brain fog and Bible/book reading) - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley is back, once again parsing 1 Timothy 2:12, which she doesn't even bother to quote:

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

She writes to add yet another subdoctrine derived from an improper application of this verse. This astonishingly bad and unbiblical description ought to be an embarrassment, but she presents it as unassailable truth. 

This verse is not describing a church service, it's not about what pastors do, and it has nothing to do with what generic women can or cannot do on Sunday. You can read our explanation here.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Wayback Wednesday ~ Risky Business - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------

The author takes issue with what some people supposedly say about taking risks in faith. But she then concedes that walking in faith is indeed risky. 

-------

His sheep and the doctrine of election

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.

Both Worm and Worthy - by TREVIN WAX

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles with the dichotomy between our prior lost status vs. our position as new creations. He thinks that God previously regarded us as the lowest of the low, but the Bible never records God saying anything like this.  

But God does regard his creation as having value, because He sent His Son to save us. We have value because the Bible says so: 

1Co. 6:20 you were bought at a price.   

 

"Price" is timé, perceived value; worth (literally, "price") especially as perceived honor – i.e. what has value in the eyes of the beholder; (figuratively) the value (weight, honor) willingly assigned to something.

The price Jesus paid for us according to the value He assigned to us. We were never worms, no matter how we may have regarded ourselves as such.

-----------

The Battle for Grace Alone - by R.C. Sproul

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

In the article Dr. Sproul discusses the difference between predestination and pelagianism, and mentions a position half way, which he calls semi-pelagianism. 

He concedes that semi-pelagianism is not a matter of heresy, yet the very name implies a heretical stance. If it's not heretical, then why not call it semi-predestinationism?

Dr. Sproul seems to think that the "battle" is about the degree of corruption brought by sin, which is a framing based on the Calvinistic idea called "total depravity." However, Calvinists actually demand "total inability" to respond to the gospel, not "total depravity. " So, all Christians can consent to "total depravity" while differing regarding the sinner's ability to respond to the gospel. 

However, the issue isn't about the degree of corruption brought by sin (i.e., our ability or inability to respond to the Gospel), but rather, the nature of God's sovereignty. For Calvinists like Dr. Sproul, God's sovereignty must be viewed as having total control, dictating every outcome. The two ideas correlate but are not synonymous. God defines His own sovereignty, so we must grant Him the power to be sovereign and at the same time acknowledging that He created us with free will. It is not a binary, either-or situation.

A particular thing of note in the below excerpt is that there seems to be some difference between an eternal decree and foreknowledge, but Dr. Sproul does not explain or discuss it.  

And, there isn't a single Scripture quoted or even referenced in the entire article.

Lastly, the entire issue is actually irrelevant. None of Calvin's doctrines matter. People still need salvation, Christians are stilled called to holiness, fruitfulness, and worship no matter what one believes about Calvinism.

SACRED NAME OF GOD? or BLASPHEMY? - by R.H., July 2005

Found here. An interesting presentation.

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

I genuinely appreciate that many people are attempting to take a sincere religious position by honoring a sacred name for God, like Yahweh. I think it is being done somewhat in reaction against the organized Christian churches which are nothing more than painted sepulchres. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that such "sacred?" names originated in non-Israelite pagan cultures of the Ancient Near East. There is evidence that YHWH was the name of a god worshiped by neighboring races but there is no evidence that such a name was used by true Israelites in ancient times. From the historical evidence, it appears that the Edomites have given true Israelites one more fraud which some of our people have claimed with enthusiasm, even making it central to their religion. Here are some details of the history of the word YHWH.

Only Bad Calvinism Abandons Souls: The Story Behind a Missions Revival - by Ryan Griffith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author offers Andrew Fuller's critique of "high Calvinism." "High Calvinism" is a doctrinal position which is simply the logical conclusion of the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty, taken to the nth degree. 

Calvinism teaches "irresistible grace," which means that those whom God has chosen to be saved must and shall be saved. The author doesn't like that "high Calvinism" actually embraces this doctrine in fullness: If the elect are already selected to be saved then evangelism is irrelevant.

This conclusion is logical. But it's unbiblical. It's not unbiblical because failing to evangelize is unbiblical, it's unbiblical because Calvinism is unbiblical. Calvinism is in fact "bad Calvinism" if it actually holds to what it teaches.

The author should be sensible enough to come to this conclusion from Andrew Fuller's list of "six reasons to plead," which he quotes below. The list comprehensively explains why evangelism is biblically required. Which is a de facto refutation of Calvinism.

If  the elect are predestined, then "high Calvinism" ought not offend the author. If the conclusions of "high Calvinism" are repugnant, then the author ought to abandon the Calvinism that gives it weight. Calvinism of any flavor must regard evangelism, at least in theory, as irrelevant. Therefore a Calvinist who believes that evangelism must occur should abandon Calvinism.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only one Scripture. That's it. 

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

Teen girl speaking at a conference? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata has returned to our blog, and provides some more parsing of this verse: 

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

This is a verse that has been subject to much abuse, and Ms. Prata adds to this. She writes about a teen girl giving a talk in church, adding to the list of sub-doctrines and rules:

Since the prohibition in scripture is against women speaking during church to a congregation (and by extension in parachurch ministries/conferences) teaching men or usurping their authority by exegeting scripture, I think the teen’s talk is fine.

Ms. Prata continues on, offering even more rules:

...it’s fairly clear that sharing thoughts or testimonies to an audience is fine.

A woman sharing knowledge, testimony, or expertise when not under ecclesiastical authority is fine. Or at church but not during the Sunday services, say, during a Saturday conference where the church becomes a venue. 

...A woman or teen standing in the place where scripture is exegeted during church services, even if she’s just giving announcements, is part of that slippery slope. 

Dear reader, take another look at 1 Timothy 2:12. Does the reader see any of these commands, provisos, or prohibitions in this short verse? No? Then how does Ms. Prata arrive at her endless list of rules?

Well, it's convoluted series of assumptions and false premises:

• Paul's letters to Timothy are deemed to be "pastoral." But Timothy wasn't a pastor.

• A "pastoral" letter therefore consists of instruction on how to be a pastor. But actually, this is a personal letter to Timothy containing a variety of advice, instruction, and doctrinal teaching

• Since the letter is presumed to be about how to be a pastor, it is presumed 1 Timothy 2:12 must be about Sunday morning church order. But Paul doesn't talk about church order until chapter 3. Chapter 2 is in fact general instructions about Christian conduct.

• If 1 Timothy 2:12 is about Sunday morning church order, then "woman" and "man" need to be changed to "women" and "men" in order to force 1 Timothy 2:12 into the congregational setting.

• Then, since most contemporary pastors are teachers and pastors are the boss, that makes teaching into an authority role. However, the biblical authority in the local church is not the pastor or teacher, but rather the elders (1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1-2)

Ms. Prata must squeeze 1 Timothy 2:12 through this gauntlet of assumptions in order to derive all these little doctrines and prohibitions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The biggest contrast in the upcoming election (other than democracy vs. "blood in the streets" fascism) - By Robert Reich

Found here.

Today Dr. Reich is more incoherent that usual. If he didn't have his bumper sticker slogans handy he would be completely unintelligible.

He wants to "save" Social Security for the umpteenth time. It's been saved before, but because rich people do bad stuff it needs saving again. And this time only more taxes will save SS. Tax increases always make things better.

Why The Unbiblical IHOP 24-7 Prayer Model Has to Go - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade has now written in excess of 20 "devotionals" about the IHOP debacle. Astonishing. Today he writes almost 1700 words, but 1520 of them are employed to simply rehash his previous "devotionals" about IHOP. That leaves only 177 words spent actually discussing the subject.

So let's examine his "biblical" case that the 24-7 prayer is unbiblical. For clarity, we have eliminated everything else he writes about.

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

Your Body Is Not the Temple, But THE Body Is - By Nicholas G. Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The authors are making a big deal out of whether or not our individual bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit or if it's the universal body of Christ. The authors want it to be a binary choice, either/or. It's not.

This is one of those intellectual exercises that really does not matter. If the community is the temple or if each individual is a temple (or if both are true) is actually irrelevant.

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

Why Is Good Friday Called “Good”? - by Karrie Hahn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We noted here that Jesus was not crucified on Friday, because that does not allow three nights in the grave. 

The author makes several Calvinistic doctrinal claims that just don't bear up. Contrary to the author's claims, the Father did not punish Jesus,  Jesus did not swap Himself for us, and He did not pay for our sins. In fact, the whole idea of Penal Substitionary Atonement is false.

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