Who are the elect of God? - gotquestions.org

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

This question and answer is not about explaining the Bible, it is to defend a particular doctrinal perspective. Calvinists/Reformists believe in something called the "doctrines of grace," a collection of five doctrines roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

Gotquestions intends to explain the U, unconditional election. We think they fail miserably.

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

Misunderstanding the blood of Christ

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.

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

Introduction

In our experience we have encountered substantial numbers of Christians who misunderstand the sacrificial blood. The nature of the misunderstanding differs, but whether one is a Charismatic or Calvinist, both seem to have errant ideas about the blood.

What is the Purpose of the Blood?

The blood is the result of a sacrifice (see Leviticus chapter one). God set forth the requirement that animals would be sacrificed and the blood of those sacrifices would be sprinkled on the altar for the atonement of Israel's sins (Exodus 20:24, Exodus 29:12, Exodus 29:36). 

Leviticus 17:11 says, 

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

The relationship between sin and blood is tightly connected. Sin is the problem, and the blood is the solution.

Atonement

The Hebrew word "atonement" is kaphar, which means to cover over. Thus the blood of the sacrificial animals covered over sin, but did not remove sin: 

Hebrews 10:4 ...it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Because of this it troubles us when we hear Charismatics talking about being "covered by the blood," as if Jesus' blood was some sort of protection:

In times of uncertainty and spiritual warfare, it is essential to recognize that the blood of the Lamb serves as a shield of protection.

Notice that this idea appeals to the OT concept of covering over. But Charismatics don't invoke the blood to cover over sin, rather, the blood wards off the attacks of the enemy or deflects peril.

There is no Bible verse that refers to the blood in this way. 

Calvinists/Reformists have their own variation of this error. GotQuestions.org describes it this way:

When God the Father looks at us, He no longer sees the old sinful self. The old you is now hidden with Christ in God. The Father ceases to count your sins against you because of your identification with the death and resurrection of His Son. In the eyes of God, you are changed into a new creation in Christ’s image... (Colossians 3:3)

It's a variation on the same idea, but instead of being covered by the blood of Christ one is covered by Christ, in this instance for warding off God's judgment rather than for the attacks of the enemy.

Again, there is no Bible verse that tells us that Jesus protects us from the Father.

Both perspectives are in error.

Jesus' Blood Cleanses, it Doesn't Cover Over

We are washed clean by Jesus' blood and are no longer dressed in filthy rags (Revelation. 7:9, Zechariah 3:4). Our sin isn't hidden under the blood, we have been set free from sin and been given new life as new creations. Jesus' one sacrifice is complete, sufficient, and all we need:

Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Jesus' blood was spilled to completely remove our sin:

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death...

Hebrews 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all... 

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

The blood is enough. The cross did it all, and nothing more is needed. This of course means that we are not "covered by the blood," we are washed clean by the blood, a past event for every Christian. All sin and death is already dealt with. 

Nor are we hidden in Christ to cover over our filthiness. Jesus doesn't cover us with His righteousness because of us still being filthy sinners, He actually, literally makes us clean. 

Conclusion

We are not covered by the blood, we are washed by the blood. Our protection is the indwelling Holy Spirit, not the blood. We do not invoke the blood, we ask for more of the Holy Spirit.

The blood does not hide us from the Father, the blood washed us so we can stand before the Father.

Jesus is not our camouflage before the Father, he is the one who presents us as clean to the Father.

A Word on Pascal’s Wager - John C. Wright

Found here. Some interesting background information.

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

Who Killed Jesus? - by Barry York

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

This starts out really well, but turns south after several paragraphs. And the downhill slide will become severe.

We will comment at that point.

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

Yesterday, Today, Forever: Christ Against False Teaching - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata is a cessationist who doesn't believe in contemporary prophecy. This means she needs to reframe the NT to conform to her doctrine. So she redefines prophecy as teaching (or false prophets as false teachers). 

This is a rather clumsy attempt to impugn those Bible teachers she disagrees with. Thus the pursuit of the miraculous by some churches is made out to be mere thrill-seeking. It can't be good because it violates her doctrine. It must be false because she knows the truth.

Someone once said that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We would say, when you have a doctrine, everyone who believes something else is a heretic.

We should note that we ourselves are committed to understanding and promulgating biblical truth. So we don't have issue with Ms. Prata's main point. We do have an issue with her presumption.
--------------------------

How Did We Get the Canons of Dort? - by Daniel R. Hyde

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

If the reader came to read the author's insights into the details of the topic contained in the title, he will not find it. If the reader wanted to know why there was a dispute, it's not here. If the reader wanted to know why Arminius was wrong, the author does not tell us. 

He will not quote any part of the Canons or the Remonstrance. The high points of the story are important to him, but the reasons for these things isn't. The details are completely absent in favor of vague hints.

So, he doesn't tell us anything at all.

He does mention a couple of Bible passages in the context of how they were falsely preached, and quotes one verse, but otherwise he does not quote or reference the Bible. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Was the Cross Divine Child Abuse? - by ChrisB

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles with certain aspects of doctrine in a way that causes us to wonder what he really believes. Obviously the article is written to refute the idea of Jesus being subject to "child abuse," but some ancillary ideas are troublesome.

We have made note where the author's commentary becomes opaque, and in those places we explain our position.

If the author believes Jesus died in our place, or that the Father punished Jesus for our sins, or that Jesus was forsaken by the Father, or that Jesus paid for our sins, we must disagree. Those tenets of Reformism/Calvinism are quite false, as we have explained in other posts.

Lastly, the author does quote some Scripture, a happy departure from from what we typically see from these other so-called Bible teachers.

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

4 Things We Added to the Bible - by ChrisB

Found here. Some interesting information.
------------------------------

I'm a nerd. Always have been, always will be. After college my nerdiness shifted some of its focus from science and science fiction to the scriptures. Yep, you can nerd out on the Bible. I haven't learned any esoteric secrets, but lately I've come to realize that a lot of what's rattling around in my head isn't exactly common knowledge, either, so we're going to start a series we'll call Bible 101. Some of the facts I'll share may only be interesting; others may have apologetic value or help us interpret the scriptures. Let's dive in by looking at things in our Bible that aren't actually in the inspired text.

Chapters

There's a more complicated history, but the chapter divisions we use now were developed in the 1200s by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. A tradition says he was reading as he rode on a mule, and whenever the mule stopped, he would mark a chapter division. And some of them feel that random, such as when the seventh day of the creation account gets bumped to chapter 2.

Chapter numbers allow us to say "Psalm 23" instead of "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" to refer to that psalm. But the downside is we tend to think of them as hard breaks in thought when they usually are not. We often start reading one chapter without thinking about what came before. John 14 flows out of John 13. Romans 8 is a response to Romans 7. We rarely read Romans through in one sitting, much less John, so my practice has become, wherever I left my bookmark, I back up and read the last paragraph before proceeding. This helps maintain a sense of the logical flow of the text.

Lay Musicians in the Church - Brittany Hurd

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

We are going to get nit-picky. We are sorry for this, but this author engages in all sorts of presumptions without explaining them. And it takes her several paragraphs to even get to the subject. Although when she finally does get there, she offer some good practical advice.

She will quote a handful of Scriptures in over 2200 words, but will only once provide the full reference (i.e., book, chapter and verse.) So it the reader wants to look up the verse, well that will take a bit of searching.

We do commend the author for not rigidly holding to her chosen worship tradition. We do not commend her for her vague language, irrelevancies, or her presumptions about her audience.

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

Incarnation Anyway - by Mark Jonesapril

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

The author is going to grapple with a needless rhetorical adversary. The fact of the matter is that in the manifold wisdom and mercy of God, the Father sent His Son as a sacrifice to redeem mankind from death. Would the Father have sent Jesus if Adam hadn't sinned is a question with an unedifying answer, because Adam did sin and Jesus did come and die.

It is true that we benefit by gaining unencumbered fellowship with the Father. But is that any different than Adam’s pre-sin state? If Adam hadn't sinned, does that mean every single subsequent human would not have sinned? We can't know these things, and as such this all is a vain intellectual argument.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only five words of Scripture in 1200+ words. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad Worship Songs: Center - Bethel Music & Abbie Gamboa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When God Answers the “Wrong” Prayer - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have had much to complain about in our blog when it comes to Ms. Lesley, so much so that we awarded her a label. For example, she obsesses over 1 Timothy 2:11 and what a woman is allowed to do and not do. She's developed a substantial list of do's and don'ts from this Scripture, almost all of which is based on a false idea.

This is what characterizes a lot of her teaching, false ideas. 

But today, we celebrate her for a comprehensive and accurate teaching about prayer. With one small caveat (which we will note below), we are pleased to be able to acknowledge that Ms. Lesley is capable of truly excellent work.

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

Before you Decree and Declare - Kuza

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

We recently commented on another article by this author and found his teaching to be suspect. However, the below article contains a lot of good information. 

We usually consider the follies of cessationism in our blog, but less often we examine claims of errant charismatics when the situation warrants it.  Less often because large portions of the blogosphere are devoted to examining charismatic teachers and doctrines, so we don't feel the need to add to that. This is why we recently introduced a new label, "bad charisma."

We have never been comfortable with the charismatic "decree and declare" practice, as if we somehow have the ability to create reality with our words. This is what some charismatics believe, mostly based on a handful of verses:  

“...calling those things which are not, as though they were” (Rom 4:17)

This verse is not about us, it refers to what God does.

You will also decree a thing, and it will be established for you; and light will shine on your ways. Job 22:28 NASB

Eliphaz the Temanite spoke these words, not Job. We would regard any statements made by Job's interlocuters as suspect and not worthy of repeating as if they were true.

The tongue has the power of life and death. Proverbs 18:21

Most people who quote this verse neglect to quote the entire thing:

Pr. 18:21 The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.

In Scripture, the fruit of the tongue is generally regarded as a dangerous and negative thing, and the damage caused by the tongue is much more emphasized than any benefit it might have:

James 3:5 Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.

The last verse we have seen mentioned is:

Matthew 18:18, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The agreement of heaven is certainly a required part of this transaction. However, the unilateral decree/declaration we think is mistaken.

We therefore have little regard for those who would engage in this practice.

The author does a great job explaining this.

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

The Battle to Defeat Climate Change: The Dumbest, Most Incompetent War Ever Waged (With More at Stake Than Ever) - By Bernard Starr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author of this ironic yet colorblind complaint about the lack of progress regarding climate change tries to understand why there is a supposed lack of global organization and central command structure within the climate change movement.

He must be unaware of the

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
• World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos
• Paris Agreement
• Kyoto Protocol
• COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil
• Montreal Protocol
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Actually, the author doesn't have a problem with the climate change effort or its organization. In reality, he doesn't like the fact that everyone is not on board with The Agenda. 

The Agenda is the underlying continual effort to move the U.S. in particular, and the world in general, to replace or overthrow their governmental systems that do not coincide with one-world government, which which would be Socialism.

Climate change is simply a convenient issue to further the Leftist goal of implementing Socialism.

Power is the real goal. Centralized, global power. The unquestioned power over peoples' lives, decisions, religion, finances, and even children. The implementation of a system of government responsible for the deaths tens of millions of deaths.

The Left don't care about the climate. They care about power.

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

Cessationism - Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:

• Episode 1, the Perfect.
• Episode 2, the apostles.
• Episode 3, prophecy.
• Episode 4, the closed canon.
• Episode 5, extra biblical reasons.
• Episode 6, only the apostles had all truth.
• Episode 7, there were only limited periods of miracles.
• Episode 8, tongues.
• Episode 9, the work of the Holy Spirit.
• Episode 10, does God speak only through the Scriptures?
• Episode 11, what about impressions?
• Episode 12, what is discernment? 
• Episode 13, the sufficiency of Scripture.
• Episode 14, Was the purpose of miracles restricted to the authentication of the apostles?
• Episode 15, Is revival excluded because of apostasy?
• Episode 16, is prophecy subjective?
• Episode 17, Could only the apostles confer miraculous powers or gifts?
• Episode 18, are charismatics functional cessationists?
• Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts.

Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must

1. be from the Bible
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
3. Not appeal to silence
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history

That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.

Chosen by Grace: Understanding the Doctrine of Election - Kuza

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

This is perhaps the most thorough explanation of the Reformist/Calvinist doctrine of election we have read. The author asks the right questions and tries to answer them. He acknowledges the confusion brought by the doctrine, and attempts to clarify.

Unfortunately, he fails. He fails because his entire explanation is built on presumption, that the doctrine is true. But that is the matter to be demonstrated. 

We are certainly delighted the author quotes Scripture. But he misuses or misinterprets almost all of this. Regretfully, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Letter to the editor: Who would have thought a dictator would rule U.S. on 250th birthday?

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This letter writer thinks he's pinned down the nefarious and eeeevil Trump. But like most leftists, the letter writer can't put together a coherent string of thoughts. 

This letter is a pretty good example of the left's unceasing obsession with taking out Trump. Not just to get him out of office, but to negate him, bankrupt him, destroy him, destroy his family, or even, kill him. 

This irrational hatred oozes from the letter writer's prose, so much so that he can't even see that he's being stupid. He so believes the Leftist narrative that he is unable to think rationally.

We are no great fan of Trump, but dictator? That's just dumb.

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

What is the purpose of Jesus interceding for us in heaven? - gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Gotquestions attempts to explain Jesus' intercession for us in terms of a courtroom scene. Such a scene is not found in Scripture. The whole scenario is a complete fiction. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We will explain below.

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

God’s Providence and the Privilege of Prayer - by CILAS MENEZES

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

We are going to do our best to untangle this mess. A lot of what the author writes is based on unstated underlying premises. He assumes we know these premises and agree with them. But for someone who is unacquainted with these things, the article reads as nothing but nonsense.

What are those premises? Well, they are all founded upon Reformist/Calvinist thought. This area of theology has some particular beliefs which come to bear on the author's thought processes, including:

• God is sovereign - This does not simply mean God is King of kings and ruler of the universe. It means God controls everything.
• Everything is pre-ordained - This is perhaps the extreme version of Reformism. Most Reformists will say that God did not create evil or sin. But the author does not make these exceptions.
• Obeying God's commands means we participate in what He has pre-ordained.

From these and other assumptions the author will make his conclusion, that prayer does not change God's mind because God has already made all the choices and lined up every event in everyone's lives.

We find this in one of the author's last statements:

"...the God who ordains all things has also ordained our prayers as a means to accomplish his perfect will." 

In what way has God ordained all things, and where do we find this in the Bible? Does this mean God ordains tornados? Sin? The devil? "All things" seems to be pretty inclusive, right? 

So if He indeed ordains all things, then the script is written. Every single molecule in the universe is doing exactly what it was planned to do. Every power and principality, every angel, every human, can only do the precise things that were ordained by God. Period.

Thus we are in the middle of an elaborate ruse. We think we are living out our lives, responsible for our choices, and trying to live virtuous, God-honoring lives. But we're not. Everything is pre-ordained, according to the author. So in reality, no one is responsible for one's actions. It's all pre-planned. 

In addition, the author doesn't quote a single Bible verse. We must say, this is one of the worst Bible teachings we have ever read. We must assign it the tag, "Bad Bible Teaching."

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

This 1 Passage of Scripture Left John Bevere Stunned, And He’s Finally Explaining Why - By James Lasher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------------
Mr. Lasher wrote this article about Mr. Bevere's 47 minute video (youtube link), but it's only about 400 words. 

We aren't inclined to view the entire video, however, based on Mr. Lasher's summation. The 20 minutes we did endure also dissuaded us, mostly because of Mr. Bevere'e emphatic, over-the-top presentation. 

The timing of the rapture is actually irrelevant to our Christian walk. End times doctrine does not come to bear on any aspect of our obligations or privileges as Christians. So the issue under discussion is actually an empty pursuit.

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

Three Days and Nights In The Heart of the Earth by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Ratliff wants to solve the problem of there not being enough days and nights between a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection. He does this by including extra time where Jesus was not dead but merely in the custody of the Jews and Romans. He extends this custody status all the way through to the resurrection, and thus claims the problem solved. 

We admire the novelty of his "solution," but even still, he fails to accommodate the prophesied "three days and three nights." We provide our more coherent alternative here.

We commented on Mr. Ratliff 's blog and provided our analysis, found below at the end, but for a response he simply reposted part of the article. Then he closed commenting. This tells us that Mr. Ratliff does not like to be disagreed with. A person with an unteachable spirit should not be teaching the Bible.

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

What’s so spiritual about spiritual gifts? It's not what you think - by Michael Jensen

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

This seems to be a discussion of nurture vs. nature. Are people born naturally talented (and by analogy, specially gifted by God), or are the environment, dedication to the craft, and training more important (or by analogy, service to the church that comes by self-improvement)? The author wants to apply this to the spiritual gifts.

He believes that giftedness is acquired, not bestowed, in the same manner as physical or intellectual skills are developed. He provides no biblical reason for this, since he quotes only five words of Scripture.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

If God Doesn’t Need Us, Why Did He Create Us? - by: Samuel G. Parkison

Found here. Our comments in bold

This very odd (and Scriptureless) explanation of a doctrine that changes nothing about our obligations or privileges as Christians.

Particularly since the author is a theologian, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Is Original Sin? - by Hans Madueme

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

We can't really fault the author for adhering to his doctrinal tradition. He's steeped in Reformist/Calvinism and interprets the Bible through that lens, which of course produces his desired result. This is the too typical practice, to teach doctrines and not the Bible.

Original Sin is one such doctrine. The author takes us through what we would consider a pretty accurate explanation of the elements involved, but he inexplicably reaches a conclusion in variance with the explanation.

His doctrine overrides his explanation.

 

Let's quote the author's key moment:

The key to understanding original sin is in Romans 5:12–21, where Adam’s fate and ours are irrevocably bound together. Paul is incessant on this point: “Many died through one man’s trespass” (Rom. 5:15); “The judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” (Rom. 5:16); “Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man” (Rom. 5:17); “One trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18); “By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). We all sin and die physically because of Adam’s first sin (1 Cor. 15:21–22).

Does the reader see it? "Many died." "Brought condemnation." "Death reigned." "Condemnation for all men." "Many were made sinners." It's right there. Adam's sin brought us death and condemnation. We inherit spiritual death from Adam, not his sin. Our sin is a product of the death we inherited. Dead people sin. It's axiomatic.

It's "original death," not "original sin." Adam was paid his wages: 

Ro. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...

It's death that we inherited.

From this mistake the author derives his second mistake. Let's quote: 

When Adam sinned, God counted all his descendants as guilty of the first sin; in other words, He imputed the sin to every human being. This imputed sin, sometimes called original guilt, is the other half of original sin. God considers us culpable for a sin that only Adam personally committed. Why would God do that? Because Adam acted as our federal head.

Notice the author's biblical documentation has disappeared. No wonder, because this part of his explanation is not found in the Bible. Adam's sin was not imputed to us because we are responsible only for our sin: 

Ez. 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.

Adam does not represent us in our sin. Humankind experiences no punishment for Adam's sin. We are not culpable for his sin. We are [or were] dead people whose natural state is to sin, and Jesus died to wash away our sin and to bring us out of death and into life.

Adam's sin is not relevant to us. Only the consequence of his sin, i.e., death, comes to bear on us.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Easter with the King: The Story of Nabal, Abigail and David - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley repeats a too common error regarding the nature of Jesus' death. Her theology is Reformed/Calvinism, which unfortunately misrepresents Jesus' saving work, taking His sacrifice and making it a transaction.

We shall explain below.

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

What Does the Bible Say about Demons? - by Robb Brunansky

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

The author asks question in the title but never provides an answer. His article quotes no Scripture. Zero. almost 1600 words, none of which are Bible quotes. How does a supposed Bible teacher teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Civil discourse is a Montana value - Chuck Tooley, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

 Did we just experience a bait-and-switch? The author lures us in with the promise of a discussion about civil discourse, but immediately morphs into a commercial for The Burton K. Wheeler Center. 

We spent some time on their website and found it to be curiously non-specific about its agenda. Like the article below, great effort is expended there to make the Center seem to be above the fray, reasonable, measured, fair, and unbiased. 

This sets off alarms for us. Especially since the debates of society are not just simple disagreements, they are active hostilities. The Left in particular is actively toxic in its tactics against the Right, tactics that are almost exclusively comprised of name-calling and character assassination. For the Left, the Right is not simply wrong or mistaken, it is evil and not fit to exist. 

It is not possible to come together and have friendly discussions with such people.

This is not to say that the Right doesn't have its bad actors. It certainly does. But one would be hard-pressed to find any Leftist who has the ability to make a thoughtful case for their beliefs absent of any reference to some sort of caricature of the Right. 

The author uses the word "we" nearly a dozen times in the context of "you and I together." He thinks that all we need to do is sit down and talk. We're all a part of one big family. Let's just have a beer. We can certainly work it out together, Right?

The language and tactics of the national Left is coming to Montana. In fact, it's already here. We can't be sure, but the author feels this undercurrent and thinks the Center is the answer. That would make him naïve, for the Left isn't interested in discussion or compromise. It intends the total annihilate its opponents.

Discussion with such people is not possible.

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

Letter to the editor: SAVE Act is desperate move by dying party to stay in power - by Vickie Sehy

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The clueless letter writer does her duty to The Narrative, but all she manages to do is regurgitate leftist bumper sticker slogans.

Why would a leftist be concerned about the opposition? Why would she want to "help?" Well, she doesn't. She wants to reinforce the talking points. She's not interested in the truth, explanation, or increasing understanding.

Lastly, the reader will note the letter writer will accuse Republicans of numerous things, which the Left has already been doing for years, if not decades. We have deemed this rhetorical technique "Mountain Man's Law."

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

God's sovereignty and sin

We continue to work through the problems of Reformed/Calvinist theology.

Reformed/Calvinism is a deterministic version of Christianity, where God's sovereignty means He controls everything. This of course creates a problem when it comes to sin and evil. The Calvinist needs to find a way around this. We think they fail, and that is what we are discussing today.

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

How the Early Church Baptized - by Wyatt Graham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Wow. This clocks in at over 12,000 words. While we do appreciate the author's thoroughness, and also that he quotes a lot of Scripture (an all-to-rare thing among these supposed Bible teachers), he still operates according to traditional assumptions. And he assumes his tradition is correct, of course. 

But what if there is a different approach, one the author never considers? What if the practice of water baptism was supposed to fade out over time to be supplanted by Holy Spirit baptism? John the Baptist actually prophesied this:

Mt. 3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Now, we ask the reader to bear with us. Let's see if we can refilter our understanding of everything the author writes through a new lens, that water baptism was to be replaced by Holy Spirit baptism. Read all the author's scriptural documentation, but try to understand it via this new paradigm. The reader will no doubt see that nearly every Scripture the author cites fits neatly into this.

In addition, we need to note that the author makes a very substantial omission, that neither Paul nor Jesus baptized:

Jn. 4:1-2 The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

1Co. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel...

If baptism was to be the standard practice of the Church, then why did both Jesus and Paul avoid baptizing?

Lastly, we will omit the post NT witnesses cited by the author. We are only interested in what the Bible itself teaches. We will insert comments as he proceeds.

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

The Donkey Had More Discernment Than the Prophet - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata botches her explanation of Balaam because she has a predetermined narrative. She believes that OT prophets were morally pure and made no mistakes. So because Balaam was confronted by his donkey and the Angel of the Lord, Ms. Prata thinks he's a false prophet.

However, there is no evidence that Balaam was a false prophet. In fact, he precisely told King Balak's messengers what the Lord told him to say. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Dominionism, Kingdom Now: NAR’s Heretical Eschatology - by Marsha West

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a very frustrating article. It is a litany of charges, assertions, insinuations, and assumptions about a nebulous group of people who supposedly are intent on taking over the world. She warns us about a great danger of these Christians infiltrating various facets of society with the goal of Christianizing these institutions. But what that danger is, she doesn't say.

She does manage to provide a couple of quotes from supposed NAR people, but those quotes contain nothing nefarious, and don't speak to the subject of eschatology. We long for some sort of documentation that the NAR wants to take over the world. We would like at least some quotes from supposed NAR leaders that articulate these principles. 

Only about 400 words belong to the author, so it's really no wonder she doesn't document any of her claims. And there are no Bible verses quoted. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

New York Times accidentally proves Deep State is a 100% REAL evil supervillain... - Revolver News

Found here. Interesting insight into the entrenched bureaucracy.

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

Way before people started calling it the “Deep State,” Washington had a built-in system that never changed no matter who won the White House. It is the permanent bureaucracy, entrenched military brass, intelligence chiefs, and federal powers that outlast presidents and shape outcomes.

And according to newly unsealed testimony, Richard Nixon didn’t just believe that machine existed. He walked straight into this buzz saw and was shredded.

The New York Times just published a very interesting piece divulging that while Nixon was drowning in Watergate hell, there was something else happening behind the scenes… something way more explosive and dangerous. It was a wartime espionage operation run by senior military officials inside the Pentagon. This was the actual Deep State running an operation against the President of The United States.

Die if you see God? - 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.
----------------

Is Predestination in the Bible? - By Daniel Nealon

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

The author is going to explain his Reformed/Calvinism. He's not going to explain the Bible. Calvinists never explain the Bible unless they can further expound on the wonders of Calvinism. This is what they do, over and over. 

Today it's Predestination, the idea that God pre-selected those whom He would save and those He would send to hell. Thus you have no choice. If God chose you, you're in. If He didn't, you're out. 

Which means nothing you do or say will change your destiny. If you're not among the elect, well, go live it up. But even if you are one of the elect (which you cannot know), you can do whatever you want. 

Predestination as believed by Calvinists is not a biblical doctrine.

In addition, the author barely manages to quote Scripture, and none of them or the Bible references he cites support his doctrine.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

An Evaluation Of Wayne Grudem’s View Of NT Prophecy - By Steven Kring

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

The author is going to evaluate some other teacher's ideas. Though he quotes a good deal of Scripture, he's not going to teach the Bible, he's going to teach his cessationist doctrine. He make many of the standard cessationist arguments, but add little new light.

Which is a wasted opportunity, especially considering the article weighs in at a hefty 5200 words. Surely with such an opportunity the author might make some thorough biblical analysis, perhaps even having it evaluated by a hostile witness.

Then his arguments might have been a little better. Otherwise, this is just Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why 1 Timothy 2 Is A Universal Normative Guide - by Steven Wedgeworth

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

So many things irritate us regarding these people who are supposed to be Bible teachers. Today's author hits some of those buttons. 

This article clocks in at over 2100 words. But it's not 2100 words of explanation. Only a little more than 1400 words are actually the author's. 

Encumbering the text is information that properly belongs in the footnotes. On several occasions the author includes verbiage like "See Fee, 'Reflections on Church Order,' 146, 150–51." These insertions are awkward and break the flow of the thought. He does supply three actual footnotes, so he knows how to use them. There is no reason at all for this.

When we add these into the word count, we are now at 1900 words. 

In addition, the author quotes other Bible teachers and statements of faith. But only 21 words are from the Bible (from a single verse). Astonishingly, he never quotes the subject verse! 

We shall do so for the benefit of the reader:

1Ti. 2:12-13 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Why are we counting words? Because we want to know what the author intends to teach so that we can evaluate his ideas, and we want to know where in the Bible these ideas are found. If he hides behind other people's work or unnecessary or undefined verbiage and doesn't explain or teach, he fails as a Bible teacher.

We will discover that the author gets a lot of things right about this verse, but right at the end he abandons all of his previous elucidation and without explanation simply jumps to the traditional viewpoint.

For the benefit of the reader, we will state our position, which has nothing to do with "complementarian" vs. "egalitarian." We believe that Paul wasn't discussing church order at all. He writes "a woman" not "women," and "a man" not "men." The Greek words are guné: a woman, wife, my lady, and anér: a male human being; a man, husband. So if Paul was actually talking about the marriage relationship and not church order, the subsequent appeal to Adam and Eve suddenly makes more sense.

Let's retranslate the verse:

1Ti. 2:12-13 I do not allow the wife to instruct the husband, neither to domineer over him; she is to be at rest and calm. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

We do not claim to be experts in the Greek, but we don't think that's necessary. Despite centuries of tradition, this small change fairly leaps out at us.

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

Can AI Preach My Sermon? - By Caleb Phelps

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

A generally good and useful presentation, marred by the unbiblical elevation of pastor to the CEO leader, preacher, and teacher of the congregation. This of course is the traditional practice, but there is nothing in the Bible that tells us the pastor is the teacher.

AI should be treated as a tool. But the problem is people are lazy, incompetent, devious, and constantly looking for validation. AI is the shortcut to accolades and approval without expending the effort. 

If AI is generating your sermon, you need to find another line of work.

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

Does the Holy Spirit Work Miracles Today? - By Daniel Nealon

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

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching. There's no other way to describe it. The author doesn't quote the Bible. At all. He misrepresents Bible verses. He lies to us about the Bible's contents. He incompetently teaches about things he clearly doesn't understand.

We don't wish to dishonor the man, but this is bad. 

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

Christian, Look To and Learn From Older Saints - by Graham Heslo

Found here. A very good article. 

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

This article addresses a fundamental deficit in our churches, the pressing need for true discipleship. That is, older, godly Christians one-on-one with younger, inexperienced Christians. 

But what churches typically offer is a Sunday service, a mid-week service, and small groups. These are not discipleship.

The result of our failure to disciple is that the sheep remain sheep all their lives. Nothing is demanded from them except their polite attendance on Sunday, and that their tithe check clears.

This should not be.

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

Top 10 NAR* and Seeker-Driven Buzzwords - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Today Ms. Lesley is taking issue with jargon used by certain people, suggesting that this jargon is an indicator of heresy. However, all Christians use jargon. It's just that Ms. Lesley doesn't like these people for their jargon because she doesn't like their doctrines. It's really a superficial and trite reason, grounded in a pre-existent dislike.

We don't intend to defend any of these people she cites, we are only interested in evaluating Ms. Lesley's presentation. 

She doesn't explain anything. She offers no analysis. She provides no teaching. She quotes no Bible verse. She doesn't tell us anything about what's wrong with these phrases, most of which are found in the Bible in some form or another.

We must deem the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Guide to the Kings and Prophets of Israel and Judah [Chart] - by Jacob Edson

Found here. An interesting article.

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

Some years ago, a Bible Gateway-associated blogger named Craig T. Owens created a detailed chart of all of the kings and prophets of the united and divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel mentioned in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It’s remained one of our most popular posts ever since.

It’s easy to see why. When I was researching my article on chronological ordering of the Bible, navigating the timeline of these books was by far the most complicated part. (You’ll notice, if you review that post, that I decided to simplify the task: while I did put the books and prophets in chronological order, I grouped them by United Kingdom, Divided Kingdom, and Exile rather than match them up verse-for-verse.)

Owens did the work, though, breaking down the complete timeline into incredible detail. Here’s what he had to say about it:

One challenging point in history is the divided kingdoms of Israel (the 10 northern tribes) and Judah (the 2 southern tribes). What makes it challenging when reading straight through the Bible [in chronological order] is that the history is covered in 1 and 2 Kings and then again in 1 and 2 Chronicles. In the midst of these kingdoms, several prophets are sent by God. Some of these prophets only have their words recorded in Kings or Chronicles, while others have their words recorded elsewhere in the Bible (usually the book name is the prophet’s name).

In trying to keep all of these people and messages clear in my mind, I have put together a list of all the kings and prophets during the period of the divided kingdom (roughly 931-586 BC).

In honor of the seventh anniversary of the completed form of Owens’ chart, I decided to republish it and break it down into a heavily expanded text format as another way to digest the information.

First, I’ll share the chart again, which packs a ton of information into a super-compact graphic. Then I’ll go through and expand on some of the information, and provide links to the relevant passages. 

Note that all dates are approximate and contested due to the lack of a consistent calendar during this time (as throughout the ancient world).

First, the chart itself:

 

Got all that? Now, let’s dig in.

The United Kingdom, ca. 1050-930 BC

This was the “golden age” of the Israelite’s presence in the holy land throughout the Old Testament. It began with Saul establishing his kingdom after being anointed by the prophet Samuel, progressed through his army captain David’s ascension to the throne (also with Samuel’s blessing), and then through David’s son Solomon’s inheritance and consolidation of the kingdom.

Saul (r. 1050-1010) Prophet: Samuel

 
Scripture: 1 Samuel 8-31, 1 Chronicles 9-10
Summary: Marked by early divine favor and public support, Saul later fell into offering pagan sacrifices and failure to uphold God’s commands, leading God to turn his favor away from Saul’s line and toward Saul’s captain, David.

David (r. 1010-970) Prophets: Samuel and Nathan

 
Scripture: 1 Sam 16-31, 2 Sam 1-24, 1 Kings 1-2, 1 Chron 11-29
Associated works: David is listed as the author of 73 of the Psalms, and probably wrote more.
Summary: Religiously devout and militarily successful, David enjoyed God’s favor throughout most of his life (with the clear exception of his actions toward Bathsheba and Uriah). His conquests established Israel’s empire as a unified power across the region. It was David’s wish to build God’s temple, but God denied him on account of the blood he had spilled.

Solomon (r. 970-930) Prophet: Nathan

 
Scripture: 1 Kings 1-11, 2 Chron 1-9
Associated works: Solomon is credited with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song bearing his name, as well as 2 (and possibly more) of the Psalms.
Summary: Famously wise and devoted — it was he who built the temple in Jerusalem, among many other great buildings — Solomon nevertheless besmirched his name through marriages to pagan women and sacrifices to their deities. Because of this, at the end of his reign, God saw fit to divide the kingdom.

 
The Divided Kingdom, ca. 931-586 BC

Before Solomon’s death, his servant Jeroboam rebelled. Though the rebellion itself was a failure, Jeroboam returned after Solomon’s death, when Solomon’s son Rehoboam reigned, and laid claim to the northern kingdom of Israel. The smaller southern kingdom of Judah (which included Jerusalem) remained under Rehoboam. So began the period of the divided kingdom.
Kingdom of Judah (Southern Kingdom)

Rehoboam (r. 931-913) Claim: Son of Solomon

 
Prophet: Shemaiah
Scripture: 1 Kings 12 & 14, 2 Chron 10-12
Notable for: Dividing the kingdom
Evil or good? Evil (he “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”)

Abijah (r. 913-911) Claim: Son of Rehoboam

Prophet: Shemaiah
Scripture: 1 Kings 15, 2 Chron 13
Notable for: War with Jeroboam I
Evil or good? Evil (he “committed all the sins that his father did before him”)

Asa (r. 911-870) Claim: Son of Abijah

 
Prophet: Shemaiah and Hanani
Scripture: 1 Kings 15, 2 Chron 14-16
Notable for: Being a good and devout king
Evil or good? Good (he “did what was right in the sight of the Lord”)

Jehoshaphat (r. 870-848) Claim: Son of Asa

 
Prophet: Micaiah
Scripture: 1 Kings 22, 2 Chron 17-20
Notable for: Making peace with Israel
Evil or good? Good

Jehoram (r. 848-841) Claim: Son of Jehoshaphat

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 8, 2 Chron 21
Notable for: Marries the daughter of Ahab of Israel, bringing their idolatry to Judah and drawing plague upon them
Evil or good? Evil

Ahaziah (r. 841)

 
Claim: Son of Jehoram
Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 8-9, 2 Chron 22
Notable for: Idolatry, and ruling less than a year
Evil or good? Evil

Athaliah (r. 841-835) Claim: Mother of Ahaziah

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 11, 2 Chron 22-23
Notable for: Being the only woman to rule; also, attempting to kill all her grandchildren
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoash/Joash (r. 835-796) Claim: Son of Ahaziah (grandson of Athaliah)
Prophet: Joel(?) [Note: Joel is notoriously difficult to place, and could be nearly any time before or after Exile.]
Scripture: 2 Kings 11-12, 2 Chron 23-24
Notable for: A long reign beginning at age 7; returned worship to the temple and defeated the Aramaeans but did not depart from idolatry; murdered by his servants
Evil or good? Mixed

Amaziah (r. 796-767) Claim: Son of Joash

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 14, 2 Chron 25
Notable for: Reigned long but suffered humiliating defeat after provoking Israel to war; later a victim of a conspiracy for the throne
Evil or good? Mixed

Uzziah (aka Azariah) (r. 767-748) Claim: Son of Amaziah

Prophet: Isaiah
Scripture: 2 Kings 15, 2 Chron 26
Notable for: Very long reign hampered by leprosy
Evil or good? Pretty good

Jotham (r. 748-732) Claim: Son of Azariah

Prophet: Isaiah, Micah
Scripture: 2 Kings 15, 2 Chron 27
Notable for: Not much; he was a good king but failed to stop idolatry
Evil or good? Good

Ahaz (r. 732-716) Claim: Son of Jotham

Prophet: Isaiah, Micah
Scripture: 2 Kings 16, 2 Chron 28, Isaiah 7
Notable for: Pagan practices, including child sacrifice; becoming vassal state to Assyria
Evil or good? Super evil

Hezekiah (r. 716-687) Claim: Son of Ahaz

Prophet: Isaiah, Micah
Scripture: 2 Kings 18-20, 2 Chron 29-32, Isaiah 36-39
Notable for: First king of Judah to “remove the high places” and stop idolatry; rebelled against Assyria and regained independence
Evil or good? Very good (“the Lord was with him; wherever he went, he prospered”)

Manasseh (r.687-642) Claim: Son of Hezekiah

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 21, 2 Chron 33
Notable for: Very long reign that brought idolatry back to Judah, including child sacrifice; shed “much innocent blood.” But he repented late in life after God rescued him from imprisonment in Babylon and tried to stop the idolatry.
Evil or good? Very evil (he “misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that the Lord destroyed before the people of Israel”), but he ended on a good note

Amon (r.642-640) Claim: Son of Manasseh 

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 21, 2 Chron 33
Notable for: Returned to his father’s earlier idolatry; killed by his servants
Evil or good? Evil

Josiah (r. 640-608) Claim: Son of Amon

Prophet: Huldah, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah
Scripture: 2 Kings 22-23, 2 Chron 34-35
Notable for: Ending idolatry and bringing back the Law; died in battle against Egypt; last king before exile
Evil or good? Very good (cf. 2 Kings 23:24)

Jehoahaz (r. 608) Claim: Son of Josiah

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 23, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Reigned three months before he was supplanted and captured by Pharaoh Neco of Egypt
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoiakim (r. 608-597) Claim: Son of Josiah, brother of Jehoahaz

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 23-24, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Rebelled (very unsuccessfully) against King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
Evil or good? Mostly evil

Jehoiachin (r. 597) Claim: Son of Jehoiakim

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 24-25, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Reigned for three months before surrendering to King Nebuchadnezzar
Evil or good? Evil

Zedekiah (r. 597-586) Claim: Son of Josiah (Jehoiachin’s uncle)

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 24-25, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Rebelled against Babylon, leading to the sack and destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple
Evil or good? Evil

BABYLONIAN EXILE (586-450)

Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom)

Jeroboam I (r. 931-910) Claim: Solomon’s servant

 
Prophet: Ahijah
Scripture: 1 Kings 12-14, 2 Chron 10
Notable for: Seceding from Judah and dividing the kingdom; worshiping golden calves
Evil or good? Evil (he “there was no one who followed the house of David except the tribe of Judah alone”; i.e., not Israel)

Nadab (r. 910-909) Claim: Son of Jeroboam

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 15
Notable for: Not much; killed by countryman during siege of Gibbethon
Evil or good? Evil (he “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”)

Baasha (r. 909-886) Claim: Usurper

Prophet: Jehu
Scripture: 1 Kings 15-16
Notable for: Assassinating Nadab, destroying the house of Jeroboam
Evil or good? Evil

Elah (r. 886-885) Claim: Son of Baasha

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 16
Notable for: Drinking too much and getting murdered by his servant
Evil or good? Evil

Zimri (r. 885) Claim: Elah’s servant (“commander of half his chariots”)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 16
Notable for: Shortest reign in the book (seven days); burnt himself alive
Evil or good? Evil

Omri (r. 885-874) Claim: Commander of the army

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 16
Notable for: Seized power after crisis of succession and moved capital to Samaria
Evil or good? Evil (he “did more evil than all who were before him”)

Ahab (r. 874-853) Claim: Son of Omri

Prophet: Elijah, Obadiah(?) [traditional; others believe this to be a different Obadiah than the Minor Prophet]
Scripture: 1 Kings 16-22, 2 Chron 18
Notable for: Marrying Jezebel, worshiping Baal, and getting into conflict with numerous prophets
Evil or good? Very evil (“did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him”)

Ahaziah (r. 853-852) Claim: Son of Ahab

Prophet: Elijah
Scripture: 1 Kings 22, 2 Kings 1
Notable for: Not much; continued in his father’s way
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoram/Joram (r. 852-841) Claim: Son of Ahab (Ahaziah’s brother)

Prophet: Elisha
Scripture: 2 Kings 1,9
Notable for: Removed the pillar to Baal that his father had made; war with various neighbors
Evil or good? Slightly less evil

Jehu (r. 841-814) Claim: Military commander in Joram’s army; anointed by Elisha

 
Prophet: Elisha
Scripture: 2 Kings 9-10
Notable for: Slaughtered Joram, Jezebel, all of Ahab’s descendants, and all priests and worshipers of Baal; smashed Baal’s temple; but kept the golden calves
Evil or good? Neutral

Jehoahaz (r. 814-798) Claim: Son of Jehu

Prophet: Elisha
Scripture: 2 Kings 13
Notable for: Humiliating defeat in battle against Aram
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoash (r. 798-782) Claim: Son of Jehoahaz

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 13-14
Notable for: Recovering land from Aram
Evil or good? Evil

Jeroboam II (r. 782-753) Claim: Son of Jehoash

Prophet: Jonah, Amos, Hosea
Scripture: 2 Kings 14
Notable for: Long rule; restored Israel’s borders
Evil or good? Evil

Zechariah (r. 753-752) Claim: Son of Jeroboam II

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Killed by Shallum, ending Jehu’s dynasty
Evil or good? Evil

Shallum (r. 752) Claim: None (usurper)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Killed by Menahem, who sacked the region of Tiphsah
Evil or good? Evil

Menahem (r. 752-742) Claim: None (usurper)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Taxed the wealthy of Israel to successfully pay off Assyrian invaders
Evil or good? Evil

Pekahiah (r. 742-740) Claim: Son of Menahem

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Killed by his captain
Evil or good? Evil

Pekah (r. 752-733) Claim: Pekahiah’s army captain

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Lost much of his territory to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria
Evil or good? Evil

Hoshea (r. 732-722) Claim: None (usurper)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 17
Notable for: Entered vassalage to Assyria, but double-crossed King Shalmaneser and so was imprisoned, leading to the capture of Israel and the Babylonian exile
Evil or good? Evil

BABYLONIAN EXILE (722-450)

Prophets of the Exile

Several prophets wrote from exile in Babylon:Nahum (fl. 615 BC)
Ezekiel (d. 570 BC)
Daniel (ca. 500s BC)

 
Conclusion: Sorting Through the Kings and Prophets

I hope this guide and chart help you to sort through the bewildering array of very similar names between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the books of 1 and 2 Kings — and help you to better understand the history of God’s chosen people as recorded in Scripture. Now, next time someone asks you who your favorite king of Judah was, you’ll have an answer ready.

The Mailbag: Communion Questions - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley didn't write this article to explain the Bible, she's here to explain her tradition and church practice. Her objective is to further parse what women are allowed to do in a church service. This is a frequent practice of Ms. Lesley, to micro-analyze gender roles to make sure women keep their place, all based on 

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

The problem is, the NT does not contain a solemn communion ritual. There is no biblical indication that communion can only happen in a church building on Sunday. Rather, communion was the church gathering for a meal and fellowship. 

Whenever they got together to eat, they were to remember the Blood [1Co. 11:25] and the Body [1Co. 11:24], and especially, to not dishonor its members [1Co. 11:22]. This was the regular fellowship meal, not a solemn, solitary ceremony with a little plastic cup of juice and a cracker.

Partaking of a meal together speaks to being one body. The sharing of bread is symbolic of togetherness, unity, and a singular identity. Eating together means we belong together as the family.

Communion is the interaction of the body of Christ one with another in honor when it gathers together to eat. To dishonor the body (the church) is to dishonor Christ. However, the Corinthian church was despising the Body (that is, certain members of the church, and by extension, Jesus' sacrifice) by neglecting some, eating all the food, and by getting drunk.

If we don't recognize the Body we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves. If we eat and exclude, diminish, or dishonor our brothers and sisters, we tear down the Body. It isn't about considering the state of our own souls in relation to unconfessed sin, it is instead about our regard for both Jesus' sacrifice and our care and honor for the Body.

It seems clear that communion is more accurately represented by a church potluck than by the little cracker and splash of grape juice during a solemn church service. Communion speaks of a much higher purpose for the church than is currently practiced, a togetherness and unity of vision and purpose that far exceeds the ritual. 

Why is this important? Because if communion is only a church ritual, then who "administers" it becomes an issue, and also where it happens is important. So if communion can only be done by a pastor in a church service, that gives Ms. Lesley the opportunity to bring in her ideas about what women can and can't do. 

And this is the crux of the question. Ms. Lesley wants to add another sub-doctrine to 1 Timothy 2:12. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Should We Forgive Apart from Repentance? What Jesus Expects of the Wronged - by Matt Ferguson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author examines a relatively simply proposition, but expends over 3400 words to do so. This is not counting the 26 footnotes, which themselves comprise an additional 1400+ words. 

He seems to think it is possible, even necessary to "lovingly" withhold forgiveness unless the perpetrator repents. Aside from the logistical problems that come from keeping track of who has repented and subsequently who has been forgiven and who has not, the other issue here is that withholding forgiveness seems to be self-oriented. This is personal, maintaining an offense, the guarding of one's territory; this is an attitude that is almost always damaging and unhealthy. 

The author's idea is based on God forgiving sinners only when they repent. Thus the power of salvation lies in the hands of the sinner who simply needs to refuse to repent and that renders God unwilling to save and helpless to forgive.

This creates additional problems for Calvinists, whose doctrine teaches that salvation lies 100% in the hands of God, and the sinner does not in any way participate in the salvation transaction. But if salvation hinges on repentance, then repentance must be an action of human will. That is a work. 

For the Calvinist, then, our forgiveness cannot be modeled after God's forgiveness because God does the entirety of what is necessary to save, while conversely we require a work, repentance, in order to forgive. 

Calvinists like John MacArthur do not require repentance to forgive: 

John MacArthur: "There are times when forgiveness should be unconditional and unilateral, and there are other times when forgiveness must be withheld until the offender repents. The biblical principles governing these different kinds of forgiveness are clear."

But even if the author is not a Calvinist, his idea that our forgiveness is modeled after God's is still faulty, because God's forgiveness comes to bear on the souls of men, while our forgiveness comes to bear on the flesh.

The last thing we would like to note is the author rarely quotes Scripture, and the Scripture he does quote is interpreted through his doctrinal lens. We must therefore deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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