The Remarkably Ordinary Church - by Darryl Dash

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are happy the author found virtue in the various churches he attended. We understand the author's sentiments, and we generally agree. In an era where carefully choreographed, highly produced and professionally polished church services are highly visible and even revered, the ordinary church with ordinary people and ordinary preaching might seem preferable.

However, it's too easy these days to complain about mega churches with their laser lights and high tech wizardry, but the other side of the coin, the rudimentary church based in tradition and somber reflection is not automatically virtuous. A contemporary service is neither better nor inferior to the liturgy. An organ-led hymn is not better or worse than a full-on worship band. 

Our criteria should not be established on how men organize or express a particular church. This mistake values flavor over substance, structure over the spiritual, and habit over purpose. 

In our opinion, the gathering of the saints is for the primary purpose of giving God the glory due His name. If a church does not worship, that is, extoll the Lord in words, songs, and holiness, it is not a good church. 

Further, a church shouldn't be defined by its Sunday services. Unfortunately, that is the way people tend to judge churches, which ultimately is a consumerist mentality. But a truly good church must include

• a passion for prayer
• a pursuit of holiness
• a vision for the lost
• ministry to the poor

It must be emphasized that the Bible doesn't tell us to find a good church. In fact, it almost seems like the churches mentioned in the Bible were uniformly troubled and dysfunctional. We would therefore suggest that finding a good church to attend should not necessarily be the goal. Perhaps what we should do is find a church we can help to be better.

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

Why focus so much on lowering income taxes? - by Chris Cargill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is the typical right-leaning quasi-conservative. We don't wish to be mean, but the the fact is he thinks the Montana tax system can be improved by some tinkering. So, adjusting tax percentages, creating exceptions and deductions and tax shifts are right in the author's wheelhouse.

In other words, more of the same. More rules, exceptions, carve-outs, credits, and surcharges. Page after page of tax law few have read and no one understands.

In actual fact the tax system needs total overhaul. Scrap what's there and create a brand new piece of legislation. We don't care if the state gets less revenue. We don't care if the rich pay their fair share or not. We don't care if Big Business pays zero tax. 

Eliminate the tax system. Make a new one.

We want a one page piece of legislation. Can Montana have a one page tax system? Yup. It's quite simple, and as such is doomed to be rejected by the powerbrokers. 

Before we reveal our proposal, we shall assert that any tax system must embrace these truths:

• Truth #1: Taxes are a penalty, a disincentive, a confiscation. Taxes dampen economic activity.
• Truth #2: Taxes are an invasion into the privacy of people. The government should not be privy to the most personal details of a person's life.
• Truth #3: The sole purpose of taxation is to operate the constitutionally authorized functions of government. It must not be behavior modification.
• Truth #4: It is wrong to tax something that doesn't engage in economic activity. A house, personal property, vacant land, and vehicles, are in this category. 
• Truth #5: It is immoral to tax something that has already been taxed. Inherited money, for example, has already been taxed.

So these truths stand in total opposition to the stated goals of the author.

What is this one-page tax system? A flat retail sales tax, levied only on Montana purchases in Montana, constitutionally capped at 4% and constitutionally defined as the only permitted tax. Period. No exceptions, exemptions, or credits. This is the only tax, fee, levy, permit charge, or assessment the government is allowed. Forever.

A retail sales tax ties government revenue to economic activity. If people are doing well they are buying stuff. If people are struggling, they buy less. It doesn't matter if government happens to get less revenue. It needs to live on a budget just like every family does. It needs to be reigned in anyway.

 

In principle, the payment of a sales tax is voluntary. One must buy things to pay it, so the poor won't buy as much, as contrasted with a person who must have lots of money in order to buy lots of things. 

It doesn't matter if people buy out of state. The state must adhere to its own boundaries. It doesn't matter if out of state people come from a no-sales-tax state. When they are in Montana they pay Montana retail sales tax.

If the feds threaten Montana by withholding federal grants, perks, and loans, that doesn't matter either. Montana will learn to be properly budgeted, independent, and economically self-sufficient.

Yes, this is severe. But the problem of big, intrusive government is more severe. 

Reel it in.

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

Why There’s No Middle Position Between Calvinism and Arminianism - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

This utterly Scriptureless presentation was not written to explain, uplift, or instruct. No, the author wants to force the reader into a binary choice based solely on his Calvinism. This is what we find time after time. Calvinists only want to talk about Calvinism. They will never discuss the Bible unless they can insert their Calvinism.

He will assert that there is no middle position while simultaneously admitting there is a mix of beliefs: 

The questions of grace and election themselves have binary answers, but how you hold the matrix of the doctrines of grace is not a binary matter.

Thus he acknowledges the legitimacy of having a mix of each position even as he claims it's not possible.

Not only must we deem this Bad Bible Teaching, it is utter nonsense.

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

Do You Want to Hear From God? Open Up Your Bible - by Lumuli Mwakasungula

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

The author will never come out and tell us his purpose for writing. He's definitely concerned that people are picking and choosing Scripture, and it's also clear that he believes the Bible is the only way God speaks. However, he misuses several Scriptures and completely omits the Holy Spirit's role in the daily lives of Christians.

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

Who Wrote the Bible? - by Robert Cara

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a somewhat odd article. It's as if the author had an idea and liked it so much that he sought out Scripture to fill in the blanks. His idea is that God is the "primary" author of the Bible while the prophets and others were "secondary" authors. 

But God didn't write the Bible, He spoke it. We see this clearly in the author's own Scripture selections: 

Matt. 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet...

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Ge. 12:1, 3b The LORD had said to Abram... 3 ...all peoples on earth will be blessed through

you.”

God speaks. His Logos sustains the universe (Heb. 1:3). The words God speaks are not the Bible, but the Bible is wholly comprised of God's words. These words are what saves us:

Ro. 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The word "word" is rhéma, a spoken word, made "by the living voice." This is not the Bible being preached, it is the living word of Christ, the Gospel. We therefore think that referring to the Bible as the "Word" is confusing and inaccurate.

Further, we must question what it means to be a "secondary" author. Is the "author" the one who heard the Word or the one who wrote it down? Was Paul the "author" when he heard the Word of the Lord, or was the person who on occasion transcribed it for him (Galatians 6:11) the author? Did what God spoke become the Word only after it was written down?

The authors of some books (Hebrews, Esther, and Job for example) are unknown. Others who spoke the Word of the Lord did not write down what they spoke (1 Sam. 10:11, Acts 19:6, and 21:9, for example). The Word was also recorded outside the Scriptural canon (Jude 14-15)!

Many women spoke the Word but did not write it down:

• 1 Sam. 2:1-10  Hannah 
• Judges 5:1-9 Deborah
• 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah 
• Exodus 15:20-21 Miriam 
• 2 Chron. 9:5-8 The queen of Sheba

• Luke 1:41-45 Elizabeth 
• Luke 1:46-55 Mary
• Luke 2:36-38 Anna
• Mark 16:7 Mary Magdalene

The prophetic inspired Word is the thing spoken, not who wrote it down. Thus the question, "who wrote the Bible" misses the point entirely.

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

What is the spirit of wisdom and revelation in Ephesians 1:17? - by GotQuestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Gotquestions never quotes the passage all together, instead quoting chunks here and there. Here it is:

Ep. 1:17-20 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms...

Paul covered a lot of ground here, and we see a procession of thought as he builds concept upon concept. We need to understand this as we analyze the verses in order to properly answer the question. But by dividing up the passage and deleting parts of it, Gotquestions misses this development. Gotquestions then compounds the problem by summarily dismissing alternatives (most likely charismatic) to their view. 

We will explain below.

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

NEW! Counterarguments to Egalitarianism - by Michelle Lesley

Ms. Lesley never defines "egalitarian." One must go to the link she supplies to get a definition:

Egalitarianism is the anti-biblical view that women can do anything men can do in the context of the church and home. Women can be pastors, elders, heads of denominations, preach and teach the Bible whenever, wherever, and to whomever they want, and they don’t have to submit to their husbands.

Superficially correct. As with any doctrinal perspective, however, there are graduations along the continuum. We suspect that there are very few true Christians who would completely agree with her definition.

Why does Ms. Lesley write? Well, because it gives her another opportunity to further parse 1 Timothy 2:12 into additional micro-doctrines. This is one of her favorite topics. And she does it badly.

We discuss 1 Timothy 2:12 in great detail here.

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

On fallen pastors who seek the pulpit again - By Elizabeth Prata

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

While we share Ms. Prata's concern when these sinning pastors so quickly re-appear in the pulpit, sometimes after very serious sin, we reject the idea that there is no possibility for restoration to the pulpit. We would embrace a broader criteria, since sin of every kind is present in the Church and potentially disqualifying for every person (1Co. 9:27, Col. 2:18), not just pastors. And every man who comes into the Kingdom has a sinful past, even pastors.

It seems Ms. Prata thinks that the sin dividing line is when a man is saved. That is, a grievous sinner, once saved and having grown to maturity of faith, can be qualified to lead, but sin after being saved is not permissible for a leader. So someone like this man, a former porn star who repented, got saved, and is now a pastor, isn't disqualified. 

Such a dividing line is completely arbitrary, however. 

Ms. Prata lists a single disqualifier, failure to be above reproach. She derives these from 1 Tim. 3:2:

Now the overseer must be above reproach...

So, a pastor who falls into sin violates this criteria permanently, according to Ms. Prata. She makes a leap to get to this unexplained and undocumented conclusion. She quotes no Scripture that tells us this. Probably because there isn't one. There is no statement in the Bible that a fallen leader cannot be restored to leadership.

In fact, the Bible is replete with examples of leaders who sinned and stumbled, even severely, yet were not disqualified from leadership. David, Samson, Paul, Peter, Noah, Abraham, Jacob... it's a long list. Murders, adulterers, hypocrites, and liars. Yet God used them powerfully. They are historical giants of faith.

So, what does the Bible tell us about restoration, whether it's regarding leadership or not? Ms. Prata never tells us. In fact, she manages to quote only a single Scripture in his whole presentation. It seems important to us to discuss biblical restoration as a concept in an article questioning pastoral restoration.

We find that the church has a responsibility to restore:

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

The word "restore" means exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function. So a leader or pastor or any Christian who sins needs to be put back to full function, if at all possible. The person needs to be restored to "good working order." That must always be the goal. No sin should disqualify any truly repentant person to return to their God-given gifts.

Of course, this requires repentance, counseling, examining of subsequent fruit, and continued accountability and evaluation. It is not done quickly or casually. But there is no hint in the Bible that restoration isn't possible or isn't permissible.

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

Churches are to be led by a group of godly men, not a CEO pastor. This fact underlies the issue of pastoral missteps.

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

Bad worship songs - "See A Victory"

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, See A Victory.

Video link.

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

The Five Points of Calvinism -The Doctrines of Grace, Defined and Defended from Scripture

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have been devoting a lot of blog space to Calvinism, since it seems to us that its most vociferous defenders are getting increasingly loud. So once again we find ourselves examining another defense of Calvinism.

At almost 5000 words (including footnotes but not including charts), this is perhaps the most extensive defense of Calvinism we have seen on the internet. However, extensive does not mean thorough. Or Biblical. 

The author examines only a single, though significant, hostile source, The Five Articles of the Remonstrance. We are gratified that the author actually quotes from it, pretty unusual for a Calvinist. But there are also many thoughtful critiques of Calvinism subsequent to this 500 year old document.

In addition, the author quotes various sympathetic sources to explain his doctrines, but when it comes to the Bible he tends to quote it without commentary. The problem is, many of those Scriptures do not speak to Calvinism, while others are misinterpreted or taken out of context.

But the bottom line is, the author, like most Calvinists, devotes a lot of energy explaining and defending his Calvinism. In fact, Calvinists will never talk about Scripture unless they can insert their Calvinism. Their entire world revolves around the continual reinforcement of these doctrines.

This is very nearly cultic behavior.

Lastly, it continually strikes us that the "Doctrines of Grace" actually don't matter.  Everything about these doctrines is from the "now" looking back. Everything Calvinists are arguing about is a matter of the past for Christians. How we were included, who is included, and our prior status as lost men, all of that is past and makes no difference at all to those who are already saved. Therefore, Calvinism is moot to the saved, and irrelevant to the lost. 

Much of what the author offers has been answered elsewhere in our blog, but we will nevertheless attempt to offer succinct commentary.

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

Pleading My Righteousness? - by Dan Crabtree

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

The author works hard to establish his premise. He goes to great lengths to document his ideas with Scripture and then lays out a well-reasoned process to reach his conclusion. But his entire foundation is built upon a false assumption, that Christians are not actually righteous. This premise is the only one he does not document, which creates the need for explanations, work-arounds, and ultimately, verse twisting.

The false ideas that impede the author are:

• We are still regarded as sinners
• We only have Jesus' righteousness
• Righteousness is imputed
• The OT accounts of David's righteousness come to bear on us

It's a common idea that we are "sinners saved by grace." But in actual fact this ought to be past tense - we were sinners but Jesus' blood cleansed us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). ALL unrighteousness. We therefore have no need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us because He already took care of our unrighteousness on the cross and made us new:

2Co. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 

 

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

Our former self, the sinful nature, is to be abandoned in favor of the new life and true righteousness He has given us:

Ep. 4:22-24 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

So the author really misses the point with his explanation. And in fact he never really answers the question or even tells us why we should even be "pleading" righteousness at all. 

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

Predestination: God chooses us. We don’t choose Him - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata is back too soon, this time to provide some Bad Bible Teaching about predestination, the Calvinist's favorite doctrine. Yes, we've written a lot about predestination, but it's like wack-a-mole. So, we'll keep wacking.

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

Bad worship songs: Son of Suffering, by David Funk, Aaron Moses, Matt Redman, and Nate Moore.

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, Son of Suffering.

Video here.

The Benefits of Bivocational Ministry - By Bryan Rigg

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

We wholeheartedly agree with the author. There are great benefits to bivocational pastors as the author well documents. 

However, his presentation is based on the unbiblical idea that churches are governed by CEO pastors with everyone else below him.

Churches are to be governed by a community of elders:

1 Peter 5:1-2 As a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings, and a partaker of the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is among you, watching over them...

In our view, the very problems for which the author writes are all caused by the historic but unbiblical leadership model. The solution is to embrace the biblical expression of church leadership, elders.

----------

Understanding Revelation: Who Are the 144,000? - by Benjamin L. Gladd

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The speculation about the book of Revelation has been ongoing for decades. Hal Lindsey was influential for us. We were among those who took Hal Lindsey's books as very nearly gospel. The Late Great Planet Earth had us scanning the headlines for the latest prophetic event proving the rapture was imminent and that the anti-christ was alive right now. 

At the time we thought it was just what Christians believed. We didn't know that there were other streams of thought. But despite its popularity, this end times scenario never really sat well with us. After studying the various proof texts for years and speculating on who the anti-christ might be, we began changing our views. 

This began when we started actually reading the proof texts in context. The convoluted time frame derived from cherry-picked verses, the speculation about how it all connected together, the contradictions, the theories, it all began to grate on us.

We have arrived at a different view these days, dare we say a more biblical one. It's simple and makes sense. Our view is that the rapture happens on the last day. All believers will live through a time of increasing trouble, culminating on the return of the Lord coming on the clouds. He will meet us in the air, and then continue on to earth to execute judgment. We discuss the rapture in detail here. We discuss the Last Days here. We discuss the 144,000 in detail here.

So for this article the author wants to tell us who the 144,000 are. This is a somewhat short article at just over 1000 words. The author barely quotes Scripture, just a couple of irrelevant snippets and a portion of one relevant verse. Yet he quotes John MacArthur, Buist Fanning, and G.K. Beale. He doesn't bother to even quote the subject verses. How does one teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

So let's quote them. Here's the first mention of the 144,000:

Re. 7:1-8 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea:

3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Re. 7:5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
Re. 7:6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
Re. 7:7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
Re. 7:8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

And the second:

Re. 14:1-5 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No-one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 

Re. 14:4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

With the actual verses before us, let's consider the author's presentation.

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

Picking Your Successor? - by J.V. Fesko

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

All of these described pitfalls are a product of the unbiblical CEO pastor leadership model. The pastor is the boss, the manager, the H.R. person, the window cleaner, and the snow shoveler. For too many churches, he's the guy who gets paid to do things so that the congregants don't have to. Everyone else will show up on Sundays, listen attentively to his sermon, write their tithe check, and go home. That's all that's expected of them, and that's exactly what they expect of church.

However, biblical church leadership is a team of spiritually mature men: 

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

It is the duty of this church leadership team of elders to train their congregants, not only for ministry, but indeed as their replacements. 

It is leadership malpractice to be a singular pastor over a church and not work toward maturing the flock and not equipping them for eventual leadership.

So the author wrestles with the problem singular leadership creates. The CEO pastor, happily perched on his pedestal, seems to have no motivation to train and raise up people into maturity of faith and ministry, in violation of 

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

Lastly, there isn't a single Bible verse quoted or even mentioned. Not one word. We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Personal Holiness, Christlikeness and the Doctrine of Imputation - by Mike Ratliff

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

We quoted only an excerpt, the part of Mr. Ratliff's article that was actually about the title. In this article he quotes Scripture at length but does not provide a single Scripture about imputation. This is distressing to us, since it is a substantial doctrinal claim that this imputation occurred. 

The doctrine descends from a single misinterpreted verse. Romans 4:6: 

Ro. 4:3-6 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works...

We quoted from the KJV because it to our knowledge is the only translation that uses the word "impute." This word, as well as the words "counted" and "reckoned," are the very same Greek word (to take into account, to make account of), used throughout Romans chapter four. It really is the key word, the lynchpin upon which the entire doctrine of imputed righteousness is built. 

In this passage Paul was in the middle of his argument regarding Abraham's faith. According to Paul, Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness [verse 3], as contrasted with a man who works and it is counted to him that he is owed his wages [verse 4]. 

Therefore, the man who works is owed his wages, and the man with faith is credited with righteousness as a gift [verse 5]. Is the man who works imputed with his wages? No, his wage is credited to him because he earned it. Is the man of faith imputed righteousness? No, righteousness is credited to him as a gift.

And like any gift from God, righteousness it is given for free and belongs to the recipient, just as the worker's wage is paid for his work and belongs to him. This is important, because we would not say, for example, that God "imputed" the gift of faith (First Corinthians 12:9), or teaching (Romans 12:7) to us, or that the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14) or eternal life (Romans 6:23) were imputed to us, would we? No, we actually possess these things as a gift.

Of course we already know that we cannot obtain righteousness by works:

Ro. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 

 

Ro. 9:30-31 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 

The use of the word "obtained" is telling. The Greek word is katalambanó, to lay hold of so as to make one's own, to obtain, attain to... We seize righteousness and own it by faith. Certainly Paul would not use such language if righteousness was merely imputed.

We think Scripture plainly teaches that actual, real righteousness by faith is immediately ours at salvation because of the completely efficacious blood.

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

Misinterpreting Romans 10:17 - Faith comes by hearing

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.
----------------

Can My Silence Cost Souls? - Interview with John Piper

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

The short answer for Calvinists is no, our silence will not cost souls because God has already irrevocably chosen The Elect.

Either the Calvinists are really pushing predestination right now or maybe they never stopped focusing on it. It certainly seems to be their favorite doctrine. We aren't quite sure why, since it's completely irrelevant to Christian living. How we got to be Christians no longer matters. 

So Dr. Piper contributes to the Calvinist narrative by attempting to explain how predestination doesn't conflict with evangelism.

He fails.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Is a Liturgy, and Should We Have One? - by Jonathan M. Threlfall

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

This article is huge at over 2800 words, and happily the author quotes a fair amount of Scripture. However, none of it speaks to his thesis that we need the liturgy. Starkly, it's the only thing not documented by Scripture even though it's the topic.

In fact, the author is unable to make any meaningful distinction between liturgical and non-liturgical churches. All of his principles and good advice applies to either.

And yes, it is good advice, especially the admonition that worship must be the adoration of God. We like that.

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

At The Cross - original song using Suno

A couple of weeks ago I posted my best original songs, for the purpose of enlisting the help of some friends in order to pick out the best of the best.

The first recommendation was At The Cross, which I wrote in July 2013. (Audio link)

I hope you enjoy it and share it.

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

Worship in the church - programming or true worship - Faceborg conversation

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

Friend:

I’ve been hearing much about “worship participation” recently and how much of a consumer mindset has begun to pervade Christian communities.

The insight is that what happens on stages on Sunday mornings is beginning to be more and more of a concert performance rather than an invitation to participation.

This is a conversation we should have, but it extends outward past mere participation.

What do you think the difference is between participation and partnership?

Can’t wait to hear your insights below!

Potter’s hands shaping a clay vessel on a wheel Dinesh D’Souza’s Case Against Calvinism, Answered - by Anthony Faggiano

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has appeared in our blog twice before, and neither time did he acquit himself well. The second link was about predestination, which is his principal theme today as well.

But what is the actual reason the author wrote? D'Souza is guilty of the cardinal sin: He disagrees with Calvinism. Calvinists will defend to the death their doctrines. In fact, that's all Calvinists talk about, their Calvinism. They will never, ever, discuss the Bible apart from making sure these doctrines are inserted. 

Calvinism is stark in its surprising non-utility. There is no Christian obligation or privilege that changes as a result of Calvinism. The need for salvation, holiness, obedience, worship, generosity... none of it changes because of Calvinism. The doctrines are totally irrelevant to Christian living.

He writes over 3500 words, even after we redacted an irrelevant introduction. Only about 300 are words quoted from the Bible. Most of them are Scripture snippets and not full verses, and one verse (John 6:44) is quoted three times.

As much as we don't want to, it is inescapable that we will need to follow the author into the weeds. We apologize for this. 

The author tries hard to justify his Calvinistic doctrine but fails spectacularly. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------

Ryder Cross, the latest country western rising star - is he real?

Most of the debate surrounding A.I. centers on people claiming A.I.'s work to supplement or even replace their own work. This of course is problem, particularly if such things are used as a basis to judge a person's performance, merit, or competence. But there's another, perhaps less discussed aspect, and that is the use of A.I. to create music and performers without anyone supplying any original work. A song completely made up by computers into a real-sounding band. The state of the art makes this possible, and it's truly astounding technology.

But it's troubling.

Ryder Cross has benefitted from this technology as the latest rising star in country music, with a Christian emphasis. First showing up sometime in March, he's heavily promoted on Youtube, Instagram, Apple music, Spotify, and Faceborg. He has the quintessential cowboy look and a great sound. Judging by the numbers, he achieved overnight success.

But he's A.I. And his songs are A.I. and I can prove it. 

Who’s Raking it in as the National Debt Explodes? - By Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Three years ago Dr. Reich wrote this: 

So if you’re worried about the federal debt — and there are some good reasons not to be..."

He is not writing to inform, explain, or clarify. Facts are of little relevance to Dr. Reich. No, he intends to bolster The Narrative, which is the Party line, the factoids and tidbits disseminated by Central Command so that leftist talking heads and agitat"ors can regurgitate coordinated talking points. 

So keep in mind that Dr. Reich has an agenda.

This PhD is either woefully maleducated, or a liar. Or both. 

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

Can We Get Over John Piper Already? - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" doesn't like Piper, obviously. But he's on both sides of the issue based solely on who he likes and who he doesn't like. For example, celebrity pastors are both good and bad (good if they're "apostle-like" and bad if they hang out with the wrong people). It's a moving target.

We should say that we are not fans of Piper, because we have examined several of his teachings, and we think his Calvinism is false. 

Lastly, "Publisher" does not write to explain or even edify. It's nothing more than a long, sour whine to no one's benefit.

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

Is new prophecy done? If it is, what about that verse in Acts? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It's only a couple of weeks ago we looked at Ms. Prata's shortcomings. Well, she's back.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching. There is no other way to describe it. Ms. Prata creates doctrines based on supposition and assumption, denies the plain words of Scripture, and invents an entire fantasy scenario in an attempt to find a workaround for Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter.

This is dismal. We have had reason to question Ms. Prata's Bible competence in the past, but we no longer need to do so. The matter is now proven.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Answering a discernment objection… - by Michelle Lesley

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

Michelle Lesley gets pretty nasty here. Her hostile responses to this man's statement seems to indicate that she doesn't like to be disagreed with. She disproportionately mocks, denigrates, and disrespects the man for no other reason than he finds a particular Bible teacher to be of benefit.  

Arrogant, condescending, and boorish. Not great qualities for a self-professed Bible teacher to possess.

Now, we do not intend to defend Tara Leigh Cobble. We've never heard her speak. We are here to examine Ms. Lesley's presentation. 

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

Bad Worship Songs - Midst - The Belonging Co. (Andrew Holt)

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, Midst.

Video link.
---------------------------------

Speaking of Tongues… - by Amy Spreeman

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

We have spent a lot of time searching for a coherent biblical explanation for the cessation of the "miraculous" spiritual gifts. We have yet to find one.

Today we shall examine Ms. Spreeman's attempt to refute contemporary tongues. This is relatively short at 690 words, which means she ends up explaining precious little. She quotes precisely two Scriptures, neither of which come to bear on her effort to refute contemporary tongues. The balance of her presentation will be made up of various claims and assertions, using pejorative phrases to make her case.

The author will be focused on private prayer language. She will pretty much avoid explaining general tongues. And she doesn't even understand what charismatics believe.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Restful Finality of Pentecost - By Melody Muniz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Over 1800 words, but only 33 of them are words quoted from the Bible. But none of these Bible quotes were employed to document the author's assertions. In addition, there are many undocumented assertions, stated as if they were unvarnished truths. 

In reality, the author wanders around searching for a point. She seems to want to refute Pentecostalism, spending a great deal of time on it, but this is only a rabbit trail. We are guessing, but we think she wants to tell us that receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation is enough, and more of Him is not possible. Which makes Pentecostals heretics. 

Or not Calvin/Reformed or something.

We do not intend to defend Pentecostals. Nor do we intend to mock or denigrate the author. We are here to examine her deficient writing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Let’s Stop Imaging Jesus - by Aaron Roberts

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

There are some Christians who believe that any visual representation of Jesus is idolatry and is therefore forbidden. The author is one such person. One would thing that in 1650 words (including footnotes) a presumed competent rhetorician could make a convincing appeal, but his case is surprisingly vapid. 

The relevant Scripture he quotes is

Ex. 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God... (NIV)

But the author writes:

...we shall not make an image of the LORD our God...

The two are not the same.

Let's take a closer look at the verses. There are two parts. 

1. We are forbidden to make an image depicting creation:

• anything in heaven
• anything on earth
• anything in the waters

2. We cannot 

• bow down to it
• worship it

Hmm. 

How might this apply to a movie depicting Jesus, or a children's book illustrating Jesus’s life? Because this is what the author says is being forbidden. 

However, we can clearly see that God isn't even mentioned. It's about forbidding images of anything in creation. 

Any image that is made to look like creation is forbidden. And of course God isn't created. 

Strike one.

It's possible the author is focused on the word "heaven" since God is heaven. In this case an image of Jesus would be an image of something from heaven. But the Hebrew word for heaven variously means the sky, the abode of spiritual beings like powers and principalities, or the highest place where the Glory dwells.

Context is the key. In the quoted passage we see heaven, earth, and seas mentioned together. Clearly this use of the word "heaven" is about the things of creation found in the natural sky with its creatures and stars. It's not about God's dwelling place.

Strike two.  

One might think this forbids any image period. But an image of creation is only part of the command. An image is not an idol, but an idol is an image. In order for an image to be an idol ("a manufactured, carved image set up for religious veneration") it needs to be worshiped. It's not a matter of simply making or possessing an image. So unless the author worships his wife's picture he's fine to have it. 

Strike three.

Bottom line: We are forbidden from fashioning something that looks like some aspect of creation and then bow down and worship it. Two things are required: Make an image as an idol, and worship the idol. Grandma's picture of praying Jesus hanging on the kitchen wall is not an idol unless it was created to be an idol and is worshiped.

We are going to redact a large introductory portion that has very little to do with the topic. We will pick it up here:

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

Heresy of the Day #24: Generational Curses - by Publisher

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

Disntr appears in our blog with alarming frequency. Disntr represents itself as a Christian watchdog. We would call the organization one of the Doctrinal Police, or perhaps, heresy hunters. 

Now, what Disntr does might be a valuable service provided to the Christian community, but such a ministry must be dispassionate, doctrinally accurate, and correctly representing the subject they are examining. Disntr regularly fails these standards.

We don't know Kathryn Krick and have never heard her speak. She may indeed be a false teacher, so we do not intend to defend her. But neither are we advocates for the "generational curses" doctrine as represented by Disntr. We're not sure Krick is, either, because the author never quotes her.

Krick's beliefs, and our beliefs, are not the purpose of this post. We are here to evaluate the unnamed "Publisher's" presentation. And "Publisher" misuses Scripture. Further, he doesn't explain anything, preferring to make undocumented assertions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Pastoral Time Guilt - By Joe Keller

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The modern pastorship is unbiblical. There, we said it. There is no Bible verse that tells us the pastor presides over the local church. The expectations for a CEO pastor is the main reason he fails. 

But the author doesn't address that. He's more intent on telling pastors to not worry about not getting everything done. Time is in God's hands. Just don't waste it. 

Though the author quotes some Bible verses, he never teaches on proper church leadership. He simply accepts that status quo and looks for ways to work around it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

From snow cone stands to hay fields: Montana stories show why Social Security is earned, not given - Tim Summers Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author lays the schmaltz on thick. It practically drips from his word processor.

He tells a tale of the typical hardworking citizen who works his fingers to the bone, he's a pillar of the community, a saintly figure, he never did anyone wrong. And because he paid into Social Security all his life, he's entitled to his Social Security check. Indeed, we can't imagine anyone more deserving of a government handout, solely by virtue of having hundreds of thousands of dollars extracted from his paycheck whether he wanted it or not. 

This is how the author frames it. Such a noble soul deserves this money. It's his birthright. He sacrificed and is due his reward.

But in reality the author as a representative of the AARP is trying to manipulate us. He's cozying up to his constituency, the ones who pay their dues to this organization. They keep the money flowing, which empowers the AARP to access the halls of power in Washington D.C.. 

That's what's at stake here, government money. But not for seniors, for the AARP.

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

I used A.I. on my original songs

These songs are really songs I have written. My melody, my lyrics, my chords. But the thing about writing songs has been that you need a band to play them and a recording studio to produce them. 

Not any more. Recently a friend introduced me to a website called Suno, which is an A.I. tool used to create music. I uploaded rough audio versions of my songs and Suno created a virtual band and an arrangement of each song.

These are entirely an A.I. band. That's right, nothing you will hear in the below links is real, except for the original material that underpins them.

So, this post is for the purpose of evaluating the songs. I asked four faith-filled friends, all of them excellent musicians, worship leaders, and/or songwriters, to listen to these songs and pick the best ones.

My request for them is to keep in mind the following:

• Consider the congregation. These songs are for the purpose of our church's worship. A good song is not a good song if it doesn't speak to our church.

• Consider the music. Are the melodies good? Are the chords interesting? What about the tempos? Are the songs singable?

• Consider our band. Suno arrangements can sometimes be too much, like a lot of lead guitar solos, vocal gymnastics, or intricate arrangements. Try to look past the arrangements and discern the song itself.

• Consider the doctrinal and lyrical clarity. Does the song make sense? Is it off base or heretical?

• Consider the Holy Spirit. 

I picked what I think are my twenty best songs. I divided them up roughly by tempo. But there's no need to select songs from every category. Frankly, there's no need to select any songs at all. You can select as many or as few as you like.

Many thanks to Chelsea, Jerry, Elijah, and Megan.

Testing the “God Told Me” Claim; Part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold. Our examination of part one is here.

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

We ask the reader to forgive us. As we proceeded through our analysis we grew increasingly frustrated at all the undocumented claims, faulty logic, bad exegesis, and irrelevant factoids. We don't wish to insult Ms. Prata, but this is a terrible presentation. She attempts to refute what she thinks is false teaching and botches it terribly. 

Ms. Prata is just not a very good teacher. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Testing the “God Told Me” Claim; Part 1 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is reliably cessationist. But it isn't a biblical or rational position, it's reactionary. She doesn't like certain doctrines but is unable to intellectually articulate, from the Bible, her doctrines. 

A cessationist believes that God no longer speaks, among other things. But apparently there is some level of revelation from God that is acceptable, though Ms. Prata draws the line arbitrarily. So the Holy Spirit pricks the conscience, but doesn't inform us about the decisions we face. He warns us about sin, but not about danger around a street corner. He informs us about the contents of the Bible, but not about discerning someone's need.

None of this parsing is backed up by Scripture. She's inventing the whole scenario.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Does God Punish Us for Our Parents’ Sin? - by Aaron Garriott

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

The author doesn't really answer the question, attributing the troubles of subsequent generations to "indirect" punishment. So in some manner, one might conclude that God does punish children for their father's sin.

The author doesn't like this answer, except when punishment comes from Adam's sin. He's ok with us being "directly" punished for someone else's sin if that someone is Adam.

In addition, the author's biblical documentation disappears at the key moment when it's time to answer the question. After liberally quoting the Bible at the beginning, we look in vain for any Bible verse in the article that bolsters the author's case.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Undeserved favor

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

This meme is false. Let's explain.

The mailbag: potpourri (Women sharing the gospel) - Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley has a penchant for analyzing what Christian women can and cannot do. She has created an endless series of micro-doctrines regarding women's roles in the church, all based on a faulty interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12: 

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 

But she will never quote this or any Bible verse. Because of this we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss the issues of women and leadership here.

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

Chosen by Grace – Why Predestination Should Give You Confidence, Not Fear - by Alistair Chalmers

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

The author is a Calvinist, and as is typical for Calvinists he does not intend to explain the Bible, he's wanting to explain Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach some aspect of Calvinism.

This essay uses about 1500+ words, comprised mostly of bare assertions. Assertions about Calvinism. Predestination, to be specific. A doctrine that cannot give anyone confidence, as we will explain below.

Predestination is one of the so-called "doctrines of grace," roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

The reader will likely notice that the author directly or indirectly references almost all of these five doctrines. Again, that is what Calvinists do, talk endlessly about Calvinism.

Though the author quotes a few Scriptures, they are standard Calvinist go-to verses. Because the author misrepresents these verses, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Trump stories that turned out to be hoaxes - by John C. Wright

Found here. https://americandebunk.com/

In addition to the Russian Collusion Hoax, and the Wu Han Wet Market Origin Hoax, please do not forget these. Years passed. To date, not one newsman, social media oligarch, pundit, nor politician has printed correction, retraction, nor apology.

The Bloodbath Hoax
The Find Votes Hoax
The Fine People Hoax
The Drinking Bleach Hoax
The Dictator from Day One Hoax
The J6 Insurrection Hoax
The Trump Overfed Koi Fish Hoax
The Trump Mocked A Disabled Person Hoax
The Border Patrol Agents Whipped Migrants Hoax
The Threat to Democracy Hoax
The January 6 Protesters Killed Police Hoax
The Presidential Immunity Hoax
The Muslim Ban Hoax
The Suckers and Losers Hoax
The Grabbed Steering Wheel Hoax
The Hunter’s Laptop is Russian Misinformation Hoax

Crowds without Conversion - by Ethan Jago

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Crowds don't equal revival. We agree. This article is built on those four words, with John chapter 6 providing Scriptural cover for the author. But John chapter six isn't about revival or the possibility of crowds not meaning revival.

It takes a long time for the author to get to his solution, which he equates with evaluating a church. That is, he wants all the elements of a church expressed in a revival. 

But ultimately the author is skeptical. His skepticism is based on semantics, tradition, and preconceptions. We can't call it revival because we don't know if anyone is being revived. We can't call it revival because revival must look the a certain way. We can't call it revival because revivals are like churches. It can't be revival because the Gospel wasn't preached.

However, it seems to us that revival is whatever God wants it to be. It looks however God wants it to look. God can use any sermon, any setting, and any group of people to bring revival. And every church and every supposed revival is a mix of Holy Spirit and flesh. That does not determine whether not God uses them.

Revival is chayah:

3. quicken, revive, refresh:

a. restore to life, the dead 1 Samuel 2:6; Deuteronomy 32:39; Hosea 6:2; the dying Psalm 71:20.

b. cause to grow, grain Hosea 14:8.

c. restore, a ruined city 1 Chronicles 11:8, stones destroyed by fire Nehemiah 3:34.

d. revive, the people by himself with fulness of life in his favor Psalm 80:19; Psalm 85:7; Psalm 119:25,37,40,50,88,93,107,149,154,156,159; Psalm 143:11; Ecclesiastes 7:12.

Some OT verses that speak of revival:

Ps. 119:37 Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things, And revive me in Your way.

Is. 57:15 For this is what the high and lofty One says — he who lives for ever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.

What the NT has to say:

Ac. 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 3:19-21 ESV Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

Ro. 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Ephesians 5:14 ESV For anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Surely the Church, this nation, and the world needs revival. Revival in a rekindling of flagging faith, revival via new salvations, and revival of the preaching of the Gospel. We need revival in every facet of the faith, revival that invades godless structures, cold, dead churches, and revival in evil strongholds for the sake of the Kingdom. 

It's God's purpose and desire in these Last Days: 

Ac. 2:17-18 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.

Does the author want this? Then he might want to abandon his skepticism. It isn't useful. In fact, the author ought to be praising God for the possibility that it might be revival. And he might want to check out what actual witnesses have written about Asbury. Nearly every criticism the author makes gets negated. 

Crowds don't mean revival, but revival means crowds. If maybe it's not revival, we yet rejoice over a taste of a greater thing to come.

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

Bad worship songs: Worthy (Elevation/Brown, Furtick)

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, Worthy. 

Video found here.

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

You have to know when to stop evangelizing - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is Reformed and Calvinist, which means she believes God predestined those whom He will save. These are known as The Elect, and their destiny is set and cannot be changed. which means her recommendation that at some point evangelism should cease is very puzzling. 

We say this because a justifiable criticism of the doctrine of predestination is that since God has already chosen, evangelism is rendered meaningless. Nothing anyone does will change God's choice. Calvinists would respond that though God has chosen The Elect, He has also ordained the manner of their salvation and therefore has commanded us to evangelize. 

But Ms. Prata flips the coin over and tacitly accepts the fact that in certain cases evangelism made no difference. Yet if these people are part of The Elect they will get saved. If not, they won't. Which begs the question, what difference did it make to share the Gospel then decide to stop, versus never bothering to share the Gospel at all? 

It made no difference.

Now, we happen to believe that evangelism is not only necessary, but effective. Salvation is completely a work of God, we do not save ourselves. Yet we do not believe God predestines all people. We believe the revelation of God's holiness comes to a person and they respond with faith. The act of faith is not a work, despite the claims of Calvinists.

So this makes evangelism real and crucial, and not an empty exercise. 

Lastly, we note that the verses Ms. Prata uses to bolster her case are all taken out of context. Every verse she cites is regarding a community, not an individual. Each of them are examples of the Gospel being rejected by Jews, which means these verses speak to the idea of the Gospel shifting from the Jews to the nations: 

Ro. 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

 She therefore misuses these verses, and as a result we must deem her article Bad Bible teaching. 

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

The Pastor’s Responsibility in Discerning Worship - by David de Bruyn

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

The author wants to teach his tradition, not the Bible. He likes the old hymns and the traditional worship service. He does quote a couple of relevant Scriptures, but explains them in terms of his preferences, not for what they actually teach.

His greatest fear is that people might worship emotionally. He cites no Bible verse regarding this supposed danger, but he's absolutely certain it is dangerous. And, his remedy is to obligate the overworked pastor to keep the musicians in line.

What is the real purpose of this article? Well, actually, to admonish pastors to keep modern worship music out of their churches. This music is upsetting, it sounds worldly, and it doesn't have enough theology in it.

Because the author does not draw his conclusions from the Bible, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

False Teacher of the Day #61: Isaiah Saldivar - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

1362 words, zero from the bible. Zero from documented sources. Zero quotes of Saldivar's supposed false teaching. There are many undocumented claims and inferences and implied causes and effects. But no actual discussion of the issues, and no explanation of the truth contrary to Saldivar's teaching.

This is nothing more than a long, unattributed, unverifiable screed, full of loose accusations and summary conclusions. There are no facts stated at all.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching. Really bad.

We should note that we are not here to defend Saldivar. We are only interested in evaluating the unnamed "publisher's" unfocused rant.

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

Gifts for All Time? The Purpose and Cessation of Revelatory Gifts - by Todd M. Rester

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We began our quest for the biblical case for cessationism in 2013. As of yet we have not found anyone who is able to clearly explain this doctrinal stance. Our criteria for proponents of cessationism is simple. The explanation must

1. be from the Bible (quote the verses that speak to the point being made)
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata (what a church happens to believe is not the biblical case)
3. Not appeal to silence (i.e., what the Bible does not say)
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history (i.e., the historical absence or presence of something, or the statements of post-biblical writers)

The article below is another faulty attempt to explain cessationism. The author is guilty of inventing terminology, making undocumented claims, and misleading us about Bible verses. His key premise, that the close of the "apostolic" age means the close of revelation, is repeatedly asserted but never discussed.

But worse, he quotes a mere three Scriptures (one is a short snippet), only one of which comes to bear on his argument.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Ordinary and Enduring Gifts of the Spirit -by William Barcley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Let's quote the pertinent verses so that it's all together: 

Ro. 12:6-8 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

It is interesting that the author chose to explain this passage and not 1 Corinthians chapters 12 - 14. He probably made this choice because 1 Corinthians is substantially more problematic to his cessationist doctrine. But even so, the author will have to find a way to explain away the gift of prophecy.

It will not be a good explanation. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Who Was Timothy? - by William Barcley

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

The author does a good job in describing Paul's relationship to Timothy. He ably explains Timothy's role as Paul's associate and helper (we redacted most of this, however), but somehow ignores his own observations when it comes to pastors. It is here where he goes off track by thinking Timothy was a pastor. He was not.

The author is simply teaching his tradition that pastors are the CEO heads of local churches, with everyone else subordinate to him.

First and Second Timothy and Titus have been characterized as "pastoral epistles." The assumption is that Paul wrote these letters to teach these men how to pastor their churches. However, there is nothing in the Bible that even suggests that these men were pastors. "Pastor" and "shepherd" are not found in these letters. 

From this initial errant assumption descends other errors, which eventually leads to a complete misapplication of these letters. These assumptions  

• are used to justify the unbiblical leadership structure that a singular pastor presides over the congregation
• unduly expands the scope of Paul's personal instructions to apply universally
• derive unbiblical ideas about how church services should be conducted

We would therefore assert that these letters are not "pastoral" letters, which means Paul was not giving "pastoral" direction. These men were not sent to preside over these churches, but rather to correct them and install leadership.

Regarding Timothy, Paul's clear purpose in writing to him was to first, encourage him to stay true to the faith; second, to provide guidance on the conduct of Christians; third, to instruct him on how to handle situations in this church; and fourth, to install elders to lead this church.

He wasn't sent to be a pastor, he was sent to fix this church.

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

How Can We Be Ready to Meet the Lord? - By Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Our various experiences with this author's writing are generally positive. We would rate him as a competent Bible teacher. He quotes Scripture, explains it adequately, and doesn't inject his preconceptions into his explanations. 

This heartens us, considering the numerous self-styled Bible teachers we've examined in our blog, who couldn't exegete themselves out of a paper bag.

Today's article contains a few noteworthy flaws, which we will discuss below. 

Regarding the author's title, in our opinion, there is nothing we can do to be ready to meet the Lord.

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

Bad Worship Songs: What a God, what a God - by SEU Worship

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, What a God.

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

Who Was Stephen? - by Danny Myers

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

We know the author is a Calvinist/Reformist, so of course we shall be on the lookout for errant teaching. However, in this case it's not what is taught, but actually, what is not taught. The author seems to provide a comprehensive explanation of who Stephen was and what he did, but he studiously avoids mentioning this significant factor:

Ac. 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Why would he not mention such a important thing?

Even worse, though he writes nearly 1100 words, only eleven are from the Bible. How can someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

He does quote the lyrics from a song (We wouldn't call it a hymn, though. Helen Lemmel wrote it in 1922.)

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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