Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

What Is God’s Providence? Learning to See God’s Hand in Everyday Life - by Danson Ottawa

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

The author is Reformed/Calvinist, and as is typical for these kinds of teachers, uses his 1600 words to make seemingly endless assertions and presumptions. He teaches relatively basic concepts using terminology that requires advanced knowledge. He doesn't really explain anything, presuming that the reader already possesses this knowledge and agrees with it.

The author uses the word "providence" and its variants nearly two dozen times, but never really defines it. He uses the term "sovereign" about a dozen times and does not actually define it either. The closest he comes is to describe it as the "providential rule of God," which of course uses an undefined word to define the word. Ugh.

Then he connects the two without explanation, all the while introducing additional new terminology without explanation.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------------------

Monday, June 15, 2026

They don't want you to know the REAL reason Social Security is in trouble, But I'm going to tell you anyway - by Robert Reich

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

One can be sure that if a leftist is going to explain something, it will not be accurate, it will not clarify, and it will not be intended to impart information.

That's because leftists like Dr. Reich are only interested in The Narrative, that is, the talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated by Central Command. The Narrative is circulated throughout the media landscape every day, and leftist writers, commentators, and news operations dutifully regurgitate it.

So Dr. Reich pretends to be a truth teller, but he's simply doing his duty to repeat The Narrative, spouting agitprop in service to The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling of the system. The system, being racist, unfair, and hurtful to the worker and minorities, must be replaced. 

But in actual fact, none of these issues are important to the Left. They are simply excuses for advancing the leftist dream. So, nothing you will read below will be true, accurate, logical, or helpful. 

Dr. Reich is a calculating liar. He's sold his soul to The Agenda, and that is the only reason he supports Social Security. 
-------------------------

Friday, June 12, 2026

Bad Worship Songs - Tremble, By Mosaic MSC (Bentley, Fieldes, Figueroa, McManus)

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, Tremble.
-----------------------

Thursday, June 11, 2026

Does Prayer Make a Difference? - by Justin Huffman

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

We have commented on Mr. Huffman's articles before, and have found him to be a doctrinaire Calvinist/Reformist, though a somewhat gentler variety. Nevertheless, his Calvinism colors his doctrine and his thinking process to the point where we cannot trust that he is telling us the truth.

The crux of this article is that God does not change, and He does not change His mind. This would mean that prayer does not influence God in any way. God has already purposed the entirety of existence and what He has purposed will come to be. Prayer will not change that.

Ancillary to this, the author states that God determines both the ends and the means. The necessary conclusion from these premises is that human activities are completely moot. If God has pre-ordained everything that will happen and does not change His mind, then his creation merely goes through the motions of existence.

That can only mean that if we pray or don't pray, there is no effect. If we say yes or no, it doesn't matter. Sin or believe. Nothing changes our destiny. These conclusions are inescapable. If God predetermines everything, nothing matters because nothing happens outside of God's direct purpose and pre-chosen will. Life is merely theater. 

The Bible has some other things to say about the issue, but the author will either ignore or omit every bit of contrary biblical information. We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
----------------------------

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

Bernie Sanders: The Public Should Own Half of the Big A.I. Companies - By Scott Baker

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

After reading this, our conclusion is inescapable: Socialists are dumb. Stupid, dim, cognitively impaired, idiotic. Period. 

Socialist Bernie thinks that the government should own 50% of AI companies, so he intends to simply take it. That's right, he wants the government to just help themselves. On what basis? He wants the government to redistribute the profits. And the author of the article admires him.

Truly dumb.
-------------

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Why They Are Friends, Not Enemies - by Alistair Chalmers

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

The author uses the words "sovereign" and "sovereignty" nearly thirty times in his article, but astonishingly, he never defines it. Nearly as astonishing is the fact that though the author does manage to quote a few Scriptures regarding ancillary topics, he never quotes a single one that deals with God's sovereignty.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

It is interesting that Calvinists and Reformists give so much emphasis to the sovereignty of God. The KJV doesn't use the sovereign/sovereignty at all, while the ESV first uses the words in Acts 4:24, then again in 1 Tim. 6:15, and lastly in Rev. 6:10. Strangely, the old NIV (the version we use) employs the words over 300 times. Very odd indeed.

Let's explain what sovereignty is, since the author never does. Acts 4:24 reads, 

Act 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them..."

The Greek word for "sovereign" is despotés, a word used ten times in the NT: (despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints..." 

Mostly used in terms of a monarchy, sovereignty describe a position of highest authority and absolute rulership. A king has unquestioned authority, with even the law itself being subject to him. His commands are law, his desires are carried out without question.

Sovereignty is a position, not an activity. Sovereignty doesn't describe actions, because the king as sovereign determines his own actions as he chooses. His subjects operate according to his rulership, but he does not go to every field and tell the plower how to do his plowing. He does not show up to explain to the baker how to make bread. He does not personally go to the seamstress to see if she's sewing correctly.

The king is the ultimate authority, but he has no need to control every single thing in his kingdom, because he delegates his authority. He has agents to do his bidding, and they operate with authority under the king's authority. We see this in Gabriel's words: 

I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. Lk. 1:19

The centurion amazed Jesus when he placed himself in subjection to Him: 

For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, "Go," and he goes; and that one, "Come," and he comes. I say to my servant, "Do this," and he does it. Lk. 7:8 

This chain of authority descends down to the lowliest subject in his kingdom. Even the poorest sap has a modicum of authority as he lives out his life in the kingdom. That is why the king has no need to dictate every action of every soul in his kingdom. His authority descends down to the lowest place.

So we must understand that sovereignty doesn't speak to actions. Sovereignty doesn't require action or forbid his action, because the king determines his sovereignty as it pleases him. He is not subject to any required action. He is not forbidden from any action. If he was required to to act, he would not be sovereign. If he was required to stand there and make sure the baker made every single loaf of bread correctly, he would be at the mercy of what he was required to do.

Thus sovereignty is a position, not an action. The actions of a sovereign are a matter apart from his position.
-------------------------

Monday, June 8, 2026

Are We Forgiven for the Sins We Can’t Remember and Therefore, Don’t Confess? - by Randy Alcorn

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

A very good article, reminding us of the goodness and faithfulness of God, who forgives all our sins. Mr. Alcorn explains Scripture, encourages and exhorts, and teaches the topic quite well.

Except for him quoting John Piper. Inexplicably, he inserts statements by Dr. Piper that are unbiblical. We are going to quote the entirety of it and insert our comments in italics:

"John Piper reminds us that “'The payment was perfect. You can’t add to it at all. You can’t add to your sin-covering at all.'” (We do not have a "sin-covering," our sins are completely washed away. We explain this here.)

"He says in a message about why we confess sin, when we are aware of it:

'Jesus, once for all, by his life and death, purchased our forgiveness (Jesus did not purchase our forgiveness, His blood was spilled and washed us clean. There was no transaction.) 
 
'and provided our righteousness. (Jesus made us righteous, He did not "provide" our righteousness.) 
 
'We can add nothing to the purchase or the provision. We share in the forgiveness and the righteousness by faith alone. But in view of the holiness of God and the evil of sin, it is fitting that we appropriate and apply what he bought for us by prayer and confession every day. “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:11–12). Daily request for bread, because he has promised to meet every need; daily pray appropriation of forgiveness, because it is fully purchased and secured for us by the death of Jesus.'" (Dr. Piper doesn't seem to understand Jesus' sacrifice.)

Dr. Piper enjoys a reputation as an excellent Bible teacher, but we have examined several of his explanations and have found them lacking

Particularly this article, where he completely botches the nature and purpose of Jesus' death, all the while imposing his Calvinism on the entire equation. We examine this article here.

Which means Mr. Alcorn's otherwise excellent article is made into Bad Bible Teaching by the inclusion of Dr. Piper's false doctrine.

Unfortunate, indeed.
--------------------------------

Friday, June 5, 2026

Why Don’t Our Sermons Change People? - by Alistair Chalmers

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

We have reviewed several of the author's teachings and found them lacking. But credit given where credit is due. The author provides a good teaching here, contrary to one we evaluated previously

There is a glaring exception, however. The author does not explain the crucial element of the Holy Spirit's work through the preaching. It takes the author over 850 words of this 1300 word essay to get to the true transformative agent of men's souls, but he never discusses this element.

But on the whole, a good article.
------------------------

Thursday, June 4, 2026

The God Who Keeps His People; Assurance, Perseverance, and the Comfort of the Gospel - by Alistair Chalmers

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

The author will refer to the doctrine of perseverance. This is one of the petals of  Calvinistic TULIP, though the author will never mention Calvin. TULIP is 
  • Total Depravity
  • Unconditional Election
  • Limited Atonement
  • Irresistible Grace
  • Perseverance of the Saints
The last one is the one he intends to explain. However, he doesn't explain, he simply asserts his doctrine without explanation. The verses he appeals to are the ones theologians have debated for centuries, and could go either way.

But the biggest problem with perseverance is that is impossible to know if one is saved and therefore will persevere. After all, false converts believe they're saved. False converts study the Bible, try to live holy lives, and yet fall away. In fact, false converts can be false yet live their entire lives thinking their Christians.

Therefore, perseverance is fruitless theological debate. There is no way to know who is a false convert and who isn't.

Lastly, the author will never quote a single Bible verse about perseverance. Astonishing. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------------

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Recommend a Church - by Michelle Lesley If you’re searching for a new church

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

Those who have "discernment ministries' (actually, these are not actual ministries, they are mostly a single individual with a blog and a sour disposition) have a tendency to find heresy under every rock. They have severe and exacting standards, and anyone that violates a single jot or tittle from their micro doctrines is cast into the outer darkness. We have deemed these folks the doctrinal police.

Ms. Lesley has been bestowed this honor more than once in our blog, so much so that we have awarded her her own tag.

Today we are posting Ms. Lesley's standards for being able to recommend a church. Astonishingly, there are 14 requirements, some of which exclude entire denominations. Remember, these are the criteria for her to be able to recommend a local church. 

Ms. Lesley doesn't quote a single word of Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
-----------------------------

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Dressed in His Righteousness Alone: What Is Justification by Faith? - by David Briones

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

We're going to get into the weeds on this one, mostly because we need to chase the author into the weeds. The author could have explained justification in couple of paragraphs, but ends up wandering far and wide in search of a coherent thought.

We apologize for the insult, but he's supposed to be a teacher of the Bible. He seems to be unable to do that correctly, even when he quotes Bible verses that contradict him.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------------

Monday, June 1, 2026

“Praying in the Holy Spirit”: What Does Jude 20 Mean for Christians Today? - by Alistair Chalmers

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

The author is going to do his best to stay within his Calvinistic/Reformed views (which he describes as a "conservative evangelical perspective"), but he is clumsy in doing so, to the point that he violates Scripture and even his own doctrine.

The problem is, he's walking a tightrope. He wants to restrict prayer to a doctrinal system where nothing supernatural is allowed, even as he talks about the Holy Spirit's influence. He's deathly afraid that Charismatics will pray in tongues (1Corinthians 14:14 refers to praying in tongues), but admits there is a supernatural something involved in praying.

So, his general effort is to encourage Christians to pray, but to only go so far.

Lastly, because he generally avoids quoting Scripture, and misrepresents other Scripture, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss tongues here.
---------------------------

Friday, May 29, 2026

The State of Theology - Canadians in 2026

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

Keep in mind the premise of the survey as you read the questions. Some questions have nothing to do with theology, and some are "testing" how well people know Calvinism. 

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

Thursday, May 28, 2026

All of the Good Shepherd’s sheep will believe and repent and be saved by Grace through faith - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff makes an appearance in our blog once again. He is a Calvinist (i.e., a Christian who believes the doctrines of John Calvin, a French theologian who lived in the 1500s), so he believes in a set of peculiar doctrines known as TULIP:
  • Total Depravity
  • Unconditional Election
  • Limited Atonement
  • Irresistible Grace
  • Perseverance of the Saints
The underlying assumption in all these is predestination. The centerpiece of Calvinism is that God has chosen all those who will be saved, and who have been destined for hell, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, pro or con. So Mr. Ratliff's purpose is to explain our obligation to evangelize in light of predestination, even though evangelizing makes no difference at all. 

Thankfully, he quotes several Scriptures, a welcome departure from the Scriptureless Calvinistic Bible teaching we are accustomed to seeing. But he will use terminology based on the assumption that we know what it means. For example, he will use the terms like "Arminian," "sovereign," and "Pelagian" without explanation. Thus he presumes his readers possess a deep existing knowledge while simultaneously teaching basic concepts to them. Odd indeed.

The irony of all this is that Calvinism doesn't matter. None of it comes to bear on any obligation or privilege we have as Christians. Possessing "correct" knowledge about predestination does not influence worship, generosity, holy living, repentance, or any other operational part of our faith. Thus Calvinism is a fruitless intellectual exercise. 

Lastly, we note that Calvinists are always explaining Calvinism. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can talk about Calvinism. We think this is cultic behavior.
----------------

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

The Plurality of Elders Protects a Pastor (& a Church) from Disaster - by Jonathan L. Shirk

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

We think this fellow is on the right track to understanding proper church leadership. He's not all the way there yet, however.

He accurately teaches that the church is to be led by a plurality of elders, and cites the appropriate Scriptures to illustrate this fact. He acknowledges the perils of being a pastor/chief leader of a church and how it endangers the pastor. But he doesn't put two and two together. 

Biblically speaking, pastors do not lead churches. At all. Pastors aren't necessarily even in church leadership. Pastoring arises out of the eldership as one of their duties. The author quotes the verse from 1 Peter chapter five that explains this: 
...shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you...
Peter exhorted the elders to be pastors and overseers. He doesn't tell them to install a pastor or overseer. The author sees and acknowledges all of this, yet still describes himself as "the minister of Jerusalem Church." He advocates for elder leadership yet seems to be the singular leader, presumably with underling elders performing delegated tasks.

This traditional view of pastor as the CEO leader of the church is a difficult one to shake off. So many people want to be spoon fed the faith, and so many pastors clamor to give the people what they want.

We don't wish to suggest that this man scratches itching ears, but rather, he seems to be content to partake in an unbiblical system because that is what history and tradition have handed down.
----------------------

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Where Was Jesus Between the Cross and the Resurrection? Why Jesus Didn’t Need to Go to Hell - by Alistair Chalmers

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

In the course of explaining what happened after Jesus died, the author repeats some commonly beliefs held by Calvinists/Reformists. We will take issue with these as they come up in his presentation. 

But more importantly, the author never really tells us the answer to the question contained in the title. It seems like he wrote the article as an excuse to talk about other things.

We will try to sort this out below. In the meantime, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------

Monday, May 25, 2026

Real revival versus the "show" - Faceborg conversation

Faceborg friend Elijah posted something, and as it happens, the conversation veered to the subject of what constitutes real revival:

Me: We seem to want to revive and/or reinforce old paradigms about the spirit realm, where people see demons and angels, spiritual warfare is about legality and territories, and spiritual things must look and sound exactly the same as they did in the 80s and 90s.

I have little patience for digging up the corpses of the revivals of decades ago. But for some reason we insist that getting slain in the spirit, or holy laughter, or whatever the previous evidence of the Holy Spirit's move was, that this is the only evidence of a move of God today.

*Dismounts soapbox*

Sorry about that.

I'm this old guy, but too often it seems like the younger crowd is entrenched in tradition while I'm pushing for what the Holy Spirit is doing now. Why?

Elijah: Don’t use a soap box! 🙌 The stage is yours. Come up to the place of honor: the seat is freely yours. What’s the Holy Spirit doing now?

Friday, May 22, 2026

Predestination and salvation

We have written frequently about Calvinism/Reformist doctrines in our blog. We never wish to dishonor those who believe these doctrines, but we can and will continue to examine what we consider to be false and pernicious doctrines.

Predestination is one such doctrine. Perhaps the lynchpin of Calvinism, predestination is the idea that God has already chosen those who would be saved. In other posts we have considered the biblical case regarding predestination, but today we are going to consider the logical implications of this doctrine.

A key component of predestination is that those God chose were not chosen based on merit. Those who God predestined for salvation (the Elect) were chosen before they were born or had done anything good or bad. Merit is irrelevant. God sovereignly chooses His Elect, regardless of merit. Only the chosen ones are saved.

Which must mean that any feature about the chosen ones is irrelevant. They did nothing, they possess no attribute, there is nothing at all that can be regarded as virtuous or gives them standing before God. We humans might have standards as to who is godly, or who is a good person, or even who is saved and who isn't, but those standards are ours. God sets His own standards, and we don't know why He chose who He chose. In predestination He has His own criteria for choosing some to save and choosing others for hell. 

We don't know His mysterious will. We don't know who the Elect are.

Thursday, May 21, 2026

Sinners and False Teachers: The Women Who “Pastor” and Preach - Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley has written numerous articles about the role of women in the church, parsing and creating micro-doctrines about every conceivable activity a woman might engage in. This is all based on a misunderstanding of a single verse: 

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

We should say that Ms. Lesley's interpretation of this verse, i.e., that women can't preach or be pastors, is widely held. However, even a widely-held belief isn't necessarily a biblically correct belief.

Before we consider her position, we need to establish the biblical fact that the church is not presided over by a pastor, it is led by a team of men called elders: 
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...
Here we find Peter exhorting the elders of this church to be shepherds and overseers. That is, elders need to step up to be more than just elders, they need to pastor and oversee.

Paul instructed Timothy about elder leadership in the very same letter cited by Ms. Lesley:
1Ti. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.
Paul is very clear. There are (or should be) elders who run the church, and those elders that preach (share the Gospel) and teach (instruct the church) are worthy of greater honor. Again, there is no mention of a singular man in charge here.

There is no Bible verse that tells us that pastors lead churches. There's no verse that tells us pastors preach. There's not even a Bible verse that tells us that pastors are part of the eldership.

Elders govern the church, not a pastor.

From the belief that pastors run churches comes the idea that preaching the sermon is exercising authority. We can start to see the "chain of evidence" here. Because the pastor is in charge, and he preaches the sermon, the preaching itself is an expression of the pastor's leadership. And since women cannot teach or be in authority over men, a woman can't be a pastor or preach a sermon.

It all seems to make sense until we gain clarity about how a church is biblically governed. 

Now with that clarity, let's consider the verse. Let's quote it again:

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

The first thing we wish to note is that Paul was not not telling Timothy about what happens in the church service. This should be obvious if we are able to remove the veil and simply accept the biblical narrative. Let's quote the whole chapter. As we read, the questions we then should ask are, 

  • Should prayers and intercession be made only in church?
  • Should we lead tranquil lives only when in church?
  • Should men pray with lifted hands only in church?
  • Should women dress modestly only in church?
  • Should women do good deeds only in church?

This is the ASV:

1I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; 2for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times; 7whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.

9In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 10but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 11Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
The answers to our questions are obviously no. But for some reason we think Paul was discussing church order throughout this passage. This is not the case.

Why?

First, Paul was not telling us about what women can do, but rather, "a woman." The Greek word is singular. A woman
  • should learn in quietness and submission
  • cannot teach
  • cannot have authority
  • over "a man" (Also singular)
  • must be silent
"A woman" cannot do these things regarding "a man." This is most certainly not a church service. More likely with think, Paul was discussing marriage. "A woman" is also translated "a wife," and "a man" is also translated "a husband."

We find an example of this right in text:
14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression...
We know that "the woman" was Eve, Adam's wife. The same Greek word is found here:

Mt. 5:31 “It has been said, `Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’

So depending on the context, the word can easily go either way. 

Second, "a man" works the same way. The Greek word for man/husband is found here: 

Mk. 10:2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

Obviously the word "man" is referring to a husband.

Ok, let's apply our knowledge to the verse and create a perfectly justifiable retranslation:

1 Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a wife to teach or to have authority over [her] husband; she must be silent. 
 
The reason Paul gave for her to do this? Not to ensure a church service is conducted properly. His reason is the prototypical marriage, Adam and Eve:
1Ti. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
This simplifies the whole scenario and dare we say puts an end to the dispute over these verses.

So what can "a woman" do or not do in church? 

She cannot be an elder or lead the church, which is reserved for men:

Tit. 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

So if she is not among those who govern the church, everything else is available for qualified women: 

  • She can teach men, since teaching men is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
  • She can be a pastor, since the pastor position is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
  • She can lead ministries, since leading ministries is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
  • She can speak from the pulpit, since speaking from the pulpit is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
We recognize that these assertions might be a stretch for some, but our appeal is from the Bible and not tradition. We hope this expands the reader's understanding.

So, Ms. Lesley's presentation is all based on false premises. Read on.
---------------------------

Wednesday, May 20, 2026

Have Tongues Ceased? A Reformed Answer for Christians Leaving the Charismatic Movement - by Anthony Faggiano

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

The author tells us he is here to help those who are leaving the charismatic movement. How he helps is a mystery because he never speaks to the topic at all. Rather, he makes a bunch of doctrinal assertions, uses obtuse terminology, and quotes sympathetic theologians who also make doctrinal assertions. A typical charismatic would find no help from this because a typical charismatic is not acquainted with these things.

So, the author writes to defend his doctrine, not to help charismatics.

But even then, we had hoped he would lay out the Scriptural case for his doctrine, but he doesn't. In his over 2000 words, we find
  • The number of Bible verses quoted: Six, none of which improve the author's case
  • The number of Bible verses cited but not quoted: Twenty three, none of which improve the author's case
  • The number of agreeable theologians quoted or referenced: Twelve, none of which improve the author's case
  • The number of undocumented assertions: Dozens
  • The number of contrary sources quoted in order to evaluate and refute: Zero
We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching, and bad polemics.

We discuss tongues in detail here.
----------------------------------

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

The Devastating Double Standard for January 6 Rioters - by Kali Holloway

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

The author does what leftists do, she parrots The Narrative. The Narrative is the official story, the talking points disseminated by talking heads and political operatives, repeated incessantly until they become the "conventional wisdom."

Such is the case with J6. The Left immediately branded it as a violent insurrection where people died or suffered life-altering injuries, which of course is a leftist fairy tale obediently repeated by the national news media and funded by monied anonymous persons. Over time The Narrative has been expanded and embellished to the point that anyone who points out what really happened is mocked and derided into silence as a conspiracy theorist or a Trump True Believer.

As is typical for leftists, the author whines and complains about the very things the Left themselves routinely perpetrate. They are the ones who tear down statutes, burn down car dealerships and corner stores, they are the ones who utter rhetoric dripping with hate, they are the ones who harbor criminals or are criminals themselves, they are the ones who are intolerant, bigoted, repressive, and homophobic.

But the author says it's the J6 demonstrators who represent a double standard. However, when leftists complain about J6 threatening democracy, well, that's exactly what they want to do themselves. When they complain about incivility, they are the ones who are uncivil. When they complain about the rich and income inequality, they are the ones with the money.

But no one on the Left gets held to account because of a complicit media and their comrades who run interference for them. That is, until they finally commit an unpardonable sin, which is when they attract public notice and become a political liability. In such cases they are thrown to the wolves, only to be rehabilitated a few months later.

Bottom line: The Left hates America, referred to as The System. The System is racist and bigoted and must be torn down and replaced by any means necessary. If blood must be shed and cities burned, well, as long as The Agenda is served, the ends justify the means.

So, keep in mind as you read that nothing you find here will be for the purpose of information, clarity, or gaining understanding. It is agitprop, created only to parrot The Narrative in order to further The Agenda.
--------------------------

Monday, May 18, 2026

What Is Predestination? - Core Christianity

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

Here's another "teaching" on the Elect, i.e., those who are supposedly chosen by God to be saved. It's a tenet of Calvinism, and it's a false and pernicious doctrine. 

We do not write this flippantly. Calvinism distorts the Gospel, distorts salvation, distorts the nature of God, and distorts the Cross. It is very nearly cultic. 

We will discover the author is misinformed at times, and even lies. He quotes snippets of Scripture to disguise what the whole verse says, he lies about obvious things contained in the Bible, and he twists the Gospel into a farce.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
--------------------------

Friday, May 15, 2026

How Do We Reconcile God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility? - By Aimee Joseph

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

The author employs words but explains absolutely nothing, except that the answer to the title's question is a mystery. 

She quotes no Bible verses. At all. The article is about 620 words, rather short. Of those, 362 words are actually hers. The rest are references to or quotes from theologians. The author relies on them to restate what she already stated, except these quotes are themselves undocumented statements.

We think she intended to explain the Calvinistic/Reformed teaching about predestination versus man's free will. We're guessing, because she provides no information.

This simply Bad Bible Teaching. Embarrassingly bad.
-------------------------

Thursday, May 14, 2026

Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? Exploring the Fundamental Divide Between Protestants and Catholics - by Kevin DeYoung

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

Although this article is about the way Catholics approach Scripture, we are redacting that material in favor of examining the author's explanation of Sola Scriptura.

The author, for all his advocacy of Sola Scriptura, only manages to quote snippets of Scripture.

In view of this irony, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
--------------------------

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

Comments exchanged with Mike Ratliff about three days and three nights

Found here. Our commentary on Mr. Ratliff's article found here. It originally appeared here.

Our comments in bold.
------------------------

Mr. Ratliff is one of those Bible commentators who is absolutely convinced of his correctness, to the point that he bristles at disagreement. He posted an article which he claimed as solved the age-old problem that Jesus was not in the grave for three days and three nights.  

He did this by claiming that being in the grave is different from being in "the heart of the earth." That phrase actually meant that He was in the hands of the Jewish and Roman leaders. This novel and abiblical theory, like the traditional church understanding, did not align with his acknowledgement that a Jewish day starts at sunset and continues until the next sunset. 

Using this criteria I pointed out to him in a comment that his theory fails (I'm quoting him in italics):

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

Sunday Style and the Devil's Beat My Favorite Genre Is Loving Your Neighbor - Andrew Osenga

Found here. A thought-provking article.
-------------------------------

Here’s another post in my series on Why We Sing The Songs We Do On Sunday.

Today I want to talk about Style.

Cause you know I’ve got it.

I can safely say that very few American Christians have been to as many churches as I have.

I’m a born and raised church kid, sure, but I’ve also been traveling to different houses of worship as a musician for over 25 years. For the past decade I’ve been visiting even more as a teacher, mentor, or speaker.

I think I’ve pretty much seen it all: from the most charismatic to the most stoic, from suit and tie to board shorts, from a cathedral to an elementary school cafeteria.

Monday, May 11, 2026

Righteousness Like the Mountains - by Justin Huffman (Covered in the righteousness of Christ)

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

The author contemplates the grandeur and awe-inspiring mountains as they testify of the glory of God, but somehow swerves into a completely unrelated thing. He writes:
"...every human who must face the perfect standard and thorough holiness of God must be covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to withstand the righteous scrutiny of the Almighty."
This is false. The author provides no Bible verse that tells us we need to be covered in the righteousness of Christ in order to stand before the Father. Because there isn't one. 

We think this errant idea comes from misunderstanding the nature of salvation. Some think that even though we are saved we are still sinners, still soiled and dressed in filthy rags, so much so that the Father cannot bear to look upon us:  

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. (Habakkuk 1:13).

Apparently the Father is such a fragile flower that He needs Jesus to distract His gaze from us dirty little humans. This is nonsense. 

The Bible tells us that we are righteous by faith:

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

We have been made clean and are purified:
1Jn. 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
We do not hide in Jesus' righteousness, we stand with unveiled faces before the God who made us righteous.
-------------------------------

Friday, May 8, 2026

5 Reasons Why ‘Casting Down Principalities and Powers’ Is a Doctrine of Demons - by Don Pirozok

Found here.
--------------------

The irony here is that the author is correct, and we agree with his position. His reason #3 is the only really relevant and biblical reason for Christians to not mess around with rulers, authorities, or powers. The rest of it is is speculation, non-biblical reasons, or even, false teaching. So even though we agree with the author's position, we cannot abide with ignorance or even lying.

Further, though the author has a lot to say about powers and principalities, he will never deal with the casting out of demons. This seems like an important omission.

Though he quotes Scripture and eventually supplies the correct Scriptural reason regarding his topic, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
-------------------------

Thursday, May 7, 2026

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

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

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

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

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

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

Monday, May 4, 2026

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

Friday, May 1, 2026

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

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

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

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

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

Monday, April 27, 2026

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.

Friday, April 24, 2026

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

Thursday, April 23, 2026

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

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

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

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

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

Monday, April 20, 2026

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 deathProverbs 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.
-------------------------

Friday, April 17, 2026

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

Thursday, April 16, 2026

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

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:
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.

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

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

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

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

Monday, April 13, 2026

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

Thursday, April 9, 2026

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."
---------------------------

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

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

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

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

Monday, April 6, 2026

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

Friday, April 3, 2026

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

Thursday, April 2, 2026

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

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

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

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

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

Monday, March 30, 2026

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

Friday, March 27, 2026

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."
-----------------------------------

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

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

Monday, March 23, 2026

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