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

Friday, July 24, 2026

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

Thursday, July 23, 2026

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

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

Monday, July 20, 2026

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

Thursday, July 16, 2026

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

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

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

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

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

Monday, July 13, 2026

God’s Plan for Your Prayers - by John Piper

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

Dr. Piper will use the word "sovereign" and its variants 18 times but will never define it. In fact, it is quite clear that he does not use the actual definition. Let's explain what sovereignty is. 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. Further, 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.

It is crucial we understand that sovereignty doesn't speak to actions. Sovereignty doesn't require action or forbid action, because the king determines the expressions of 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.
------------------------

Friday, July 10, 2026

The God Who Saves: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Anthony Faggiano

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

As is typical with Calvinists, the author is here to explain Calvinism, not the Bible. That's what these Calvinists do. They never will explain the Bible unless they can explain Calvinism.

Almost 1200 words, and almost 700 of them are quotes and summaries from agreeable theologians and statements of faith. About 100 words are actual Scripture quotes, though most are only snippets of verses. Only a few verses got quoted in their entirety. Astoundingly, only one is an actual predestination Scripture, which the author merely quotes with only perfunctory discussion.

We are at loss to explain this presentation, it's almost totally devoid of any substantial instruction. It's nothing more than a series of undocumented claims regurgitated from others who themselves make the same claims. Every single quote from a theologian is a Scriptureless bare assertion. Every one is simply a restatement of the author's bare assertion. 

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

Thursday, July 9, 2026

Who Should Serve the Elements of the Lord’s Supper? Who may offer and who may withhold the bread and the wine? - by O. Palmer Robertson

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

Hot on the heals of our recent post regarding who can receive communion comes this article regarding who can administer it.

And once again we find an author who does not teach the Bible, he teaches his tradition. Worse, the author only manages to quote one verse and snippets of four others in a 2050 + word essay. Incredible. How does one explain doctrines without quoting the Bible?

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible teaching.
-------------------------------

Wednesday, July 8, 2026

Are you SURE you want “the first century church”? - By Elizabeth Prata

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

This is the way political Leftists argue. "Oh, so you want to go back to the 1950s? You must want women repressed and separate drinking fountains for blacks." "Oh, so you want government to obey the Constitution? You mean the document written by white European slave-owners?"

Those who want to regain the passion and power of the early church are obviously not including the faults of the early church. This is simply nonsense. To insist that to have such a desire means we must take the bad with the good is to argue dishonestly and divert from the matter at hand.
-------------------------------

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Who Should Be Admitted to the Lord’s Supper? 4 Views - by Davy Ellison

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

The author considers communion only in terms of his tradition, that it is a somber, introspective church ceremony. So the debate for him is who is eligible to partake of the ritual.

This completely misses the teaching of the passage. The early church was actually gathering together to eat a meal, a "commun"-ity practice:

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

The Lord’s Supper was a potluck, not a ceremony. It was likely a joyous event, with lots of laughing. But the problem was, certain people were eating all the food and getting drunk while others were left hungry. This dishonored the Body of Christ, that is, the community of believers: 

1 Cor. 11:22 ...do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

The self-examination Paul commanded was to consider one's attitude toward the brothers: 
1 Cor. 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
This thought continues into chapter 12:
1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.
One might say that Paul’s discussion about the Lord’s Supper continues all the way to chapter 14, because it is all regarding how the Body ought to conduct itself when it gathers together.

Clearly we are not dealing with a ritual here. Given this, it almost seems nonsensical to discuss categories of participation in a community meal. In fact, to exclude anyone would be ironic, since that's what Paul was correcting. 
---------------------

Monday, July 6, 2026

Pastor’s Job Description: Four Essential Responsibilities of a Shepherd - by Joshua Chatman

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

The author wants to teach his doctrine and tradition, not the Bible. He writes a little over 900 words, only six of which are words quoted from the Bible. 

For the author, the pastor is the CEO leader of a church, with everyone else below him. Whenever he references verses about church leadership, they're reinterpreted to conform to this preconception.  

But the Bible is quite clear, despite centuries of unbiblical church leadership, that a plurality of elders lead the church:
1 Ti. 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.

1 Pe. 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...
The author will reference these and other Scriptures in defense of his view of pastors, but he will not quote them. No wonder, since they contradict his doctrine. 

Now, we should note that we have no idea who this fellow is. He might be a great guy and an effective church leader. Who knows? Nevertheless, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
---------------------------

Friday, July 3, 2026

Revival: In America We Trust? -by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley doesn't like the idea of a revival so far-reaching that it transforms the very fabric of society. Why? Because there's nothing worse than to be called a "Christian Nationalist." She thinks that the belief amounts to idolizing the country. 

For her, real revival excludes this possibility. The line she draws is Arbitrary, however, because she doesn't make her case from the Bible. In fact, it is entirely missing.

How can someone teach doctrine without the Bible?

At least she believes in revival in some form. Nevertheless, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching. 
----------------------

Thursday, July 2, 2026

No, the blood of Jesus did not buy forgiveness of sins from God (Matthew 26:28) - By Jeremy Myers

Found here. We have come to understand that the death of Jesus for our sins was a sacrifice, not a transaction. The author ably explains this concept. A very good article.
-----------------------------

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

The End of Independent Agencies - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich is worried about the president gaining too much power, something he never worried about with Democratic presidents. He does his best to tilt the argument into a dangerous situation, appealing to a Constitution he hates, in opposition to a Supreme court he hates, to put down a president he hates.

The Left is only worried about power when they don't have it.
---------------------------

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

7 Reasons God Takes Pleasure in Election - by: John Piper

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

What an odd title.

We've commented on Dr. Piper's explanations several times before, and we have yet to find a truly good teaching. Too often, they have even been sub-par, which surprises us given his reputation.

As is his habit, Dr. Piper is going to once again explain his Calvinism. That's what Calvinists always do. They will never explain the Bible unless they can explain Calvinism. Today's article is about the Calvinistic doctrine of Election. 

This is mostly a rehash of other Calvinist teachings we have  examined in our blog. We consider these doctrines to be largely useless to the Christian life. But, there are some novel claims, so we will comment on them.

Since Dr. Piper doesn't clearly explain election, We shall. Election is one of the five "petals" of TULIP, collectively known as the "doctrines of grace:"

Total Depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace 
Perseverance of the saints

The idea is, God has already chosen those people He will save, long ago [U]. He doesn't just have foreknowledge of who will get saved, He deliberately preselected them. Which of course means that He also chose those He would send to hell. Which means your destiny was set before you drew your first breath.

Because the Elect are chosen without their participation in any way [because they are powerless to do so, T], they cannot resist their salvation [I] and cannot lose their salvation [P]. A derivative of this is that the atonement of Christ is limited only to the Elect, because only their sins are forgiven [L].

We hope Dr. Piper will explain how his seven things are uniquely applicable to the the doctrine of Election. Alas, he will not.

In addition, we need to note that Dr. Piper writes 1800 words, and 260 of them are quotes from other teachers and theologians. This is more than the number of words of Scripture quoted. And of those Scriptures, only a couple of them even speak to the topic of election.

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

Monday, June 29, 2026

The Phoebe Hoax - by Denny Burk

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

The author quotes the subject Scripture (Romans 16:1-2) and one other (1 Timothy 2:12)  in 1900 words. He wastes over 400 words quoting various "egalitarians" (a term he never defines, though he uses it fourteen times). He's attempting to bolster his doctrine against women church leaders, and uses these "egalitarians" as the opportunity.

Let's quote the verses:

Ro. 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

In verses 1-15 Paul commended a number of people to the church in Rome, beginning with Phoebe. She gets the most extensive treatment of anyone. Clearly Paul held her in high regard, so high in fact that his instruction included the directive that they should give her anything she wanted. 

Since the author discusses the meaning of a couple of the Greek words, we shall expand his efforts in order to capture the magnitude of Paul's commendation.

The Greek word for "commend" is sunistémi, which means to stand in union with. Paul was not giving a tepid recommendation, He was standing together firmly with Phoebe.

"Sister" is adelphé, a part of the family, a woman believer. Paul included her as a precious part of the community of believers.

"Deaconess," a word the author generically defined, is diákonos (diá, "thoroughly" and konis, "dust") – properly, "thoroughly raise up dust by moving in a hurry, and so to minister." The author does his best to separate Phoebe from church leadership, but this is not about authority, it's about how hard Phoebe worked on behalf of the Church. She was rather remarkable in this, according to Paul. 

The idea that we must decide whether or not Phoebe was a church leader is completely irrelevant. She was a servant, like Paul described himself: 

1Co. 3:5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servantsthrough whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

Further, she was described specifically as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, she was not simply a generic servant or a helper like all the others in Paul's list. She was associated with a specific church as a deaconess, and recognized for this work.

"Receive" is prosdechomai, expectant waiting where a person is ready and willing to receive... So because of this remarkable woman, Paul instructed the Roman church to be completely open to her coming.

"Worthy" is axiósPaul's thought here is to tell the Roman church the manner in which Phoebe should be received, to "mirror the honor Christ bestows on all His people." Phoebe clearly worked very hard for the cause of Christ within her church and also as an itinerant servant. She was not some nameless worker, but a person worthy of note.

So from these words we see that Phoebe was a special woman to both Paul and the Church, a woman of position in a local church who worked very hard serving the saints all over the region. Having a position is not the same as being in authority. She had a high position, but that does not speak to church leadership. In fact, being a deacon by title still does not place a person in leadership. A deacon is not an elder.

Why is the author trying so hard to put Phoebe in her place?  He microanalyses these verses because he wants to make sure we don't think too highly of Phoebe. The reason? If Phoebe is in any sense a leader, this would violate the author's doctrines. Mistaken doctrines, that is. 

The author thinks Phoebe cannot be a deacon in the church because of the second Scripture he quotes:
I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12)
We discuss this verse here. Suffice to say, it is not a verse about church leadership structure.

Our last observation is regarding the author's statement: 
Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that male headship was something that was observed by all the apostles and all the churches (1 Cor. 11:16). Are we really to believe based on some specious historical background that Paul intended for Phoebe to do in Rome the very thing he prohibits women from doing in every other church? 
The author misrepresents this unquoted passage. Paul was not talking about church government. If he was, that would mean ALL women must submit to ALL men, which of course is nonsense. No, this submission is a wife to her husband in the context of the gathering of the saints. 

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

Friday, June 26, 2026

Bad worship songs - Names (Cook, Ingram, Hudson)

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, Names.
--------------------

Thursday, June 25, 2026

The Danger of NAR Church Leven (sic) - by Don Pirozok

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

We have commented on the author's writing before and have not been impressed.

1665 words, but not a single word quoted from any of the author's adversaries. Not even a quote from a source he agrees with. Every single assertion and accusation the author makes is undocumented. He makes claim after claim, dire warning after dire warning. The NAR may indeed be false, dangerous, and heretical like he says, but that is the case he must prove, not just make empty claims.

We are not here to defend the NAR, we intend to evaluate the author's presentation. And that presentation is embarrassing. Beyond Bad Bible Teaching, this is just bad.
-------------------

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Five Points in My Pain How God’s Sovereignty Comforts Me - by Joni Eareckson Tada

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

We suspect we might get accused of beating up on a helpless disabled person. We will take that risk, because it's not about Ms. Tada's disability, it's about her doctrine. She has presented her doctrine publicly in the below article, and as such has invited scrutiny.

Ms. Tada writes about her theology, a very specific kind of theology known as Calvinism. As a Calvinist Ms. Tada does what every Calvinist does: Teach Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. 

Their theology revolves around the "doctrines of grace," also known as TULIP. Ms. Tada appeals to TULIP as a comfort to her in her disability. We are happy for her, but we require Ms. Tada to explain how TULIP specifically and uniquely provides this comfort.

We believe that TULIP is irrelevant to the daily Christian walk. By virtue of our salvation, Total Depravity no longer matters. Unconditional Election no longer matters. Limited Atonement no longer matters. Irresistible Grace no longer matters. Perseverance of the Saints no longer matters.

These all reflect on our past, not our current situation. Not our future. None of them come to bear as a benefit to our holiness, generosity, worship, or evangelism.

TULIP doesn't matter.
-----------------------

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

Discipleship Does Not Equal Shepherding: A Crucial Distinction in the Female Pastor Debate - By Jonathon Woodyard

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

The author writes over 2000 words, for the sole purpose of bolstering his tradition. He wants to keep pastors at the top of the leadership pyramid, with everyone else as underlings at the pastor's beckon call.

The mistake he makes is to assume that the Bible's overseers, pastors, shepherds, teachers are the same thing as his tradition's overseer/pastor/shepherd/teacher.

They are not.

The author quotes the snippets of three Bible verses, a mere 20 words. That's it. How can one teach the Bible while barely quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
----------------------

Monday, June 22, 2026

What It Means That Christ is Praying for You Today - by Dave Harvey

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

It is clear that the author is a Calvinist/Reformist, because although he provides some good, biblical information, it is infected with the traditional understandings that derive from this doctrinal stream. 

We have discussed these misleading, and sometimes false doctrines many times in our blog.
-------------------

Friday, June 19, 2026

Glory Only in the Cross - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff makes another appearance in our blog. He is a Reformed/Calvinist, and as is typical for those of this persuasion, he is entirely convinced of his doctrinal superiority. Many Calvinists have an overconfidence bordering on arrogance.

Also typical for the Calvinist is a singular, almost obsessive focus on the particular doctrines of Calvinism. They will never talk about the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. This always makes us pause because this kind of dogmatism can be cultic. 

Today we can only manage to examine an excerpt of a long, unfocused ramble that is supposed to be about the cross. Mr. Ratliff will devote only about a half of one paragraph to the actual topic, but again, since he's a Calvinist he must insert his Calvinism. 

Note that Mr. Ratliff will make numerous undocumented claims in this one paragraph, some of which are not found in the Bible, some that are true, and others which are completely false.

Because Mr. Ratliff cites no Bible verses for any of these assertions, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
----------------------------

Thursday, June 18, 2026

What is “the gift of God” in John 4:10? - gotquestions

Found here. One of those rare times when we can shout a hearty "amen" about gotquestions. They nailed this one.
-------------------------

Question

What is “the gift of God” in John 4:10?

Answer

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Separate Ways - by J.V. Fesko

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

The author presumes that any person who wants to attend a Reformed/Calvinist church is automatically correct, but if this person's spouse doesn't want to, well, they need to be "gently" persuaded.

Doctrine is the measure. And it's a very particular set of doctrines. These doctrines are an end to themselves, doctrine for doctrine's sake. Such doctrines don't edify, don't encourage holiness, and are in the end of no practical use. 

The fact that these odd doctrines occupy such prominence in a church is telling. While we don't doubt that Reformed/Calvinists on the whole are Christians, this article has troubling cultic undertones. It's presented as practical advice, but it is a bit creepy.
-----------------------

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