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

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

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

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

What Is Original Sin? - by Hans Madueme

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

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

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

His doctrine overrides his explanation.

 

Let's quote the author's key moment:

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

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

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

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

It's death that we inherited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

We shall explain below.

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion with such people is not possible.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

God's sovereignty and sin

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

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

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

How the Early Church Baptized - by Wyatt Graham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Interesting insight into the entrenched bureaucracy.

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

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

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

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

Die if you see God? - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
----------------

Is Predestination in the Bible? - By Daniel Nealon

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

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

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

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

Predestination as believed by Calvinists is not a biblical doctrine.

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

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We shall do so for the benefit of the reader:

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

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

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

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

Let's retranslate the verse:

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

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

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

Can AI Preach My Sermon? - By Caleb Phelps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. A very good article. 

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

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

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

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

This should not be.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We must deem the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. An interesting article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, the chart itself:

 

Got all that? Now, let’s dig in.

The United Kingdom, ca. 1050-930 BC

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

Saul (r. 1050-1010) Prophet: Samuel

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

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

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

Solomon (r. 970-930) Prophet: Nathan

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

 
The Divided Kingdom, ca. 931-586 BC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahaziah (r. 841)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jehoahaz (r. 608) Claim: Son of Josiah

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

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

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

Jehoiachin (r. 597) Claim: Son of Jehoiakim

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

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

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

BABYLONIAN EXILE (586-450)

Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom)

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

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

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

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

Baasha (r. 909-886) Claim: Usurper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BABYLONIAN EXILE (722-450)

Prophets of the Exile

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

 
Conclusion: Sorting Through the Kings and Prophets

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

The Mailbag: Communion Questions - by Michelle Lesley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calvinists like John MacArthur do not require repentance to forgive: 

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

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

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

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

John 3:16 in context - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff is here to teach his Calvinism, not the Bible. That's what Calvinists do. Over and over. They will go to great lengths to insert their Calvinism at every opportunity. 

In the below article Mr. Ratliff doesn't want to explain John 3:16, he wants to explain Limited Atonement, one of the five "doctrines of grace" known as TULIP:

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

Limited Atonement is the idea that Jesus' work on the cross is effective only for the Elect, those who were chosen by God to be saved. Which creates a problem for Calvinists like Mr. Ratliff whenever the Bible speaks of "the world." Verses like the subject verse, John 3:16, contradict Limited Atonement, so they must be reinterpreted, negated, or explained away. 

That is Mr. Ratliff's objective for today.

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

Justification: Union by Imputation - by Michael Schultz

 Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It's one thing to make honest mistakes. And, it's not necessarily an emergency if someone has a different doctrinal perspective. We don't even get overly concerned when some Bible teacher doesn't get a Scripture quite correct.

But this author egregiously misrepresents Scripture, lies to us about Christ's work, and gets salvation itself perilously wrong. This article is a tour de force of Bad Bible Teaching, coupled with the various bad doctrines of Calvinism/Reformed.

We often examine bad teaching while still giving a pass to the author, but this author is a false teacher and should be marked and avoided.

For the record:

• The Father did not impute our sins to Jesus. Jesus' blood washed them away (Ep. 1:7). We discuss imputation here.
• Jesus did not impute His righteousness to us, He made us righteous by faith (Ro. 1:17).
• The Father did not punish Jesus. Jesus' blood was enough, so there is no reason to additionally punish Jesus (Ep. 2:13). See our explanation here.
• Sin is not a debt we owe. Jesus did not pay for our sin debt, He paid for us (1Co. 6:20) We discuss this here.
• Jesus' obedience through suffering, though prophesied, does not come to bear on our salvation. It is His death on the cross that is effectual (Ph. 2:8). We discuss Jesus' suffering here.

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

Cut to the Chase: Discerning “Experiencing God” by Blackaby & King - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------
"Why was 'Experiencing God' so damaging," Ms. Prata asks. Indeed, why? Specifically, what was damaged, and why is it so concerning? What is the great peril caused by this book? We hope Ms. Prata will answer. From the Bible.

Sadly, this will not happen. in a little over 900 words she quotes only one passage,  2 Timothy 3:16-17, and even that she misinterprets. 

She cites three things from Blackaby that are supposedly dangerous, even "damnable:"

• Normalizing hearing from God
• Believing we can see where God is working
• That we can come to know God through our own, self-interpreted experiences

What is the exact peril? We will never find out. Why does she sound the alarm? Unknown. What's the big danger? She never explains.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Pastors, Don’t Forget to Shepherd Your Deacons - by Gus Pritchard

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

This is an extremely frustrating presentation, for the author separates elders from pastors, then treats them as synonymous, then elevates pastors to the top of the church pyramid. 

In the end, we have no idea what the author was attempting to teach about church leadership. It appears that he wants pastors over the elders, and elders over the deacons. We're guessing. However, he never provides the biblical basis for this. In fact, we suspect that he's simply attempting to reinforce the traditional view that pastors are the highest church authority.

The Bible teaches that the elders govern the church (1 Peter 5:1-2, 1 Timothy 5:17), not pastors. In fact, there is no Bible statement that the pastors must be in leadership.

Further, the author doesn't tell us what is promised in the title. There is absolutely no information about shepherding deacons. Rather, he's focused on simply dividing up the duties. This is not a description of shepherding.

Lastly, the author quotes but a single Scripture in the 1100 plus words he writes. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs - So Be It, by Mutendji, Wong, Furtick, 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, So Be It.

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

Church Staff Belong in Two Buckets: Elder-Qualified or Deacon-Qualified - by Jonathan Leeman

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

The author wants church leadership defined in a certain way, but never makes his case from the Bible. He does quote a handful of Scriptures, but they do not bolster the author's position. 

He really doesn't explain anything, he's basically riffing on his undocumented premise. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Gospel’s Bookends: Wrath and Love - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata makes another appearance in our blog, and for the usual reasons: Bad Bible Teaching, lack of focus, and undocumented doctrinal claims, combined with an almost arrogant certainty of her correctness. She fancies herself a Bible teacher, a corrector of doctrine, a bulwark against the onslaught of false teachers. But she's not. 

As we have repeatedly observed, she is a superficial thinker at best, and a false teacher at worst. We don't wish to dishonor her, but we must take a stand against people like her who lead Christians astray. So we will refrain from personal attacks and examine her doctrines only.

Ms. Prata titles her article "wrath and love," and picks Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel to expound upon these. It really doesn't fit very well, however. There are certainly better examples, like king David or Moses, who experienced both God's love and His wrath in profound ways. So her presentation is somewhat awkward in order to fit this particular Bible story into her narrative.

Beyond that, she makes two undocumented and false assertions:

"The reason He sent Jesus is to rescue us…from His wrath."

"The Lord will punish the sins of His people in due time."

Let's deal with the first assertion first. We don't know for sure, but perhaps Ms. Prata has this verse in mind:

1Th. 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead — Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

The reader will note that this verse does not say the Father sent Jesus to save us from the Father's wrath, but to rescue us from His wrath. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle, but we think it's important. 

The reason is, the Father would have no wrath if there was no sin. Therefore sin is the problem, for which there proceeds wrath. So the Father did not send Jesus to rescue us from His wrath, but to save us from sin and the resultant wrath.

The second assertion can be answered simply and quickly: God does not punish sin, He punishes sinners. Look it up, dear readers. There is no Bible verse that tells us God punishes sin.

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

American Conservatives Are Disgusting Frauds - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We've examined Ms. Johnstone in our blog before (Here, here, and here). She is reliably doctrinaire Left, and she is the worst kind: A producer of substanceless screeds designed only to gin up hatred. She provides absolutely no specifics, documentation, or identifies any conservative. That's because she's not writing to inform or explain. She's here to inflame, to demonize and isolate an imaginary target. This is what Leftists do.

In actual fact, it's the writing of a junior high student.

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

Dumb Will Do: Why Satan Doesn’t Need Heresy - by Tim Challies

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

The author is going to explain how contemporary style worship is bad while his church tradition is good. He will use 963 words to do so, but not a single word from Scripture. Not even a verse reference.

The article is actually not about worship at all, it's about the right way to do a Sunday service. But for some reason he will never actually tell us the right way to do a Sunday service. In his mind there is a right way, but it must be a secret.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Isaiah and Jesus Sound Like Marx (Again) - By Mike Rivage-Seu

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have had one previous opportunity to examine this author, and he did not fair well.

He pretends to be a sober commentator on religious matters, cloaking his presentation in Scripture references and a scholarly veneer. But in actual fact he is a political leftist who interprets the Bible and Jesus through a progressive lens. This of course creates all sorts of problem, since Jesus was in no way a Socialist.

We need to be clear about the reason the author writes: He did not write to explain, clarify, or provide information about Jesus or Christianity. His purpose is to reinforce The Narrative. The Narrative is the leftist talking points disseminated all over the media landscape. They become sacred truth through endless repetition and withering criticism directed towards those who disagree. 

The reader would do well to understand this.

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

Bozeman's Democratic Socialists of America chapter works to fill gap in community food resources - Bozeman Chronicle

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Socialists and Leftists believe that government should be the source of all compassion, like providing food, housing, income, healthcare, and cell phones. They think government is necessary because people will starve and freeze to death without government. 

The Chronicle thinks that this Socialist food giveaway is newsworthy, but churches and charities have been doing this for decades and centuries. But suddenly it is important when Socialists start doing this themselves. Perhaps this is why the Chronicle did this report, because it was so unusual that a Socialist would do such a thing.

Clearly the Chronicle and these Socialists don't get the irony of them stepping up to meet needs out of their human compassion. It likely feels very strange to them, exciting and innovative, but it's exactly what conservatives do every day, personally meet the needs of those who are less fortunate. They give of their time, money, and labor for the sake of those less fortunate. They do this without coercion, without regard for government programs, and solely motivated by human compassion.

We welcome these Socialists to our side.

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

Did God Need to Kill His Own Son? - by Cory Brock

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author spouts boilerplate Calvinist/Reformist doctrines with facility as if they were self-evident truth. But he never actually explains them. In fact, we're not entirely sure why he mentions some of them, because they don't really come to bear on the question asked in the title.

But here's the thing. The author probably feels obligated to draw in various Calvinist/Reformed doctrines because that's what these Bible teachers do. They never will explain the Bible unless they can explain their doctrines. Over and over again. So they don't really teach so much as they enforce the doctrinal narrative.

The author does quote some Scripture (a refreshing thing considering these Bible teachers too often never bother), but he gets so lost in the weeds we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We explain the sacrificial death of Jesus in detail here.

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

Finding Satan: The Origins of the Evil One - by J. Gary Millar

Found here.

C.S. Lewis wrote, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them." This is true, which is why the topic of Satan's origins should be approached carefully. We don't really want to talk about Satan when we can declare the glories of God instead. But in recent times Satan has actually been portrayed as a sympathetic character, misunderstood and even persecuted unjustly. So we think the author does well to remind us of the unrighteous being Satan is. 

The author spends most of his time discussing the OT references, but very little in the NT, mentioning in passing Matthew 4:1-11 for example. However, the parallel account in Luke adds a noteworthy detail not mentioned in Matthew, that the devil has authority:

Luke 4:5-6 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.

The author also does not mention this very important detail:

Luke 10:18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Jesus was an eyewitness to the devil being cast down. As one of the morning stars (Job 38:7, c.f. Isaiah 14:12) his fall from heaven would look exactly like lightning, wouldn't it? 

Also, Revelation 9:1:

The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.

This is clearly a reference to the morning star cast out of heaven.

Last one: 

2 Peter 2:11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

We can now put the story together satisfactorily. Satan was a glorious morning star. He obviously was beautiful and important, anointed as guardian, and the greatest of the heavenly host. 

Until iniquity was found in him. We would surmise that as one of the morning stars that celebrated the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), he had a change of heart when man was created and made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5. The Hebrew word for "angels" is Elohim). He was cast down like lightning to the lowest of places in the form of a dirt-dwelling serpent. 

He has no access to heaven now, yet he retains some measure of his former glory:

2Co. 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

This glory, in whatever amount he still possesses, is sufficient for him to deceive men. He also has the power to give earthly pleasures in exchange for worship. And with his hatred of men, his ire is directed to them.

And this is probably the key. He envied God for the worship He received, and was jealous of man because of the high place he was given. Angels weren't made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27,) didn't receive dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28), and weren't given the charge to guard the Garden (Genesis 2:15). 

It's a sad story, to be sure. To have such position and glory in the very presence of the living God only to fall has to be one of the great tragedies of all time. 

Satan's ultimate end will be the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

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

The Greatest Theological Statement Ever Written? Nine Observations About John 1:14 - by Mitch Chase

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

On the whole, this is a good presentation. The author takes a familiar verse and reawakens our wonder at the glory of God expressed through His Son.

There are a couple of problems, however, which we will explore below.

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

Meme: "The United States will not let men steal trophies from women"

 A Leftist FB friend posted this bit of idiocy:

The simple and obvious response is that María Corina Machado gave her peace prize to President Trump to honor him. 

In addition, men completing in women's sports for championships and trophies has been happening at the behest of Leftists. This obviously denies women a fair playing field. This is the point of President Trump's quoted remark. 

Leftists approve of these men stealing trophies. Swimmer Lia Thomas:

Weight lifter Avi Silverberg:

If God Is Sovereign, Why Bother to Share Your Faith? - by Timothy Z. Witmer

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

The author is a Calvinist, 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 there is nothing anyone can do about it, pro or con. So the author's purpose is to explain our obligation to evangelize in light of predestination, even though evangelizing is futile and makes no difference at all. 

As a doctrine, predestination fails because Calvinists assume it applies to everyone. It doesn't. It is our belief that in the NT only the very first of the early believers were predestined (the firstfruits), but we later Christians were added when we were saved (Ephesians 1:12). 

Thankfully, the author quotes several Scriptures, a welcome departure from the Scriptureless "Bible teaching" we are accustomed to seeing. But he will use terminology based on an assumption that we know what he means. For example, the author will use the term "sovereign" and its variants 16 times but never define the word.

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.

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

Jesus spilled His blood - why?

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

Making Sense of Praying With Faith - by Peter Witkowski

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is almost 1700 words, which means he has ample opportunity to explain his topic. But rather than the auyhor "making sense" of praying with faith, the result is mystifying and absolutely nonsensical. 

The author goes to great lengths to contrast praying God's secret will vs. praying God's revealed will. There is supposed to be some sort of difference in the way we pray, but we are unable to discern what that might be. He seems to be saying that we can rightly expect that God will answer prayers regarding His revealed will, but that we cannot expect this regarding His secret will. How these are different in practice, or where we find these concepts in Scripture, remain a mystery.

And, how does knowing this benefit us? What does it mean on a practical level? These also are mysteries.

Ultimately, if the reader expected to find a teaching on how to pray, he won't find it. If the reader wanted to know how to pray with faith, the author mentions the phrase only once without explaining it. If the reader wanted the Bible clarified, the author is only interested in explaining his doctrine.

This is author's sole intent, to explain his doctrine. That's what Reformed/Calvinist teachers do. They explain their doctrines. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can explain their doctrines. 

How do we know the author is Reformed/Calvinist? Easy. First, he begins his presentation with Reformed code words, the "means of grace." Second, he parses and categorizes his subject into compartments that appear to sound biblical, but they are simply inventions designed to fit the Bible into his doctrines. Third, he quotes go-to Scriptures that are always used by Reformists, in this case Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God.” Fourth, he approvingly quotes Reformists like Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and even Calvin himself.

But most importantly, the author completely fails to explain anything. If he did anything at all, he added confusion.

Confusion is the enemy's work. We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bolz Isn’t Enough: The Deeper Rot Inside the Charismatic Movement - by David Morrill

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Piggy-backing off of our recent post where Don Pirozok writes about corruption in the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation), we shall revisit the topic today with an excerpt from David Morrill's article on the same topic. 

We have examined Mr. Morrill's writing several times in our blog, mostly having to do with his "critiques" of worship songs. Invariably his writing is governed by undocumented statements, lack of biblical references, and guilt by association.

If the reader contrasts the tone and documentation between the two articles he will notice a profound and stark difference. Mr. Pirozok's article dispassionately explained the Bible and listed Bible references, while Mr. Morrill's article blasts away but contains no Bible explanation and no Bible references at all.  

Mr. Pirozok's article identifies specific issues and addresses them directly. Mr. Morrill's article is a generalized scorched earth indictment of an entire group of Christians, as if 65 million Pentecostal and charismatic Christians in the US (23% of protestant churches are charismatic) are all NAR-linked apostates. 

Mr. Morrill will continually conflate charismatics with NAR. We suspect this is purposeful.

Because Mr. Morrill's article makes no mention of the Bible, we must consider this to be bad Bible teaching. 

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

The Four Biblical Marks of Corporate Worship - by Jason K. Allen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We should note at the onset that the author is not here to tell us about worship, he's here to explain a proper Sunday church service according to his church tradition. For him, worship is not bowing before the King of kings, worship is the Sunday agenda. Worship is what the reformers told us what is permitted and not permitted.

This is the Regulative Principle of Worship, expressed by John Calvin this way:

God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.

This is the go-to definition that has been handed down to contemporary Reformed/Calvinist churches. Shockingly, the author will never quote this principle! This is a startling omission.

Lastly, we note that this article doesn't contain a single Scripture quote. Not a word. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Our Atonement Through our Lord Jesus Christ - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff first came to our attention a couple of years ago for his unwarranted certainty regarding his Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines. It's not that he's particularly arrogant, he's simply persuaded he's absolutely correct and anything else is heresy. That has earned him his own tag in our blog.

Today he discusses his doctrinal view regarding the atonement, once again with the absolute certainty he's correct. But he doesn't really explain anything, Of the 1300 words, 340 are devoted to the actual topic.

In actual fact, Jesus did not atone for our sins, He propitiated them. Mr. Ratliff will focus on Romans 5:11 which does not contain the Greek word commonly translated "atonement." This verse employs the Greek word katallagēn (reconciliation), not hilastērion, relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory...

A verse containing the correct word, hilastērion, is found here:

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood... [KJV]

Jesus' sacrificial death satisfied the Father's wrath. He propitiated for us by means of His blood which washed us clean. This is different than atonement, which is the covering over (Hebrew, kaphar) of sin. This means Jesus' propitiation is superior to atonement.

This propitiation (incorrectly rendered "atonement" in some translations) provides the means for reconciliation. Therefore, Mr. Ratliff not only misunderstands the atonement, he skips a step.

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

The Government of NAR Apostles and Prophets - by Don Pirozok

Found here. A very good article.

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

While the author focuses on the NAR, the problem of church leadership goes well beyond so-called apostles. Churches of every flavor have these same problems, and church leaders in non-NAR churches are falling like flies. 

The problem isn't NAR apostles so much as it is a Church that has left its biblical foundation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that makes apostles church leaders. Or pastors, for that matter. These five offices are gifts to the church, charged with the duty to raise up the saints to maturity of faith (Ephesians 4:11-15). That duty may imply some sort of leadership, but it's not required. However, it is certainly some sort of local ministry, because an apostle or prophet or evangelist cannot build up the church unless he is present in the church.

So the problems outlined by the author are spread throughout Christendom, not just the NAR. Many churches and denominations are operating without accountability, fidelity to Scripture, and/or with toxic or unbiblical leadership.

This is how churches and denominations fail, compromise, or fade into irrelevance.  

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

The Word of God is not "it" - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
----------------

How can I know God’s will? - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Kneale appears in our blog from time to time, and his teaching is invariably absent the Bible. Today he writes almost 1500 words, 400 of them a quote from a Confession, but only six from an unreferenced and misused Bible verse. 

On one hand, the author tells us that we can know and do God's will by studying Bible, but on the other tells us that God directs everything we do. This of course means that our choices aren't choices because they're predestined.  Which can only lead us to the conclusion that our choices don't matter because they are not choices.

He doesn't tell us where we find this information in the Bible, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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