What does it mean that God draws us to salvation? - gotquestions

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

Though Gotquestions presents itself as a sober, thoughtful explainer of the Bible, it certainly has a doctrinal bias, despite its claim: 

"We are Christian, evangelical, theologically conservative, and nondenominational."

Even its statement of faith seems conventional. However, it becomes clear upon examination that Gotquestions is solidly cessationist, Reformed and Calvinistic. 

Today's article is about the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible Grace, though Gotquestions will never use the phrase. This is what Calvinists tend to do, hide their distasteful doctrines in innocuous language. Calvinists love to teach Calvinism, in fact, they will never teach the Bible without referring to their doctrines.

Irresistible Grace is the idea that because God chose those whom He would save (Predestination, another Calvinistic doctrine) the chosen cannot resist their salvation. Thus, if you're predestined, you will be saved. To bolster this doctrine they employ John 6:44, the topic of their article:

“no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Gotquestions notes the "draw" is the Greek word helkuo, which they inadequately define as "to drag." Here's the full definition from The Complete Word Study of the New Testament, pg. 911:

1670. Helkuo; or hé/ko, to draw, without necessarily connoting the notion of force as in suro (4951), to drag, although it may be implied (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6; Rev. 12:4, cf. Acts 16:19; 21:30; James 2:6). Helkuo is used of Jesus on the cross drawing men unto Himself by His love, not force (John 6:44; 12:32). It is drawing to a certain point as in John 21:6, 11 indicating the drawing of the net while suro (4951) is merely dragging something after one. In John 21:8 he/kuo gives place to suro (4951) for nothing is intended there but the dragging of the net. 

They also cite other verses that use the same Greek word, but conspicuously absent from these citations is this:

 Jn. 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

This verse also uses helkuo. Obviously this is a problem for Irresistible Grace, because if being drawn is irresistible, then all men being drawn means all men will be saved. This is obviously false, so Gotquestion's explanation of John 6:44 is faulty.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

If the world was ruined at the Fall, why do we still see good in the world? - By Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is a Calvinist, which means like all Calvinists he's here to teach his doctrine. That's what Calvinists do, teach Calvinism. They never teach the Bible unless they can constantly reinforce their distasteful doctrines.

In this article the author tries to explain why people still do good things while being totally depraved. His workaround is to claim that we are not totally depraved, there's still some fraction of goodness left. This is what enables "totally depraved" people to do what are good, but spiritually valueless things.

That's his dividing line, doing good things versus doing good things with spiritual value. He does not tell us where this is found in the Bible.

The problem that develops out of his position is that Total Depravity is actually required, because with Calvinism God does 100% of salvation. We do not, and cannot, participate in any way, including making a decision for Christ. A decision is deemed a work; that is, our decision would have saved us, making salvation partly our work. 

But if there is a small remainder of the original goodness of creation, then Total Depravity as a concept doesn't apply. Therefore, there must be no goodness at all. This is one of the many problems created by Calvinism that need the reinterpretation, explanation, or negation of the Bible.

Further, in this muddled mess the author doesn't quote a single verse of Scripture, yet he purports to teach the Bible. How this is possible is unfathomable.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad Worship Songs: Living God - by Bede Benjamin-Korporaal, Jessie Early, Kory Miller, and Tyler Roberts (Red Rocks 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, Living God.

Video link.

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

Unclear Evangelism Leads to Unclear (and False) Conversions - by John Lee

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

The author is pastor of a baptist church in California. His church website has one of the most detailed statements of faith we have ever read. From it we were attempting to ascertain the author's doctrinal perspective, and it is definitely Calvinistic. From the statement of faith:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

This is textbook Calvinistic jargon, with their typical emphasis on Election. So the reader knows, this is the doctrine that God long ago chose who He would save.

Why is this relevant? It's simple. 

First, the author writes about the need for effective evangelism, which suggests that evangelism techniques are somehow relevant to people getting properly saved. Yet the church he pastors believes that God has already chosen the saved.

We acknowledge the commands of Scripture regarding preaching the Gospel. Nevertheless, we simply note the obvious: Evangelism, whether properly done, done poorly, or not done at all, has no effect on who will get saved. If God has chosen, then nothing will change that.

Second, the author bemoans his altar call experiences as if they were not genuine in some way. He doesn't really tell us at what point he was saved, but it seems that at least one of these experiences was real. 

He acknowledges that salvation is "the miraculous work of God’s Spirit," but seems certain he is saved. And this is crucial. He doesn't know. No one knows, only God. The author may be a false convert even now. 

Many Christians who persevered for decades and bore much fruit of the Spirit have fallen away. Many mature believers, theologians, and pastors have stumbled or wandered and have never returned. Probably every one of them thought of themselves as certainly saved. But apparently they were false converts. The fact of the matter is, no one can be secure, simply by thinking he's been properly evangelized, discipled, or has a long history in the church.

This of course means the author's presentation is entirely irrelevent if he were to be consistent with his doctines.

Lastly, the author does quote snippets of several Scriptures, but none of them are about evangelism. None of them are illustrative of "clear conversions." 

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

Flower Power: T.U.L.I.P. Analyzed and Applied - by Rut Etheridge III

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a somewhat peculiar approach to his Calvinism. He doesn't so much explain his doctrines as much as he assumes them. With this assumption he wants to explain how the Calvinist should respond and live in keeping with Calvinism.

That's what Calvinists always do: Explain Calvinism. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible without explaining Calvinism. 

The author only manages to quote two irrelevant Scriptures in this entire article. We therefore must deem it Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Leadership and Service in Christ’s Church - by Dennis Johnson

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

The author is a cessationist, which means he believes the "supernatural" activities and gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for today. His entire thinking process is colored by this, so much so that he uses words incorrectly, overlooks key Scriptures right in the middle of passages he references, and teaches more to his tradition than he does the Scriptures.

In addition, the author repeatedly uses the Christian vernacular "Word" to refer to the Scriptures. This is a continual irritant to us, because the "Word" is not the "Scriptures." We will explain below.

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

Stop Trying to Discover Your Spiritual Gift. Start Serving the Church - by Alistair Chalmers

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

On one hand the author acknowledges spiritual gifts, but then seems to dismiss them in favor of just volunteering to serve the church with what you're good at. In doing so the author does his best to avoid some uncomfortable Scriptures.

The author never does manage to actually explain what spiritual gifts are. So, we shall do the author's work for him. "Spiritual gifts" in the Greek is pneumatikos charisma, of the spiritual realm, and, empowerment. The two words appear together only once in the Greek text, in Romans 1:11: 

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...

charisma hymin pneumatikon
    gift      to you    spiritual

but the connection between the two is clearly presented in Scripture. Every spiritual gift is a spiritual empowerment. 

This is quite different than a natural skill or ability. While it is certainly true that a person's natural ability might give a hint of a spiritual gift, a spiritual gift is a notably a supernatural endowment. 

It is clear that some of these spiritual endowments make the author uncomfortable, because they are unnecessarily supernatural. The reason is, the author is a cessationist who doesn't believe in prophecy, tongues, words of knowledge, healing, or miraculous powers. Yet all these are listed as gifts. 

So rather than engage these uncomfortable things the author either doesn't mention them or glosses over them. Though he manages to quote a few Scriptures, he doesn't quote any part of the verses that mention spiritual gifts.

We must therefore regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why I'm a Calvinist - by Kyle Borg

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is colored by his Calvinism to the point where he cannot see or understand what the Scriptures clearly teach. In the one instance he actually recognizes a contrary perspective he does not discuss it.

He begins with Dinesh D'Souza but never responds to his claims. Rather, he just moves on to spout his Calvinism. That's what Calvinists always do. They never teach the Bible unless they can include their Calvinism. Calvinism is their bottom line, and it must be continually taught, reinforced. reiterated, and restated.

This is very nearly cultic behavior. It is certainly Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Will Christians Really Judge the World? - by Alistair Chalmers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

On the whole this is a good presentation, which is the first time we are able to say this about Mr. Chalmers. He explains the topic well, uses the Scriptures correctly, and even reaches a proper and edifying conclusion. 

Except on a couple of points, where his Calvinism/Reformed doctrine creeps in. Let's take a moment to examine those two items.

First, he writes,

"For those who are in Christ, the final judgment is not a trial to determine whether Christ has paid enough for our sins, the gospel has already answered that question." 

Jesus did not pay for our sins. There is no Bible verse that says such a thing. Rather, he paid for us: 

1 Cor. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 

1Pe. 1:18-19 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1Ti. 2:5-6 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

There was no exchange. No bargaining. Nothing changed hands. Jesus didn't pay anybody to redeem us because no one was owed anything. Paying for our sins is not a concept found in the Bible.

Jesus' death was not financial, it was sacrificial.  

We discuss this in detail here.

The second issue is this:

"We are sinners who deserve judgment. And yet the Judge entered his own courtroom. The one who will judge the living and the dead came into the world and stood condemned in the place of sinners. At the cross, Christ bore the judgment his people deserved." 

Jesus' death was not a legal transaction. There is no courtroom where evidence is presented, and there is no presumption of innocence. There is no prosecutor, no jury, and no defense attorney. 

There is no verse in the Bible that tells us that Jesus walked into court and took our place. None. Jesus did not substitute Himself for punishment, for indeed, no legal jurisdiction would allow such a thing. 

Jesus did not die in our place. Rather, He gave His life for our sins:

1Pe. 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

Ga. 2:20 The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Ep. 5:2 ...just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1Ti. 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men...

Tit. 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness...

"For" in all these verses is huper, which never means "in the place of." Huper means on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning. It was for our benefit He endured the cross. It was for our sake His blood was spilled. 

Nor was Jesus punished for our sins. He died to spill His blood, for "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). The blood itself is completely effectual:

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins... 

 

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

Jesus' sacrificial death alone is sufficient to satisfy the Father's wrath. There is no need or reason to punish Jesus in addition.

Therefore, 

• Jesus' death was not a legal proceeding.

• Jesus' death was not financial. 

• Jesus' death was not substitutionary. 

• Jesus' death was sacrificial. 

We discuss this in great detail here.

If the reader is able to keep these truths in mind, the article will be of benefit.

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

Do We Have Free Will? - by Scott Christensen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles unsuccessfully with the contradictions caused by his Calvinism. The basic problem, unresolved by any Calvinist, is that if God chooses then we did not choose. That's it, the bare, unvarnished equation. But Calvinists like the author wants to hold mankind responsible for choices mankind did not make, for the purpose of absolving God from bad outcomes. 

It requires quite of bit of verbal gymnastics to attempt to escape the Calvinistic trap, a futile thing no matter the rhetorician.

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

What is the gift of speaking in tongues? - Gotquestions.org

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

Gotquestions is supposed to be a provider of Bible explanation. It represents itself as a sober, unbiased source of truth. But in fact it has a definite doctrinal tilt toward Reformed/Calvinist and cessationist. 

For the serious Bible student, Gotquestions is not a trustworthy source.

We see that quite clearly in Gotquestions' explanation of tongues. They make absolutely no effort to explore the charismatic doctrinal viewpoint at all.

We are therefore happy to assume that role and explain the other side.

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

What Is the Job of the Pastor? - by Collin Hansen, Jonathan Leeman

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

The author actually explains the job of the elders, not the pastor. He wants very badly for the two to be the same, because he wants the pastor to be a leader, maybe even the chief leader, as is practiced in most churches today.

But biblically speaking, pastors aren't leaders or even teachers. They are shepherds. They care for the flock. They comfort, encourage, restore, counsel, and reconcile. They might teach or lead, but the Bible doesn't tell us this. 

In fact, the author will never explain biblical pastoring. He will never use the word "shepherd." 

The bottom line is, the author cannot bring himself to upset the apple cart. The traditional church with a CEO pastor is a given for him. He either likes it this way or isn't willing to challenge it. He seems to know better, but unfortunately he is part of the system and cannot unplug from it.

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

We All Want More of God - by Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Challies is Reformed/Calvinist, but he really doesn't tell us anything about his tradition or how it comes to bear on the topic. He makes numerous assertions about this, seemingly pulled out of thin air. He makes many vague, uninformative statements.

It's mystifying, really. 

He seems to possess a knowledge about things but never tells us what it is. But his presentation is premised on this. Further, he neither appeals to or quotes the Bible, except to assert that "Reformed theology is experiential, but crucially, it constrains itself to the experiences the Bible permits." In contrast, he presents the opposition perspective in the most unflattering way, tilting the debate toward his preferences. 

Further, Mr. Challies believes that having the desire for more of God can be dangerous, but Paul himself writes of his longing: 

Phil. 3:10-15 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Ph. 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining towards what is ahead, 14 I press on towards the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenwards in Christ Jesus. 

Paul had a deep longing for more, but notice his conclusion: 

15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things.

The longing for more of God is a function of maturity. The Bible contradicts Mr. Challies. 

Lastly, he neither quotes nor references the Bible. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Is Predestination? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul does what all Calvinists/Reformists do, explain Calvinism. They will never explain the Bible unless they can teach their doctrines. 

In addition, Dr. Sproul writes 950 words about his doctrines, but not a single Bible verse is quoted. Not one. He doesn't even provide a Bible reference. 

Astonishing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The connection between Ephesians and Romans - the mystery we miss

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Wrote the Bible? - by Robert Cara

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

you.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We will explain below.

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

NEW! Counterarguments to Egalitarianism - by Michelle Lesley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is very nearly cultic behavior.

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

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

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