Cessationism vs. Continuationism - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is a complete disaster. Not a single documented claim. Not a single Bible verse quoted. It's simply a series of opinions divorced from any reference, citation, or explanation. 

Yet this appears under the subheading "theology" on Ms. Prata's website. How can one discuss theology without the Bible? It's a mystery to us.

Neither Mr. Johnson nor Ms. Prata should be considered competent Bible teachers.

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

Rapture vs Second Coming: Back to the Future, Part 6 and 7 - by Clint Archer

The below is part six and seven, found here and here, respectively. Links to our analyses of part four and part five.  Our comments in bold.
----------------------

We complete our examination of the author's eschatology in today's post. Unfortunately, we have found that the author tends toward making undocumented claims and speculative comments, which he presents as gospel truth.

The author continues in this modus operandi below.

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

Excusia and Athentein - The Desperation of Christo-Feminism By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The churlish and antagonistic Rev. Wade expends almost 1600 words (not including quotes), but is barely able to quote Scripture. He will often appeal to the Bible without quoting it, preferring to state his undocumented claims with bombastic alacrity. 

And as is typical for him, he is unable to do anything more than contradict and dismiss.

We should note that we do not intend to defend Hyatt, but we do wish to examine Rev. Wade's faulty presentation.

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

The Foundation of All Forgiveness by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr MacArthur does a good job explaining the sinner's plight. But he makes a few statements we would take issue with:

First quote:

The Bible repeatedly stresses that God will punish every sin. 

Is this really true? We would think that God will punish every unrepentant sinner. Sin is simply the result of being a sinner. A sinner sins. A sinner is a status, while a sin is an act committed. God will punish the sinner:

Ps. 81:15 Those who hate the LORD would cringe before him, and their punishment would last for ever. 

Pr. 11:21 Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free.

1Th. 4:6 The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 

2Th. 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 

God's wrath is towards the wicked:

John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them."

The only verse that implies that God will punish sin is He. 2:2:

For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment...

The word "punishment" is actually "recompense." That means that every violation and disobedience receives a commensurate payment or wage (Ro. 6:23). 

In addition, a Christian who sins will not be punished simply because he sinned. So it is clear that God does not punish "every sin."

Second quote:

God must fulfill the demands of justice by pouring out His wrath on a substitute who bears the sinner’s punishment vicariously... God treated Christ like a sinner and punished Him for all the sins of all who would believe, so that He could treat them as righteous and give them credit for Christ’s perfect obedience.

God did not punish Jesus. There is no verse in the Bible that says this. We examine this faulty idea in detail here. 

Jesus died as the lamb of God, the perfect blood sacrifice for sin. The sacrificial animals were not punished, and neither did God punish Jesus. 

Third quote:

All Christians are forgiven an unpayable debt solely on the basis of what God Himself has done for us.

The Bible does not treat our sin as a debt, it treats it as an affront to God for which blood must be spilled (He. 9:22). We discuss this in detail here.

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

The "Good, Better, and Best" of Worship - by Pastor Nick Batzig

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

The "regulative principle of worship" seems to receiving a lot of attention lately. We previously commented on another author (Derek Thomas), our article posted here, whom Pastor Batzig quotes at length below. However, the Pastor is unable, or unwilling, to supply even a single snippet, or even a reference to, Scripture. 

We continually wonder how a supposed Bible teacher can teach the Bible without the Bible.

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

Christians Against Debt Forgiveness? Seriously? - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

If there remained any doubt that Rev. Wade is a leftist first and a Christian second (or third, or fourth...), this article should remove any doubt.

Rev. Wade so mangles the topic that we must seriously question his thinking skills. He happily mixes the obligations of Christians with the duties of government, he conflates commands to Israel with what Christians should do, and he mixes it all together in order to claim that opposition to the debt forgiveness is unchristian.

We should note that we are not here to defend Mr. Lasher, but rather, we shall analyze Rev. Wade's presentation.

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

Wonders And Miracles (Have They Ceased?) - by Richard M. Sanders

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The article we are examining today is an astounding 5600 words. It takes the author more than 1000 words to get to the first Scripture. And he uses up more than 3100 words before he actually begins his analysis/refutation. 

Though we will delete large portions of the article, we also shall quickly cite four of the author's noteworthy statements from those deleted sections, before we jump to the point were he actually address the subject. 

First, he claims that "this doctrine" of signs and wonders is Gnosticism:

The Teachers and Promoters of this doctrine will provide the Christian with the required special Bible "Knowledge" to which other Christians are not aware. 

He makes the charge, but does not document it in any way. 

Second, he writes

The scriptural basis and evidence for this Doctrine [of signs and wonders] appears overwhelming.

This scriptural basis is never quoted or even discussed. 

Third, he writes,

The first major battle this Doctrine [of signs and wonders] encountered was whether or not the Doctrine was Scripturally correct. This battle was won sometime ago.

And once again, the author does nothing to document this assertion. 

Fourth, the author moves on to a particularly weird explanation about the letter to church in Thyatira. He begins by writing, 

The Church at Thyatira was the Signs, Wonders, and Miracles Church of its day. 

This is truly astonishing. Let's quote the entire passage: 

Re. 2:18-28 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations — 27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’ — [Psalm 2:9] just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star.

The reader can easily see there is no mention of signs and wonders. 

We are beginning to suspect the author is some sort of crackpot who occupies his time assembling disparate Scriptures into some sort of conspiracy theory. The impenetrable prose and long-winded explanations are designed to obfuscate and distract from the fatal flaws of his fundamental assumptions.

As we mentioned, the author expends more than 3100 words before he actually gets to his refutation. It is at that point we pick it up.

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

Predestination and Romans chapter 8:29-30, 8:33-34

We discuss predestination regarding Romans 9:22-25 here. 

Introduction

In our pursuit of the truths of the Bible, we have too often been confronted by our own presumption. We think we know what the Bible teaches, but when we begin to consider the Bible apart from our preconceptions a new picture often emerges.

In this process we have modified our approach to Scripture in at least two ways. We want to know:

• To whom was the author writing, and how would those people understand what was written?
• who is the author talking about, himself or his readers?

We admit that the following might be controversial conclusions. But we ask the reader to examine the Scriptures for himself.

To Whom was Paul Writing?

We first note that Paul is writing to a specific group:

Ro. 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

But that's not all we know. He's particularly writing to the Roman Jews:

Ro. 2:17-18 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law...

Paul was mostly writing to Jewish Christians in Rome. This understanding really helps us in that it contextualizes the various Jewish references, like circumcision (Ro. 2:28). the advantages of being a Jew (Ro. 3:1), righteousness not through the law (Ro. 3:20), Abraham "our father" (Ro. 4:1), death to the law (Ro. 7:4, Ro. 7:9), and freedom from the condemnation of the law (Ro. 8:1-3).

Paul's audience is Jewish, and we should understand how his Jewish audience would hear these words. These have a primary Jewish applicability. 

How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps - by Jesse Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

There is a air of smug condescension in this article unbefitting a minister of the Gospel. We have numbered each instance. 

And we would ask, why would we need to become Calvinists? The author presents this as if he is seeking converts. But he never says why it's important or even relevant. This is important. What is the practical use of Calvinism? It changes no obligation to lead a holy life, to be a light, to serve one another, to be generous, to worship, or to grow in maturity of faith. None of these things are impacted by Calvinism. 

Further, the author doesn't quote a single Scripture. Not even a syllable.

Worst of all, the author doesn't do what the title promises. He doesn't actually explain how to become a Calvinist, let alone why one should want to.

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

Why It Matters That Jesus Was and Still Is Human - by Dane C. Ortlund

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

We discuss this issue in depth here.

This "Bible teacher" plows through almost 1300 words without quoting single syllable of Scripture. Not one. He can quote theologians, but not the Bible. How can a Bible teaching not contain the Bible?

One should think that the author would consider what the Bible actually says, like

1Co. 15:50-54 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” [Isaiah 25:8]

This passage would lead us to ask, did Jesus get raised in the same manner? And:

Jn. 20:25-28 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus clearly presents Himself to Thomas as human to prove He indeed rose from the dead bodily. So, how about this one:

Jn. 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.

This mysterious verse implies that Jesus' status was such that something needed to happen, which would happen once He ascended to the Father. 

Now for a verse that appeals to Jesus' humanity:

He. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.

The writer of Hebrews describes Christ's nature to reinforce the idea that Jesus is just like us. But then, the Bible tells us we shall be like Him:

1Jn. 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

This suggests that Jesus is in a state that we have yet to attain. And, it will be a revelation to us. But even then, there will be a final change in heaven:

1Co. 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Once again something about the status of Jesus changes. This mysterious verse leaves us with more questions that the Bible doesn't answer. 

Last verses:

Re. 1:13 and among the lampstands was someone “like a son of man”, [Daniel 7:13] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash round his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters.

Re. 4:3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.

Re. 5:6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne...

Re. 19:11-13 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no-one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

John the Revelator describes Jesus in several different ways. We would therefore be reluctant to agree to the idea that His unchanged human status, though now immortal, was carried into heaven. Rather, it seems like He possesses some sort of glorified human body, which will be what we receive as well. But of course, we can only speculate.

Now, notice we have taken the time to actually quote relevant Scriptures, which opens up rich topics of discussion. We would have expected no less from the author.

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

The Great Tribulation: Back to the Future, Part 5 - by Clint Archer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

We previously commented on part four here. Part six and seven are here.

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

The author quotes a bunch of Scripture, which gladdens our heart. It is so rare an event among so-called Bible teachers. 

But the problem is, the author fills in the gaps with his interpretations and speculations. He gives us no reason at all to believe or accept those interpretations and speculations. And in fact, they make no sense. It's like he made them up.

It's like a puzzle where the person is shoving pieces into place whether or not they fit. The author has a template, and all the evidence shall be made to fit, whether it does or not.

The worst thing is, in the end none of it is profitable. None of it applies to living a holy life. None of it contributes to worship, service, or evangelism. It's all empty, without meaning or spiritual profit.

Nothing here makes a lick of difference to the day-to-day life of a Christian.

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

Letter to the editor: Inflation can't be blamed on Biden, Democrats Jack Kligerman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Here is a leftist attempting to explain economics. It should be no surprise that he fails. 

Of particular note is the letter writer's total inability to mention government in any way, except when it comes to Trump.

And by the way, only government can cause inflation. Period.

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

You Need Someone Else’s Armor - by Ethan Wormell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are in agreement with the author's basic premise, that we should operate in God's power and  not rely on our own strength. However, we think that the author doesn't completely explain the nature of the armor of God.

David could not wear the armor Saul supplied to him (1Sa. 17:38). David instead selected the weaponry that was familiar - his own. Using someone else's armor would have probably ensured his defeat.

God has equipped each of us uniquely, and we should not think we can imitate the techniques of successful ministries and pastors and expect the same results. The worst expression of this is to create a formula based on previous success as if the formula is the vehicle to success. These formulas become traditions and even doctrines. Whole denominations have been built around techniques and habitual practices.

The principle we would like to deduce is that we do not use what works, we use what God has given us. God gifts us uniquely, with spiritual gifts, abilities, and talents that perfectly suit His work in us. 

By extension, this would suggest that the armor of God in Ephesians 6 is not generic, but uniquely suited for each individual Christian. The armor is fitted for us and ready to go. Our duty is to put on that armor God has prepared, for only we can don the armor specifically designed for us. 

Our second point is to note that the author tells us that we should put on faith in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ who gave us his own righteousness to wear. This is a small quibble, perhaps, but we don't think Jesus wants us to put on His righteousness to wear. 

This righteousness is by faith:

Ro. 3:21-22 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. 

Ro. 4:24 ...but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

There is no verse that tells us to put on or to wear righteousness.

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

You Must Be Converted {Lord’s Day 33} - BY William Boekestein

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Jesus told Nicodemus, 

Jn. 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.’

The author's title says, "You Must Be Converted." He uses Jesus' language but substitutes a different word. This is a bit of dishonesty. 

In fact, the author will use the word "conversion"/"converted" 12 times, but the Bible uses the word  (epistrophé, to turn about) only once:

Ac. 15:3 The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted.

That word is related to epistrephó (to turn, to return), which is used 36 times. Most often, this word is used to describe changing course. This can be a vessel changing course, a person turning around, or occasionally, people turning to God. 

Another word, strephó, means to turn, but mostly to change direction. It can also refer to turning to God:

Mt. 18:3 And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This implies repentance, but in actual fact that when used of Christians, these Greek words simply mean the action of turning (to God), without the mechanism being described.

Repentance is a part of that mechanism. "Repent" is metanoeó, change my mind, change the inner man:

Mt. 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

To repent only means to change, but does not describe what to change to. Thus, the command to be Born Again, another part of the mechanism. That is the New Man, which the author adequately describes. 

When we repented and believed, we first died to several things:

• The bondage of the law (Ro. 7:6)
• Hostility to God (Ro. 8:7)
• deadness in transgressions (Ep. 2:5)
• confidence in the flesh (Ph. 3:3)

Our fleshly nature was circumcised from us, and we were buried and raised;

Col. 2:11-13 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.

Paul clearly states that the sinful nature has been put off. But we need to align ourselves with this reality. The new birth ("...alive in Christ") begins the process of aligning: 

Ro. 8:12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.

Ro. 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. 

Ro. 13:14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Col. 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

This can only occur by the leading and empowerment of the Holy Spirit:

Ro. 8:14 ...because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 

2Co. 3:8 ...will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

2Ti. 1:7 For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.

Ga. 3:3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 

Ga. 5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

None of this describes conversion as the author presents it. To us, conversion implies an action in response to pressure. A convert is someone who is persuaded to join up after being presented with sufficient reason to change.

"Born again" implies none of this. It's a new start, a supernatural work, an abandonment of the old life in order to embrace the new. It's identity, transformation, something completely different from the previous thing.

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

A Letter to Christian Supporters of Trump - By Carol Wolman, MD

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is a leftist and a Trump-hater. She leads with her supposed Christianity, but that is simply a smokescreen. Her Christianity is always employed in the service of her leftism. She's a leftist first, and a Christian second, or maybe third, or...

As such, we should be on the lookout for

• twisted Scriptures
• Leftist talking points
• reinterpreted doctrine, and 
• the use of the Bible to justify leftist political philosophy

We will find that everything contained in her article is boilerplate leftist rhetoric, dressed up in religion. As such, there are really no surprises here. We shall asterisk each talking point, but our comments will not be added. It is a waste of time to refute these time and time again, only to have them resurface as if nothing previously happened.

And we should note that although the author wants to attack Trump, she spends plenty of verbiage attacking you. You are stupid, a hypocrite, and greedy; you hate the poor, and you are gullible. This is how she treats her fellow Christians.

And, she manages to do all of this in less than 300 words (omitting Bible quotes).

But there is one astonishing claim the author makes at the end, that Trump is the antichrist. Not much more needs to be said.

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

A camel through the eye of the needle - what did Jesus mean?

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.

Polemics’ Threefold Display Of Love - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We find many of these self-styled "discernment ministers," whom we have deemed the Doctrinal Police, to be consumed with the latest thing about this false teacher or that false teacher. They consider it their duty to point out their flaws and errors, usually expressed in hyperbolic terms with breathless urgency. We have posted numerous critiques of them in these pages. Not only do we examine their fallacious arguments, but we also address their insulting language and egregious name calling.

One of their most pointed claims is that false teachers are, well, false. That is, through and through they are false. Not saved, not entitled to grace, respectful correction (Tit. 3:10), or the restoration prescribed in the Bible (Ga. 6:1). Not even entitled to our prayers! That is, false teachers are despicable wolves, liars and deceivers, even beyond redemption.

Thus we note that the ire of the Doctrinal Police exceeds the level of mere doctrinal disagreement. Merely setting the biblical record straight is not sufficient, though ironically they rarely even do that. No, those who come into their sights deserve only mocking, derision, and attack.

Our complaint is not that the "Doctrinal Police" are defending the truth, it's that they tend to view even the smallest doctrinal difference as false teaching. Perfect doctrine is the highest goal for them, and any deviation is false teaching, and by inference, is a matter of salvation.

The doctrinal hairsplitting gets to ridiculous levels, which means for them that the category of false teachers is extremely large. This has the effect of branding every sort of doctrinal deviation as "them," which means they are not "us."

This is cultic thinking.

Here is an example of a discernment ministry critiquing an unfortunate woman:

• hideously ugly
• post-menopausal woman 
• bizarre wardrobe choices
• a penchant for cackling
• no personal charisma
• a face that scares children
• a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard
• pugnacious
• unladylike
• uglier on the inside than she is on the outside
• the personality of a Roomba 
•  the personal charisma of fetid corpse
• unpleasant and evil woman

This is simply unchristian behavior.

They are more than happy to rate the worst Christian of the year.

Here's a self-described "discernment minister" who wants all charismatics to die: 

Might God use coronavirus to wipe the plague of charismaticism off the map and sweep these charlatans into the dustbin of history. Might God place the entire world into a quarantine against the Satanic false claims of charismaticism and innoculate (sic) us against their devilish assertions. Might God rid the world of every last one of them.

Here is someone who actually condemns someone as having committed the unforgiveable sin.

Now, these are not fringe people, they are recognized and celebrated discernment ministers.

In addition, we have noted in the past that "discernment ministers" do not like being criticized. They bristle at any suggestion that maybe they should reexamine their motives. One particularly egregious "minister" goes off on her critic for the critic's simple suggestion that she examine her attitude. 

This lack of self-awareness is pretty common. Which in itself is interesting, because one on hand they continually trumpet the nobility of their activities, but on the other hand are completely oblivious to how they come across, and hostile to the possibility that they may be making mistakes.

So, the author of today's article makes a fundamental error by isolating behavior from motivation. The writer appeals solely to his self-avowed noble motives, and simply presumes that his actions are definitionally an expression of love. 

Thus the discernment behavior (no matter how hurtful or clumsy) means love.  

So we would ask the author the obvious: Can a person point out biblical error and yet be unloving? Can a person deal poorly with their discernment? Can a person forget that the one he is criticizing is a soul for whom Christ died? The answers are obviously yes. 

Indeed, the author concedes that some "discernment ministers" are indeed unloving: Admittedly there are some who for love of controversy and isolation partake in the field of polemics to satisfy their blood lust for argumentation. The author attempts to disarm this by stating, However, it is an unbiblical character to assume all men who pursue this field of ministry are unloving, ungracious bloodthirsty beasts. 

This is dishonest. It should be obvious to even a casual observer that those who criticize discernment ministers are criticizing the former and not the latter. There are a lot of bad actors in the discernment arena, and they should be subject to scrutiny. No one thinks it is "all men." 

He then states, It is love for God that drives a man to speak when his master is attacked. This is the matter to be demonstrated. It is not self-evident. 

Last quote: The author cites Titus 1:13 and concludes, Those who commit the sin of false teaching need sharp rebuke. Perhaps so, but this instruction to Titus is not prescriptive for any ol' person. Paul was writing to Titus to tell him how to handle issues in this particular church. 

Titus was not sitting at his computer 1000 miles away critiquing a video snippet of an errant Bible teacher. Titus was in this church. He was in authority in this church. He was directly dealing with certain rebellious people who needed correction. 

In this church.

The author writes,

Whoever engages in polemics must be rooted in sound doctrine. 

Actually, all Christians should be rooted in sound doctrine. We would think that a polemicist ought to have several other qualifications:

• Spiritual fruit
• Spiritual gifts
• A position in the Body that gives authority to speak into the situation
• Humility
• Wisdom

Lastly, the author tells us that polemics' three "displays" of love are 

• Love for God
• Love for the Church
• Love for your Enemy

Polemics is not a person, and cannot display love. A polemicist ought to have these characteristics. "I do polemics" does not mean "I am loving."

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

Bad Worship songs: Spirit Lead Me - Influence Music & Michael Ketterer

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 good 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 as many as possible of 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
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

1. contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
2. be excessively metaphorical
3. be excessively repetitive
4. imply that Jesus is 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 today's song, "Spirit Lead Me." (Youtube video.) It is a well-crafted song, but it has problems.

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

How Ordinary Worship Is both Reverent and Relevant - by Stephen Spinnenweber

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author uses about 1000 words to attempt to describe worship. 

• Number of Bible verse quoted: Zero
• Number of relevant Bible verses referenced: Zero
• Number of long quotes from theologians: Three, plus one paraphrase

Thus, the author discusses worship at length, but does not tell us from the Bible anything about worship. We're not even entirely sure that he understands worship. He seems to think it's how a Sunday service is conducted. Of course, worship can happen in a Sunday service, but this is not guaranteed.

Sadly, this lack of Bible content is an all-too-common error among these so-called Bible teachers.

In addition, he uses terms like "ordinary worship," "relevant," "doxological," and "reverent," but does not explain them. 

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

The Pastoral Epistles - Were Titus and Timothy pastors?

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.