NAR New Shiny New Object to Hate? Taylor Swift - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Too often we are pressed into service regarding Rev. Wade's bombastic pontifications. We thought he had already hit bottom, but surprisingly, this screed is even lower. 

We can't emphasize enough that Rev. Wade puts these on his website under the heading, "devotionals:"

It's well past time we defined what a devotional is, because Rev. Wade clearly doesn't understand:

A devotional is a tool to help you grow in your relationship with God and others. It can be a Bible reading plan, a series of meditations, a liturgical exercise, or a daily selection of verses with a thoughtful essay...

Rev. Wade's "devotional" is completely devoid of Bible verses, Bible explanations, or Bible meditations. He's simply debating the meaning of the lyrics of a Taylor Swift song. He disagrees with someone about what they mean. That's it. That's the "devotional."

Astounding.

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

What to say to a Republican who complains about the federal debt - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

This article is The Narrative, which facilitates The Agenda. The reader should keep this in mind at all times.

The left is obsessed with other people's money. They want it. They spend it. The problem has always been spending: 

Last year, the federal government took in a record $4.9 trillion in revenue, more than triple the $1.58 trillion the government collected just 25 years earlier (1997)....

That’s an average increase of more than eight percent a year, far more than the rate of inflation (which has averaged 2.4% annually over the past 25 years) plus the increase in the U.S. population (roughly 0.7% annually). The total of all economic activity in the United States per year (GDP) is currently $26.1 trillion, which means the federal government now claims nearly one-fifth (19.6%) of all dollars for itself, a much higher rate than the long-term average of 16.5 percent.

But Dr. Reich thinks the government simply needs more money. And it's the rich who unjustly possess that money. It's a familiar Marxist theme.

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

A MISUNDERSTANDING OF SPIRITUAL TEMPERATURE - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

About 1000 words (minus quotes), but only about 250 of them are dedicated to actually explaining the quoted Bible passage. The other three quarters of this article beats to death an undocumented, and false, premise that charismatics are all about showing off their "on fire" status. She never quotes anyone or cites any examples of this, but she goes on and on about it, hammering the claim at least a dozen times. 

It is truly taken to ridiculous levels.

Further, the Lovesickscribe quotes Bob DeWaay:  

They posit two types of Christians: “carnal” Christians and “spiritual” Christians. But in reality, there are only Christians and dead sinners. 

Astonishingly, she approvingly quotes a lie. There is absolutely no Scripture that tells us this. Paul wrote many times about carnal Christians:

1Co. 3:1-3 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?

Ro. 13:13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Ga. 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature...

Ep. 4:22-24 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. 

Col. 3:6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Bob DeWaay is apparently unacquainted with the idea of sanctification, the process of abandoning the ways of the carnal nature and moving on to spiritual maturity. 

Ultimately, Lovesickscribe's real problem appears to be a matter of preference. She doesn't like these supposed "on-fire" charismatics who want to worship, pray and fast. She doesn't even like the term, but she happily supplies her own "on fire" list:  

• A desire to read His Word 
• A desire to pray 
• Being unashamed in sharing our faith in Jesus Christ

And lastly, she concedes her whole case: 

It is a good thing to check the spiritual temperature in our lives... 

We are left wondering what the hullabaloo is about. 

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

What happens with unanswered prayers - 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.

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Female Bible authors?…) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley continues her series of articles regarding her view of women's roles in the church. She has developed many micro doctrines concerning what women can and cannot do in church. Most of these are derived from a faulty view of 1 Timothy 2:12. Her presentations are sometimes so egregious that we have reserved a corner of our blog for her.

Today she claims that no woman wrote Scripture. We shall examine this claim.

As we consider this we first should note that no title of any book in the Bible identifies a woman as the author. But these titles, like the chapter and verse division, are not part of the original text, they were added later and should not be regarded as inspired.

Second, the inspired author is sometimes a matter of speculation (Ruth, Esther, and Hebrews for example). 

Third, we don't know who actually wrote down the words of Bible. The person who put quill to papyrus may have simply been a scribe, or may indeed have been the Holy Spirit-inspired person named in the title. We know Paul did not autograph at least some of his epistles. It is generally recognized that he dictated many of his letters via amanuenses. He writes:

Ga. 6:11 See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!

This clearly implies that he wanted to emphasize his point by writing these words himself.

In addition, Paul probably dictated many of his letters to Timothy:

• 2Co. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy...
• Ph. 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi...
• Col. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother...
• 1Th. 1:1 Paul, Silas, and Timothy...
• 2Th. 1:1 Paul, Silas, and Timothy...
• Phile. 1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon...

Having armed ourselves with the knowledge that the Bible is completely inspired and trustworthy, yet autographed by a variety people, known and unknown, we shall now consider the matter at hand.

We are puzzled by those who would assert that no women "wrote" the Bible, for even the casual reader would discover that it is simply not true. To believe women contributed nothing to the Holy Writ would be to errantly omit important portions of Scripture where inspired women of God spoke His Word, both in the OT and the NT.

Women spoke inspired words, regardless of who wrote them down. The one who spoke the inspired words must be considered primary over the one who wrote those words.

Lastly, we would assert it to be of marginal importance to know whose hand actually wrote the words which became our Bible. In any case, it would be improper to conclude that only men wrote the Bible.

Here's a survey of women who uttered God's words: 

The Old Testament

1Sa. 2:1-10  

Hannah articulated the very words of God:

1Sa. 2:1-10 Then Hannah prayed and said: “My heart rejoices in the LORD; in the LORD my horn is lifted high. My mouth boasts over my enemies, for I delight in your deliverance. 1Sa. 2:2 “There is no-one holy like the LORD; there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. 3 “Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance, for the LORD is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed. 4 “The bows of the warriors are broken, but those who stumbled are armed with strength. 5 Those who were full hire themselves out for food, but those who were hungry hunger no more. She who was barren has borne seven children, but she who has had many sons pines away. 6 “The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up. 7 The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts. 8 He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. “For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; upon them he has set the world. 9 He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness. “It is not by strength that one prevails; 10 those who oppose the LORD will be shattered. He will thunder against them from heaven; the LORD will judge the ends of the earth. “He will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.” 

Judges 5:1-9

Deborah's prophetic psalm, never before uttered.

1 On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song: 2 When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer themselves — praise the LORD! 3 “Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers! I will sing to the LORD, I will sing; I will make music to the LORD, the God of Israel. 4 O LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water. 5 The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai, before the LORD, the God of Israel. 6 In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the roads were abandoned; travelers took to winding paths. 7 Village life in Israel ceased, ceased until I, Deborah, arose, arose a mother in Israel. 8 When they chose new gods, war came to the city gates, and not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel. 9 My heart is with Israel’s princes, with the willing volunteers among the people. Praise the LORD!

2Kg. 22:15-20

Huldah spoke a prophetic word:

 She said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, 16 `This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. 17 Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ 18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, `This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’“ So they  took her answer back to the king.

Ex. 15:20-21 

Miriam, specifically stated as being a prophetess, sang a prophetic song:

Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them: “Sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea.”

2Ch. 9:5-8

The queen of Sheba spoke a prophetic word:

She said to the king, “The report I heard in my own country about your achievements and your wisdom is true. 6 But I did not believe what they said until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half the greatness of your wisdom was told me; you have far exceeded the report I heard. 7 How happy your men must be! How happy your officials, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom! 8 Praise be to the LORD your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on his throne as king to rule for the LORD your God. Because of the love of your God for Israel and his desire to uphold them for ever, he has made you king over them, to maintain justice and righteousness.”

The New Testament

Lk. 1:41-45

Elizabeth spoke prophetically:

41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!”

Luke 1:46-55

Mary's prophetic utterance:

And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, 49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is his name. 50 His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. 51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. 52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. 53 He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful 55 to Abraham and his descendants for ever, even as he said to our fathers.”

Luke 2:36-38

Anna's words, though not recorded, were noted:

There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

Mark 16:7 

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were given a prophetic message:

But go, tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

So the literal word of the Lord came forth from the lips of women. Those words became Scripture. Those words carried unique and powerful Holy Spirit messages that changed the fate of nations, even the world.

Women, therefore, communicated the very word of God, and are a central part of God's redemptive plan. To overlook their contributions, inspiration, or impact on the Bible is an unfortunate and false perspective.

Three ways God answers prayer - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is unable to quote or reference a single Bible verse, yet he purports to teach us about prayer. How can one teach about a biblical doctrine without the Bible? On this basis alone we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Further, the author doesn't think God will change His course of action based on someone's prayer. This is so obviously false that we must wonder about the author's competency.

In Genesis 18:20-33 Abraham negotiated with God over the fate of Sodom.

Moses was able to the persuade God not to destroy His stiff-necked people:

Ex. 32:14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

The Psalmist expected God to relent: 

Ps. 90:13 Relent, O LORD! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants.

 Which He did:

Ps. 106:45 for their sake he remembered his covenant and out of his great love he relented.

He promises to relent if people repent: 

Je. 18:7-8 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Je. 26:3 Perhaps they will listen and each will turn from his evil way. Then I will relent and not bring on them the disaster I was planning because of the evil they have done.

Jeremiah prophesied that God would stop what He intended to do:

Je. 26:13 Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you.

So why do so many people think God will not change His mind? Probably because of verses like these:

Nu. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfil?

1Sa. 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”

It is interesting that the Bible itself tells us that He does relent yet He does not relent. What are we to make of this? In every case the Hebrew word for "change his mind" is nacham, to be sorry, console oneself. 

The nuances are important. When it says God does not change His mind it is in comparison to man. It may be more simple than we have been led to believe, that the way God does things is not like how man does things. 

If this is true, let's insert some clarifying language into the Numbers verse:

Nu. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie (like men do), nor a son of man, that he should change his mind (in the manner of men). Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfil?

We begin to see the true nature of these statements, that God is not capricious or arbitrary. He is not like men in His ways. They are higher:

Is. 55:9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Thus it is quite possible that God changes His mind in some sense, but it's nothing like what men do or how men think.

The author reasons that the possibility of God changing His mind means His sovereignty would be compromised. But he doesn't tell us why or how this would be true. In fact, God's sovereignty is unaffected by the possibility of Him changing His mind. He still does as He pleases, even if He chooses to do something else. God is still God, even when He has mercy and relents.

Moving on, the author offers three ways that God deals with prayer. However, he does not address the fact that God might indeed answer prayers exactly as prayed. 

Lastly, the author has a deterministic view of how our lives work. He mentions the Elect, that is, those who are predestined for salvation. He says that God will go to some great lengths to ensure the elect get to where they need to go, but doesn't tell us how this in any way changes things. Of course He sent Jesus to die for our sins, which is extraordinary, but what other things would God do that would be considered "great lengths?" And why would God need to ensure the Elect are the Elect? This seems like a tautology.

The author insists that God's great lengths is not a reason for complacency. However, if God is sovereign in the sense that everything will happen exactly as He desires, then why would anyone bother to pray? Even if it's true that failing to pray might make God do something to lead to some consequences that might wake us up from our malaise, such a thing does not change election. Prayerlessness has no impact on one's salvation. 

Most critically, if someone does pray because he fears God might do something to correct him, well, that's not a feature of faith.

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

Can I Tell an Unbeliever ‘Jesus Died for You’? - by JUSTIN DILLEHAY

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

----------

The author grapples with a problem created by his Calvinistic doctrine. He believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that the author cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because he doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around.

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

Responding to Dr. Michael Brown's Questioning of Discernment Ministers - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Discernment" ministers don't like to be discerned. They bristle at being questioned, held to their own standards, or subject to any sort of evaluation.

Rev. Wade is offended at the questions posed by Dr. Brown. He's outraged that anyone might suggest that "discernment" ministers ought to be held accountable. The thing about it is, "discernment" ministers are often worthy of criticism. They are too often over-the-top, insulting, and, yes, down right wrong. 

In keeping with their hyperbolic tendencies, their response to criticism is also hyperbolic.

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person who believe that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers towards false teachers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia) as follows:

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

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• T.D. Jakes might have some problems, but here's what a Rev. Wade himself wrote about him: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men. Like you, he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• Rev. Wade also says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

There are many more examples, including from Rev. Wade, that we could list. We don't want to suggest the above examples are typical, but they happen frequently enough that they're not aberrations. 

Lastly, Rev. Wade's "devotional" doesn't contain a single quote from the Bible or a discussion of any spiritual principle. It's continually dismaying to us how these people think they can be any sort of minister, let alone a discernment minister, without quoting or even discussing the Bible.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Women Bible Translators… Doctrinally sound deliverance ministry… Brain fog and Bible/book reading) - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley is back, once again parsing 1 Timothy 2:12, which she doesn't even bother to quote:

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

She writes to add yet another subdoctrine derived from an improper application of this verse. This astonishingly bad and unbiblical description ought to be an embarrassment, but she presents it as unassailable truth. 

This verse is not describing a church service, it's not about what pastors do, and it has nothing to do with what generic women can or cannot do on Sunday. You can read our explanation here.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Wayback Wednesday ~ Risky Business - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------

The author takes issue with what some people supposedly say about taking risks in faith. But she then concedes that walking in faith is indeed risky. 

-------

His sheep and the doctrine of election

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.

Both Worm and Worthy - by TREVIN WAX

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles with the dichotomy between our prior lost status vs. our position as new creations. He thinks that God previously regarded us as the lowest of the low, but the Bible never records God saying anything like this.  

But God does regard his creation as having value, because He sent His Son to save us. We have value because the Bible says so: 

1Co. 6:20 you were bought at a price.   

 

"Price" is timé, perceived value; worth (literally, "price") especially as perceived honor – i.e. what has value in the eyes of the beholder; (figuratively) the value (weight, honor) willingly assigned to something.

The price Jesus paid for us according to the value He assigned to us. We were never worms, no matter how we may have regarded ourselves as such.

-----------

The Battle for Grace Alone - by R.C. Sproul

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

In the article Dr. Sproul discusses the difference between predestination and pelagianism, and mentions a position half way, which he calls semi-pelagianism. 

He concedes that semi-pelagianism is not a matter of heresy, yet the very name implies a heretical stance. If it's not heretical, then why not call it semi-predestinationism?

Dr. Sproul seems to think that the "battle" is about the degree of corruption brought by sin, which is a framing based on the Calvinistic idea called "total depravity." However, Calvinists actually demand "total inability" to respond to the gospel, not "total depravity. " So, all Christians can consent to "total depravity" while differing regarding the sinner's ability to respond to the gospel. 

However, the issue isn't about the degree of corruption brought by sin (i.e., our ability or inability to respond to the Gospel), but rather, the nature of God's sovereignty. For Calvinists like Dr. Sproul, God's sovereignty must be viewed as having total control, dictating every outcome. The two ideas correlate but are not synonymous. God defines His own sovereignty, so we must grant Him the power to be sovereign and at the same time acknowledging that He created us with free will. It is not a binary, either-or situation.

A particular thing of note in the below excerpt is that there seems to be some difference between an eternal decree and foreknowledge, but Dr. Sproul does not explain or discuss it.  

And, there isn't a single Scripture quoted or even referenced in the entire article.

Lastly, the entire issue is actually irrelevant. None of Calvin's doctrines matter. People still need salvation, Christians are stilled called to holiness, fruitfulness, and worship no matter what one believes about Calvinism.

SACRED NAME OF GOD? or BLASPHEMY? - by R.H., July 2005

Found here. An interesting presentation.

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

I genuinely appreciate that many people are attempting to take a sincere religious position by honoring a sacred name for God, like Yahweh. I think it is being done somewhat in reaction against the organized Christian churches which are nothing more than painted sepulchres. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that such "sacred?" names originated in non-Israelite pagan cultures of the Ancient Near East. There is evidence that YHWH was the name of a god worshiped by neighboring races but there is no evidence that such a name was used by true Israelites in ancient times. From the historical evidence, it appears that the Edomites have given true Israelites one more fraud which some of our people have claimed with enthusiasm, even making it central to their religion. Here are some details of the history of the word YHWH.

Only Bad Calvinism Abandons Souls: The Story Behind a Missions Revival - by Ryan Griffith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author offers Andrew Fuller's critique of "high Calvinism." "High Calvinism" is a doctrinal position which is simply the logical conclusion of the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty, taken to the nth degree. 

Calvinism teaches "irresistible grace," which means that those whom God has chosen to be saved must and shall be saved. The author doesn't like that "high Calvinism" actually embraces this doctrine in fullness: If the elect are already selected to be saved then evangelism is irrelevant.

This conclusion is logical. But it's unbiblical. It's not unbiblical because failing to evangelize is unbiblical, it's unbiblical because Calvinism is unbiblical. Calvinism is in fact "bad Calvinism" if it actually holds to what it teaches.

The author should be sensible enough to come to this conclusion from Andrew Fuller's list of "six reasons to plead," which he quotes below. The list comprehensively explains why evangelism is biblically required. Which is a de facto refutation of Calvinism.

If  the elect are predestined, then "high Calvinism" ought not offend the author. If the conclusions of "high Calvinism" are repugnant, then the author ought to abandon the Calvinism that gives it weight. Calvinism of any flavor must regard evangelism, at least in theory, as irrelevant. Therefore a Calvinist who believes that evangelism must occur should abandon Calvinism.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only one Scripture. That's it. 

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

Teen girl speaking at a conference? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata has returned to our blog, and provides some more parsing of this verse: 

But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12).

This is a verse that has been subject to much abuse, and Ms. Prata adds to this. She writes about a teen girl giving a talk in church, adding to the list of sub-doctrines and rules:

Since the prohibition in scripture is against women speaking during church to a congregation (and by extension in parachurch ministries/conferences) teaching men or usurping their authority by exegeting scripture, I think the teen’s talk is fine.

Ms. Prata continues on, offering even more rules:

...it’s fairly clear that sharing thoughts or testimonies to an audience is fine.

A woman sharing knowledge, testimony, or expertise when not under ecclesiastical authority is fine. Or at church but not during the Sunday services, say, during a Saturday conference where the church becomes a venue. 

...A woman or teen standing in the place where scripture is exegeted during church services, even if she’s just giving announcements, is part of that slippery slope. 

Dear reader, take another look at 1 Timothy 2:12. Does the reader see any of these commands, provisos, or prohibitions in this short verse? No? Then how does Ms. Prata arrive at her endless list of rules?

Well, it's convoluted series of assumptions and false premises:

• Paul's letters to Timothy are deemed to be "pastoral." But Timothy wasn't a pastor.

• A "pastoral" letter therefore consists of instruction on how to be a pastor. But actually, this is a personal letter to Timothy containing a variety of advice, instruction, and doctrinal teaching

• Since the letter is presumed to be about how to be a pastor, it is presumed 1 Timothy 2:12 must be about Sunday morning church order. But Paul doesn't talk about church order until chapter 3. Chapter 2 is in fact general instructions about Christian conduct.

• If 1 Timothy 2:12 is about Sunday morning church order, then "woman" and "man" need to be changed to "women" and "men" in order to force 1 Timothy 2:12 into the congregational setting.

• Then, since most contemporary pastors are teachers and pastors are the boss, that makes teaching into an authority role. However, the biblical authority in the local church is not the pastor or teacher, but rather the elders (1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1-2)

Ms. Prata must squeeze 1 Timothy 2:12 through this gauntlet of assumptions in order to derive all these little doctrines and prohibitions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The biggest contrast in the upcoming election (other than democracy vs. "blood in the streets" fascism) - By Robert Reich

Found here.

Today Dr. Reich is more incoherent that usual. If he didn't have his bumper sticker slogans handy he would be completely unintelligible.

He wants to "save" Social Security for the umpteenth time. It's been saved before, but because rich people do bad stuff it needs saving again. And this time only more taxes will save SS. Tax increases always make things better.

Why The Unbiblical IHOP 24-7 Prayer Model Has to Go - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade has now written in excess of 20 "devotionals" about the IHOP debacle. Astonishing. Today he writes almost 1700 words, but 1520 of them are employed to simply rehash his previous "devotionals" about IHOP. That leaves only 177 words spent actually discussing the subject.

So let's examine his "biblical" case that the 24-7 prayer is unbiblical. For clarity, we have eliminated everything else he writes about.

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

Your Body Is Not the Temple, But THE Body Is - By Nicholas G. Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The authors are making a big deal out of whether or not our individual bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit or if it's the universal body of Christ. The authors want it to be a binary choice, either/or. It's not.

This is one of those intellectual exercises that really does not matter. If the community is the temple or if each individual is a temple (or if both are true) is actually irrelevant.

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

Why Is Good Friday Called “Good”? - by Karrie Hahn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We noted here that Jesus was not crucified on Friday, because that does not allow three nights in the grave. 

The author makes several Calvinistic doctrinal claims that just don't bear up. Contrary to the author's claims, the Father did not punish Jesus,  Jesus did not swap Himself for us, and He did not pay for our sins. In fact, the whole idea of Penal Substitionary Atonement is false.

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