Revelation, or Inspiration? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

With sadness we present another Elizabeth Prata article. Why are we sad? Because Ms. Prata is so self-assured in her error. It's one thing to have an opinion about the Bible, but it is entirely something else to proclaim it from the mountaintops as unassailable truth. This is what she does, and she does it time after time.

Like many in the infamous group we have deemed the Doctrinal Police, she does not like to be disagreed with or challenged. So it is with some surprise we find her actually answering a mild challenge to her position. However, her answer completely avoids the Scripture contained in the question, and she then wanders off in search of a point.

She does quote some Scripture, which is a happy departure from her usual practice. Unfortunately, they are well-worn cessationist proof texts.

Lastly, the title of the article is "Revelation, or Inspiration?" However, we will find she actually wants to discuss revelation vs. illumination.

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

The Office of Pastor Necessitates Maturity - by JOSH BUICE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is clear the author's premise is that the pastor is the singular leader of the local church, likely with an understructure of elders and deacons. But he goes back and forth between various terms (elder, overseer, pastor, shepherd) in such a way as to completely obscure not only the Bible's teaching, but also the very thing he's attempting to explain.

In the end the author never gets a grip on the differences between the words he uses to describe church leadership. His topic, maturity in leadership, does thankfully get discussed, but it's mixed in with a number of truly puzzling assertions.

Also, the author manages to quote only one Scripture.

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

Bethel’s Cory Asbury is a False Teacher and Should Be Avoided at All Costs - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Sadly, the Doctrinal Police too often go ballistic on supposed heresy, which unfortunately makes them suspect when there is legitimate heresy involved. If every little thing is "rank heresy," then when real heresy comes along, who will believe them?

But today, "publisher" goes even farther. In debunking this supposed heresy, he engages in a heresy himself, Nestorianism.

Why does he do this? Because the Reformed branch of Christianity believes in impassibility, which teaches that God's character is not subject to passions, emotions, or feelings. So in an absolute sense, then, Jesus the man must be separated from Jesus the third Person of the trinity in terms of Him being "vulnerable."

We should say that we do not intend to defend Cory Asbury. We are going to examine the author's statements.

A Primer on Spiritual Gifts - by KEVIN BAUDER

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

A primer is a basic-level introduction to something, especially for children first learning to read. Thus we would expect that the author would provide us with some elementary information on the spiritual gifts. He does not do that, though he writes over 900 words. And, he can only manage to quote a single Scripture. 

This is the state of Bible teaching today, unfortunately.

Further, we don't think people should teach about things they don't believe, and particularly in the author's case, what they don't understand. In fact, what follows is not teaching about the spiritual gifts at all. The author can barely bring himself to mention them, and does not explain any of them.

Ultimately, the author tells us it's really not worth the bother to understand the spiritual gifts. It's not as important as serving in the church. His attitude is, go ahead and serve, and maybe a spiritual gift might come to bear, but don't count on it.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.

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

Seven Mountains Heresy on Steroids - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Reverend Wade makes yet another appearance in our blog. This article is typical for him, and it may even be worse than usual. He utilizes the same techniques over and over:

• Undocumented claims
• Inflammatory rhetoric
• Bible twisting (when he bothers to quote Scripture)
• Misrepresenting the statements of his opposition
• Wild unrelated tangents
• Biblical ignorance
• Stereotyping
• Making inferences from innocuous statements

This is an extremely frustrating read. Rev. Wade expends 1633 words (excluding quotes) to refute Joseph Mattera. The thing is, maybe there is something of concern regarding the NAR. Maybe Mattera is off base, a false teacher, or a heretic. But Rev. Wade is not up to the challenge of explaining it to us. If there is a problem, we cannot discern it from his writing.

As an aside, Rev. Wade has demonstrated a hatred of displays of patriotism from his theological adversaries. He seems to think that Christians who love their country are being unbiblical, but he never specifies any Scripture that tell us this. He also blames this on the NAR, because they're supposedly "Dominionists," another claim he never demonstrates.

Christian patriotism is not a NAR invention. "My Country Tis of Thee" was written in 1831, which is a patriotic song addressing God directly. It includes the verse

Our fathers' God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King!

"Battle Hymn of the Republic" was written in 1861. "America the Beautiful" was written in 1893. All contain beautiful statements of God's glory, entreaties for His favor, and even statements of doctrine. American patriotism is a long-held tradition.

And there's some verses that contradict Rev. Wade's opposition to Christian patriotism:

Ps. 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.

Ps. 46:10 “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”

Ps. 66:7 He rules for ever by his power, his eyes watch the nations — let not the rebellious rise up against him. Selah

Ps. 72:11 All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him.

Ps. 72:17 May his name endure for ever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed.

Is. 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.

We should note that we do not intend to defend the "NAR" or Joseph Mattera. We want to examine Rev. Wade's scattershot screed.

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

Modern “Miracles” vs True Miracles Recorded in Scripture - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This may be one of the worst explanations of the purpose of miracles we have ever read. We are not trying to be hyperbolic. The author completely fails to teach the Bible in any useful way. Almost every complaint we have issued in the past regarding supposed Bible teachers, discernment ministries, or the "Doctrinal Police" applies to this article:

• Little or no Scripture quoted
• Undocumented assertions
• Misinterpreted doctrine
• False teaching
• Presumption 
• Misrepresentation of the Bible
• Omission of key facts

The author clearly has an underlying agenda, and that is to refute those who believe in the continuing miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in the Church. But he never does, nor does he deliver on his promised premise in the title.

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

THE MONTANIST CONTROVERSY - Wind Ministries

Found here. A very interesting perspective regarding the early church.

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

TESTING THE PROPHETIC SERIES

In the 2nd century, in an area known as Phygria (present-day Turkey), a man named Montanus had been recently converted to the Christian faith. Asterius Urbanas, who wrote about the Monastist movement, described Montanus as a man with “excessive lust of his soul after taking the lead”. Montanus wanted to be the leader. In meetings, Montanus would become overwhelmed by some spiritual influence and he would prophesy. Eventually, he drew a number of people away from the churches in Phygria and they began calling themselves The New Prophecy movement.

Montanus had identified two women, Maximilla and Prisca. He convinced these women to leave their husbands through a prophetic word. Both women became integral to the New Prophecy movement. For a time, Montanus attracted the support of Tertullian, a highly respected church father of the time. This lent an air of credibility to the New Prophecy movement. Initially, it was hard to deny the attractiveness of what was happening in Phygria. They were theologically orthodox, and many were become quite passionate about the Christian way. Montanus emphasized a strict ascetic discipline as the path to spiritual maturity.

The Montanist claimed direct descendance from the prophets of the New Testament. They saw themselves as carrying on the function of the prophetic office in line with Agabus, the daughters of Philip, and two early church prophetic figures; a woman known as Ammia of Philadelphia and a man respected as a prophet named Quadratus.

PS: A final note on tax day - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Marxists need a bad guy, and that is always a person who has more money than them. Dr. Reich intends to create discord, greed and envy based on money. Thus his article is not to inform, but to agitate.  He's an agent of the political Left, with an agenda to promulgate The Narrative in order to foment revolution.

He'd prefer to have people vote themselves into socialism, but be assured that the typical Marxist has no moral problem with bloody revolution, as we saw in the 2020 summer riots. This is the continuing history of Marxism, where only the methods have changed, but not the goals.

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

Deaconesses and Female Deacons -Michelle Lesley

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

As is typical for Ms. Lesley (and many of those we call the Doctrinal Police), she hardly quotes Scripture. We are continually astonished at how these teachers can write thousands of words about the Bible but can barely bring themselves to quote it.

For today's post, we think Ms. Lesley's problem is not necessarily her bad doctrine, but rather, her trust in bad translation. It seems she thinks that we should be just as confident in the translators as Scripture itself. But translators are subject to bias, cultural and political understanding, and tradition.

We do not think translators are dishonest, they are simply products of their environment and training. Generally, they do a difficult job pretty well. But not perfectly. Especially when we consider their work on 1 Timothy 3; what they tell us the Greek means borders on malpractice.

Will will demonstrate below.

Also, we note in passing the redundancy contained in Ms. Lesley's title.

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

Why we lift hands, and why we should.

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.

Did Jesus drink the cup of the Father's wrath?

Excerpt found here. 

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

There seems to be a lot of confusion and bad teaching regarding Jesus' sacrificial death. We have frequently commented on some of these errors. Therefore, we have made it a priority in our blog to examine the errant teaching regarding this.

In this excerpt, Ms. Lesley makes a couple of assertions:

Christ carried our sin. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree… (1 Peter 2:24). There’s no way we could begin to fathom what it was like for Christ to carry every single sin of billions of people in His body. But He didn’t just have the weight of that sin on His shoulders, He also propitiated God’s wrath toward every single one of those sins. God poured out the cup of His wrath for our sin and Jesus drank every last drop of it. 

So in Ms. Lesley's view, 

1) Christ bore our sin, and, 

2) Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath. 

Will all Israel be saved?

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.

God Desires That ABSOLUTELY NONE Should Perish? - EDITED BY: RM Kane

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

This author has a particular point of view as a Calvinist, which we understand, but simply pronounces his belief as self-evidently true. His interpretation of the subject verse is pulled out of thin air, without regard for the words used or the thought being communicated.

Through this passage Peter is talking about scoffers [2Pe. 3:3]. They were mocking the idea of Jesus coming again [2Pe. 3:4]. He then notes the eternal nature of God's existence [2Pe. 3:8], which means God is not slow in keeping His promise [2Pe. 3:9].

It is important to note that God is waiting for something, which brings us to the subject verse.

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

Trying to Excuse the Idolization of Nationalism - By Anthony Wade

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

We can only take so much of Rev. Wade's flame-throwing, so today we are just going to deal with two excerpts. 

Rev. Wade is obsessed with the NAR. He cruises Charisma News just looking for targets, then blasts away at them for offenses, imaginary, supposed, misread and inferred. Today he levels his sights on Joseph Mattera.

We should note that we do not intend to defend Mattera or the NAR.

Strangely, this "Reverend" rarely quotes Scripture. He has a lot to say about what proper beliefs should be, and any violation, perceived or real, unleashes his wrath. But he never documents his claims. He spouts rhetoric in a stream-of-consciousness mode, repeatedly making various claims as if they were unassailable truth. 

Lastly, we should remind the reader once again that Rev. Wade is a political leftist, which is the principal reason he objects to the idea of "Christian Nationalism." 

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

God’s Sovereignty and Glory - by Derek Thomas

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have been on the lookout lately for someone who can coherently explain God's sovereignty as it relates to election. A previous post examined a failed attempt to explain. Here's another. 

The author we are examining today basically assembles a word salad. He blows the opportunity to explain anything. Truly, there is no elucidation here, just a series of assertions with a random tangent or two thrown in. He completely sidesteps the issue.

The thing that Calvinists and reformists seem to have difficulty with is the division point between what is pre-ordained and what isn't. By that we mean, a Calvinist will always assert that God did not create or cause sin, that the unsaved are choosing to sin by their own free will, and that the devil chose to rebel, etc; but on the other hand will deny the other side of the coin, that people have free will in the salvation process.  

This means that Calvinists accede to free will, at least on the sin side, because they simply can't let God be the author of evil. But they are unable to cite the verses that speak of this delineation.

The Calvinist wants to interpret the nature of God through his own definitions and finds tension with the violations of his definitions. So the Calvinist needs workarounds and complicated explanations. He creates a system of rules, precepts, and terminology that sound high minded and sophisticated:

• evil as a privation of the good, 
• Evil is a matter of ontology (being).
• contingency of second causes 
• God is the “first cause” of all things, but evil is a product of “second causes.” 
• the proximate cause is one thing, and the remote cause another.

This is the process of systematic theology, which at times is barely distinguishable from nonsense. 

Our position is that God is completely sovereign, and knows every detail of everything that has happened and will happen, everywhere. But sovereignty is not control. He is God, therefore He decides His sovereignty on His terms. Sovereignty does not come to bear on free choice, simply because it is God who decides what His sovereignty is and how it operates. 

God certainly can know everything and there still be free choice in man. He has this ability. These are not the binary equations Calvinists suppose they are.

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

Essential Doctrines - Gabriel Hughes - WWUTT.com

This meme purports to tell us essential doctrines needed for salvation. None of this is referenced with the Bible, however.

Logical Fallacies - Churchwatch Central

 Found here. A helpful list, though a bit ironic. The website where this is found engages in some of the fallacies quite often. We shall make a post about that here. 

Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible - by Timothy Berg

Found here. An interesting article.

------------------ 

The most widely read English Bible translation has sprouted a series of fictions about it. It’s time to prune them.

Finding praise for the 1611 King James Bible (KJB) is not hard. It is “the single most influential book in the English language and arguably the greatest work ever completed by a committee” according to Hannibal Hamlin and Norman Jones in their edited book marking the 400th anniversary of the KJB. Showing just how influential it has been on our language, renowned linguist David Crystal traces hundreds of expressions it cemented into the English mind while Angelica Duran, English professor at Purdue, has edited a book arguing that the KJB transcends English, rising to the level of a key text in world literature and achieving a global impact.

All this praise is warranted. But when a book blossoms into such a literary lotus, myths also begin to sprout. Grains of truth rendering them plausible grow into weeds of fiction. Blocking the light of contrary facts and pilfering life-giving nuance, truth eventually withers. The following are seven myths about the KJB that now need pruning.

Myth 1: The KJB isn’t copyrighted

Did Jesus satisfy our legal obligation? Did He pay our debt?

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.

40 Years of the Reagan Revolution's Libertarian Experiment Have Brought Us Crisis & Chaos - By Thom Hartmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

As the reader will discover, Mr. Hartmann has no idea what libertarians believe. He doesn't understand the Reagan phenomena. He doesn't know anything about what motivates his ideological opponents.

Libertarianism as a group has little influence on government. They're numerically small. And, libertarianism is not a governmental system, it is a philosophy regarding the exercise of power as it relates to personal liberty. 

Also, almost none of the people he mentions are libertarian. We haven't had a libertarian government for 150 years. Nowhere in the world are there enough libertarians in elected office to affect the possesses of any government. So to blame our present problems on a philosophy that does not wield the reigns of power in this country is puerile.

It's people like him who hold the power in our government. The Bidens, Pelosis, Schumers, and AOCs of government are the ones who are responsible for our current state. They are in the majority, and with brief exceptions, have been in the majority for the last hundred years.

They are to blame, not libertarians. They have made the decisions, cast the votes, and spent the money. They are the ones who emptied the nation's coffers, created unrest, fomented discontent, and pushed people into groups that are then pitted against one another.

Not libertarians.

But the real problem here is that Mr. Hartmann is a doctrinaire leftist, using all the agitprop techniques he has at his disposal. His article is not written to inform, but rather to further the leftist agenda. That is his only goal, to manipulate opinion, to sway the minds of the uninformed, and to repeat the same bumper sticker slogans day after day.

Once we understand this, it all begins to make sense. With the blizzard of assertions and factoids, the average person simply cannot keep up with and refute each one. And tomorrow will be a new day, with the exact same blizzard of falsities and invented history repeated as if they're documented fact. 

So refuting people like him is a waste of time, because he'll wake up tomorrow morning, sit down at his computer, open up his copy of Leftist Talking Points and dutifully type them into his word processor, just like he did today and yesterday and the day before.

So, we will rebut Mr. Hartmann for as long as we are able to hold up against the rhetorical onslaught.

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