Jesus For the Left, Jesus For the Right - By Bob Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Johnson has been critiqued before in our blog. He is a self-proclaimed deist, a philosophy which apparently supplies him with the solution to all the religious and social problems. Why this might be so, however, is never explained.

He is one of those guys who simply writes something down and that makes it fact. He does this over and over in the below article. He proclaims things as mythical, false, or evil without so much as an explanation. He doesn't like Christianity at all, and makes sure you know that. 

Mr. Johnson is not a thoughtful writer. He simply has a vague idea about this or that and writes about them.

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

Theological Song Review: What a Beautiful Name - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We were introduced to this writer only a few days ago, and commented on his criteria for evaluating worship songs here. We decided there that his criteria, while useful, is largely subjective. 

That post also contained our evaluation of his first critique of a worship song, "Forever and Amen."

Below is his second song evaluation. We note as an aside that the author's title is "Theological Song Review." not "Biblical Song Review." The author makes a correct choice, since he will only manage to quote Scripture a single time. 

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

Sean Feucht: Church Hero or Villain - Evangelical Dark Web

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a grudging respect for Sean Feucht, and is generally pretty honest about it. The problem is, he cannot get past the idea that a person who is charismatic, or formerly associated with Bethel, might actually be a fruitful Christian. 

This is the plight of the "Doctrinal Police." For them, heresy is any perceived deviation from  their doctrine, and these heretics are not saved, they are wolves and deceivers. But Feucht violates this template, and as such, the author doesn't quite know how to deal with it.

But again, we appreciate his sober honesty. This is an all-to-rare occurrence with the Doctrinal Police.

Further, the author doesn't quote a single syllable of Scripture. Not one. He does reference a couple of Scriptures, but can't bring himself to quote any. We think a person who intends to evaluate doctrine should be able to quote Scripture.

We also should mention that we do not intend to defend Sean Feucht or Bethel, our focus is to examine the author's presentation.

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

Discerning Praise and Worship – A Primer - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are happy to find a somewhat thoughtful commentator on a subject dear to us: Worship and praise. We say "somewhat" because the author on one hand provides a generally useful, though subjective framework for evaluating worship songs, but on the other hand clearly has an ax to grind.

A "primer" is a basic course of instruction, particularly for young children learning to read. As such, we would expect the author of today's article to restrict himself to elementary concepts and simple terminology, so as to give the reader a bare foundation of understanding.

After we consider his primer, we will comment on his evaluation of a song called "Forever and Amen," by Cody Carnes and Kari Jobe. Here we will see the typical nitpicking and quibbling that often characterizes the "Doctrinal Police."

In addition, the author will write 1350 words discussing various aspects of worship music, and another 600 evaluating "Forever and Amen." However, he will only manage to quote a snippet of two Scriptures and reference one other. Unfortunately, this also is typical of the "Doctrinal Police."

We believe that current trends in worship music, though faulty at times, are valuable and timely. Many quality worship songs are being written, and this is a good thing. The rising eminence of musical worship in the Church is a signal of the revitalization of Christians and churches. We think the Church needs a fire placed in it. It is too comfortable and too locked into routine and tradition.

An important remedy in our view is revitalized worship.

Jesus spoke to a Samaritan women at the well, and told her about worship:

Jn. 4:22-24 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.

We can't help but notice what Jesus says the Father is seeking: True worshipers. If an evolving contemporary Christian worship music, including the recording of church bands and locally produced music, will contribute to the people of God becoming true worshipers, we're all for it.

Our criteria for a good worship song includes:

• 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 coherent allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is your boyfriend

We should note that our intent is not to defend any particular person or church mentioned by the author, neither shall we defend the song Forever & Amen or its writers, but rather we shall examine the presentation of the author.

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

Dominionist - The Government is Meant for Moral People to Run It - LOL By Anthony Wade

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

It is with a great deal of reluctance that we once again comment on another Rev. Wade screed. We have long since abandoned any hope that Rev. Wade would be a competent Bible teacher. He's not a exegete. He's not a thinker. He's not even a very good writer.

Rev. Wade is a leftist political operative. And an inept one at that. Yet he still enjoys a certain amount of access to discernment websites who publish his articles. It's astonishing that they would do so, but considering the low quality of many of these websites, we should not be surprised.

His reason for writing is what he always writes about: Dominionism. Nearly every article is about this. But he never gets around to properly explaining dominionism, why it's wrong, or how the ones he targets are Dominionists. 

Dominionism isn't political involvement. Advocating for candidates isn't dominionism. Running for political office isn't dominionism. Praying for America isn't dominionism. Patriotism isn't dominionism. Dominionism is the idea that Christians should take over government and society and install the Kingdom. 

So we are here today to document more of his foolishness for the primary reason that hopefully readers of this blog will be armed with the truth if they ever encounter a Rev. Wade article. 

Lastly, we will note that this is labeled as a devotional. But Rev. Wade explains no biblical precept, quotes no Bible verse (except for the opening Scripture), and does nothing to increase our devotion.

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

The Pronouns Preach: Lessons on the Glory of the Church - By Jim Eliff

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

We are delighted find a Bible teacher who makes an excellent point about an often-overlooked issue in the NT. The use of pronouns is important, because it tells us to whom Paul is referring in his letters. Too often Christians insert themselves into the narrative when they simply don't belong there. 

We find it particularly interesting that he focuses on Ephesians, since this letter is the source of some misunderstood teachings for the very reason Mr. Eliff describes. Though he alludes to chapter one, he doesn't discuss it, preferring to discuss chapter two. We suspect the reason he focused on chapter two is because chapter one is one of the sources of the predestination doctrine:

Ep. 1:4-5, 11 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ... 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined...

This is where predestinationists inappropriately insert themselves. If we were to follow Mr. Eliff's advice, we would pay careful attention to determine who Paul is actually talking about. We would discover that these verses are not referring to Paul's audience. Paul applies these verses to himself and his company:

Ep. 1:12 ...in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

So the predestined ones are "we" (those who were first to hope in Christ). "We," in Mr. Eliff's terms, are those “who were born Jews but are now believers.”  

In the next verse Paul turns to his audience:

Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. 

You also were included in Christ... When did this happen? ...when you heard the word of truth... The Ephesians were not predestined. They were included when they believed, as opposed to the Jews who came to faith because of predestination.

We would suggest that those who were first to hope in Christ were the "firstfruits," that is, the earliest Jewish believers, chosen to salvation. All subsequent believers are included in Christ when they heard the word of truth. We explain this in detail here and here.

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

Don’t Let ‘Discernment’ Give Doctrine a Bad Name - by TREVIN WAX

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We agree with the author on nearly every point he discusses. However, He quotes no Bible verse, explains no biblical command, nor does he apply any biblical precept with reference to the Scriptures.

Again and again we have noted in our blog the alarming lack of biblical documentation among those who would present themselves as Bible teachers. Our alarm continues even if we agree with what is written.

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

PAUL AND WOMEN OVERSEERS - by Dr. Eddie Hyatt

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have devoted this blog to the follies of certain political and religious persons who we discern are telling us nonsense. For the most part, this consists of leftists on the political spectrum, and certain reformists on the religious spectrum.

Dr. Hyatt is someone we would might otherwise agree with. But nonsense is nonsense, so we shall examine what he believes and make our determination.

Although there are five reasons listed here, only the first is an actual reason. The rest are generalized statements about women and culture that have nothing to do with the passage in 1 Timothy chapter three. 

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

What Are the Charismatic Gifts? -by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This Bible teacher doesn't quote a single syllable of the Bible. Not one. He references a few Bible verses, but cannot bring himself to quote them. This is our continuing complaint. We are convinced that in order to teach the Bible, one must present its contents.

Further, the author adheres to the party line regarding his case for cessationism, with little new information. But he also takes excursions into absurdity. And, he has several opportunities to explain some key assertions, but just moves on instead.

In fact, he briefly describes charismatic beliefs but does not comment on them. Rather, he simply dismisses them by explaining that certain Scriptures say the "supernatural gifts" have ceased. So if true, then the author owes us an explanation: Are charismatics deceived or making things up? 

We discuss these issues in detail in our cessationism series.

Lastly, the author's premise is to explain the "charismatic gifts," but he doesn't do that.  Indeed, it's a false premise, for all spiritual gifts are charismatic. That is, all spiritual gifts are empowerments of the Holy Spirit.

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

Letter to the editor: Government action can actually create prosperity - by Jerry DiMarco

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The letter writer thinks that government creates prosperity, and gives a few fallacious examples based on an absurd premise.

Before we get to his letter, we need to understand the simple fact that government has no money of its own. It has to obtain money from others, either by taxing it or by borrowing it.

Regarding taxation, it means there was a dollar bill in Joe Blow's wallet, and Joe was going to spend it. But he was deprived of the usage of his money because government took it and spent it.

Economically speaking, it makes no difference who spends the dollar in terms of the effect that dollar has on the economy. Whether Joe Blow spends it or the government takes it from Joe and spends it, it's still the same dollar. There is no amplifying effect. The government simply substitutes its own preferences and objectives for Joe Blow's as to where that dollar is best spent.

Regarding borrowing, the government is the big player in the loan market. It borrows inconceivable amounts of money, and spends enough to give every single person in the US more than $20,000. Every year. 

The money it borrows is obviously money someone else cannot borrow. In the past there has been enough money to supply every borrower with loanable funds, but that's no longer the case. Government borrows so much money that it impacts what other parties can borrow. 

In addition, the government must service the cost of interest on the money it has borrowed, which eats up a sizeable portion of the annual budget. This means the a substantial part of the money it sources from taxpayers goes right back out the door to pay interest on the debt. That amount in 2021 was $413 billion, 6% of the budget. And this is just paying the interest, because the government has not paid back principal on the debt since 1957.

Only a foolish person would think that government borrowing does not affect the economy.

There is actually another source of money for the government: Inflation. Only government can cause inflation, because government controls the supply of money. The number of dollars in circulation determines what each dollar is worth. That is, the total value of US currency divided by the number of dollars in circulation is the value of a dollar. 

Government has printing presses, and can simply feed paper through the machine and create money. That's all that's required. This is known as fiat currency. It's not backed by something tangible, like gold. Government simply declares it to be money and it's money.

Simple math is involved here. If the total amount of dollars has a certain value, adding more of dollars to the economy means each dollar is worth less. That's inflation, the devaluing of currency. But since the economy is not a closed system, small amounts of change in the money supply has had limited effect. But that's not what's been happening for the past couple of decades, or longer. Huge amounts of dollars have been added to the economy, and it has now caught up with us. 

It would now take more than $17 to buy something that cost a dollar 100 years ago.

One might think that devaluing the currency is a deliberate strategy. Inflation certainly can benefit the the government in several ways. First, because the outstanding national debt becomes effectively smaller, it can be serviced with less valuable dollars. Second, as the appetite of government increases, the taxpayer simply cannot pony up enough dough to satisfy government craving. So the government simply prints it, puts it in neat little bundles and hands them over to various government departments, crony corporations, foreign entities, and yes, to taxpayers, thereby avoiding the bad press that comes with raising taxes. 

So the government can keep itself afloat (at least for a while), by spending money it simply creates out of thin air. Through various manipulations, juggling of funds, raiding trust funds, giving out loans and grants, issuing bonds back by the "full faith and credit of the United States," and "creative" bookkeeping, it can keep the balls up in the air well enough to make it seem like everything is ok.

But eventually inflation starts kicking in with a vengeance, which is the inevitable result of increasing the money supply. Now the taxpayer feels it in his wallet. Everything is costing more. A lot more. The taxpayer, though not being taxed for what the government wants to spend, is still paying for it. That's why economists refer to inflation as an indirect tax. The government got to spend oodles of money without directly taking it from the taxpayer's wallet.

Eventually, inflation will be bad for government as well, but one can be sure that government will invent new ways to kick the can down the road, most certainly leaving a trail of destroyed families and shuttered businesses in its wake.

We say all of this to set the reader up for the below letter to the editor, where the letter writer extols the virtues of big, oppressive government.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Female pastor in 2 John?) - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley is hung up on women pastors. She has written extensively about them. However, we have discovered that she lacks the skills to write coherently about the issue. 

Her first mistake is to place the pastor at the top of the leadership structure of the local church, when it should be the elders (1Pe. 5:1-3).

Her second mistake is to accept the traditional explanation of 1Ti. 2:12 as being directed against women pastors when it is not:

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

Though she doesn't reference or quote 1Ti. 2:12, she does vaguely appeal to it as evidence: 

John would not have commended someone that Paul’s epistles rebuke. 

We discuss 1Ti. 2:12 in great depth here.

Her third mistake is to carry her doctrine regarding women pastors into 2 John, which colors her interpretation of that epistle. But if John is actually writing to a church leader who happens to be a woman, then her interpretation of 1Ti. 2:12 needs to be reconsidered. So she has it backwards.

Now, it should be clear that John would not be writing to some unnotable woman. John wrote commands to her. He wrote encouragements. He wrote warnings about false teachers. He wrote about doctrine. He wanted to see her in person, face to face. In fact, he wrote to her in a similar manner to what Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus.

For some reason she thinks Timothy and Titus were pastors, which is false (see her mistake number one, above), but dismisses the possible leadership of the "chosen lady" despite the similar manner of the letters to each. Or to put it another way, her reasons in favor of Timothy and Titus are the very same reasons against the "chosen lady." This is twisted thinking.

The "chosen lady" must have been someone important in that local church. Dare we say that she was a leader? We admit we are only making a supposition, but so is Ms. Lesley. We therefore give ourselves permission to speculate in a like manner.

If she was a leader, then Ms. Lesley would do well to rethink traditional doctrines about women in leadership.

And in fact, that is what we have done. Women leaders are not prohibited in the Bible. Women elders are, however. Women pastors? The Bible has almost nothing to say about pastors in leadership, let alone women pastors.
-------------------

End Times Deception Quiz - by Richard M. Sanders

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We previously commented on another of this man's articles, and found that he leaves much to be desired as a Bible teacher. As we poked around his site we found some troubling information, enough so that we would not consider him to be a competent Bible teacher.

The below quiz found on his site confirms our assertion. We took the quiz and failed, answering questions 2-7 with "Jesus." These were deemed incorrect. 

We shall save further comments for the end.

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

Providence vs. Miracles - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It wasn't too long ago we commented on another article written by Ms. Prata, who apparently is overly impressed with Phil Johnson, since she has posted again about his teaching. We don't wish to beat up on Ms. Prata (or Mr. Johnson), but we also cannot overlook the superficial and error-prone presentations she typically publishes.

Today she attempts to explain the difference between providence and miracles, and provides the common reformist approach. But she doesn't use the Bible. There isn't a single Bible verse or even a Bible reference in her entire article except for a tangential verse contained within the Johnson quote. This continually astonishes us. How can one be a Bible teacher but completely avoid the Bible?

As such, her article is simply a collection of assertions, speculations, and opinions. 

It seems to us that the distinction between providence and the miraculous is an artificial one, a distinction without a difference. Both are the result of God's work, only the means are different. Thus both providence and miracles are supernatural events.

Based on this, the statement "expect a miracle" is really no different than "expect providence." Both are the working of God through His power, whether He uses circumstance and natural means (Ac. 27:15) or does something not possible in the natural world (Ac. 8:39).

But more to the point, there is no Bible passage that describes this difference between providence and the miraculous. There is no biblical case to be made, only inference and supposition, which is probably why Ms. Prata avoids Scripture. 

We think the contemporary purpose of the doctrine is to deny charismatic beliefs. Attributing the work of God to providence neatly compartmentalizes God's actions into a manageable form while simultaneously denying the charismatic belief in the supernatural works of God active in the present day. 

Astonishingly, Ms. Prata will eventually admit that providence is indeed miraculous: I believe Providence is the greater miracle... We therefore wonder why she bothered to write.

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

What Is Irresistible Grace? - by Joel Beeke

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

These Ligonier articles are represented as trustworthy, but we have found cause to not trust them. We have examined various articles here, here, here, here, and here, and have been continually surprised at how lacking these teachings are. 

In the below article the author references a number of Scriptures, but manages to quote only two verses and one snippet, none which come to bear on his premise. He is able to quote statements of faith at great length, but not Scripture in any meaningful way. Again and again we are astonished at how it can be possible to teach the Bible without quoting it.

The author intends to explain irresistible grace, but fails. One might think that he would explain grace generally, but he doesn't even bother with that.

Most sad to us is the author's claim that understanding the doctrine of irresistible grace is sorely needed today. But he never tells us why this doctrine is so crucial. Why is it important to know grace can't be resisted? How does such knowledge come to bear on getting saved, becoming mature in faith, or living a life of holiness, obedience, and worship? What difference in our lives does this knowledge make?

The answer is, it doesn't matter. That's correct. These doctrines of Calvinism do not come to bear on living one's Christian life in any meaningful way. 

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

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.

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