Bad worship songs - "See A Victory"

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, See A Victory.

Video link.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is very nearly cultic behavior.

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

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

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

Pleading My Righteousness? - by Dan Crabtree

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

The author works hard to establish his premise. He goes to great lengths to document his ideas with Scripture and then lays out a well-reasoned process to reach his conclusion. But his entire foundation is built upon a false assumption, that Christians are not actually righteous. This premise is the only one he does not document, which creates the need for explanations, work-arounds, and ultimately, verse twisting.

The false ideas that impede the author are:

• We are still regarded as sinners
• We only have Jesus' righteousness
• Righteousness is imputed
• The OT accounts of David's righteousness come to bear on us

It's a common idea that we are "sinners saved by grace." But in actual fact this ought to be past tense - we were sinners but Jesus' blood cleansed us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). ALL unrighteousness. We therefore have no need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us because He already took care of our unrighteousness on the cross and made us new:

2Co. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 

 

Heb. 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our former self, the sinful nature, is to be abandoned in favor of the new life and true righteousness He has given us:

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.

So the author really misses the point with his explanation. And in fact he never really answers the question or even tells us why we should even be "pleading" righteousness at all. 

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

Predestination: God chooses us. We don’t choose Him - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata is back too soon, this time to provide some Bad Bible Teaching about predestination, the Calvinist's favorite doctrine. Yes, we've written a lot about predestination, but it's like wack-a-mole. So, we'll keep wacking.

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

Bad worship songs: Son of Suffering, by David Funk, Aaron Moses, Matt Redman, and Nate Moore.

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Son of Suffering.

Video here.

The Benefits of Bivocational Ministry - By Bryan Rigg

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

We wholeheartedly agree with the author. There are great benefits to bivocational pastors as the author well documents. 

However, his presentation is based on the unbiblical idea that churches are governed by CEO pastors with everyone else below him.

Churches are to be governed by a community of elders:

1 Peter 5:1-2 As a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings, and a partaker of the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is among you, watching over them...

In our view, the very problems for which the author writes are all caused by the historic but unbiblical leadership model. The solution is to embrace the biblical expression of church leadership, elders.

----------

Understanding Revelation: Who Are the 144,000? - by Benjamin L. Gladd

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The speculation about the book of Revelation has been ongoing for decades. Hal Lindsey was influential for us. We were among those who took Hal Lindsey's books as very nearly gospel. The Late Great Planet Earth had us scanning the headlines for the latest prophetic event proving the rapture was imminent and that the anti-christ was alive right now. 

At the time we thought it was just what Christians believed. We didn't know that there were other streams of thought. But despite its popularity, this end times scenario never really sat well with us. After studying the various proof texts for years and speculating on who the anti-christ might be, we began changing our views. 

This began when we started actually reading the proof texts in context. The convoluted time frame derived from cherry-picked verses, the speculation about how it all connected together, the contradictions, the theories, it all began to grate on us.

We have arrived at a different view these days, dare we say a more biblical one. It's simple and makes sense. Our view is that the rapture happens on the last day. All believers will live through a time of increasing trouble, culminating on the return of the Lord coming on the clouds. He will meet us in the air, and then continue on to earth to execute judgment. We discuss the rapture in detail here. We discuss the Last Days here. We discuss the 144,000 in detail here.

So for this article the author wants to tell us who the 144,000 are. This is a somewhat short article at just over 1000 words. The author barely quotes Scripture, just a couple of irrelevant snippets and a portion of one relevant verse. Yet he quotes John MacArthur, Buist Fanning, and G.K. Beale. He doesn't bother to even quote the subject verses. How does one teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

So let's quote them. Here's the first mention of the 144,000:

Re. 7:1-8 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea:

3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Re. 7:5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
Re. 7:6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
Re. 7:7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
Re. 7:8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

And the second:

Re. 14:1-5 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No-one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 

Re. 14:4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

With the actual verses before us, let's consider the author's presentation.

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

Picking Your Successor? - by J.V. Fesko

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

All of these described pitfalls are a product of the unbiblical CEO pastor leadership model. The pastor is the boss, the manager, the H.R. person, the window cleaner, and the snow shoveler. For too many churches, he's the guy who gets paid to do things so that the congregants don't have to. Everyone else will show up on Sundays, listen attentively to his sermon, write their tithe check, and go home. That's all that's expected of them, and that's exactly what they expect of church.

However, biblical church leadership is a team of spiritually mature men: 

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

It is the duty of this church leadership team of elders to train their congregants, not only for ministry, but indeed as their replacements. 

It is leadership malpractice to be a singular pastor over a church and not work toward maturing the flock and not equipping them for eventual leadership.

So the author wrestles with the problem singular leadership creates. The CEO pastor, happily perched on his pedestal, seems to have no motivation to train and raise up people into maturity of faith and ministry, in violation of 

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

Lastly, there isn't a single Bible verse quoted or even mentioned. Not one word. We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Personal Holiness, Christlikeness and the Doctrine of Imputation - by Mike Ratliff

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

We quoted only an excerpt, the part of Mr. Ratliff's article that was actually about the title. In this article he quotes Scripture at length but does not provide a single Scripture about imputation. This is distressing to us, since it is a substantial doctrinal claim that this imputation occurred. 

The doctrine descends from a single misinterpreted verse. Romans 4:6: 

Ro. 4:3-6 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works...

We quoted from the KJV because it to our knowledge is the only translation that uses the word "impute." This word, as well as the words "counted" and "reckoned," are the very same Greek word (to take into account, to make account of), used throughout Romans chapter four. It really is the key word, the lynchpin upon which the entire doctrine of imputed righteousness is built. 

In this passage Paul was in the middle of his argument regarding Abraham's faith. According to Paul, Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness [verse 3], as contrasted with a man who works and it is counted to him that he is owed his wages [verse 4]. 

Therefore, the man who works is owed his wages, and the man with faith is credited with righteousness as a gift [verse 5]. Is the man who works imputed with his wages? No, his wage is credited to him because he earned it. Is the man of faith imputed righteousness? No, righteousness is credited to him as a gift.

And like any gift from God, righteousness it is given for free and belongs to the recipient, just as the worker's wage is paid for his work and belongs to him. This is important, because we would not say, for example, that God "imputed" the gift of faith (First Corinthians 12:9), or teaching (Romans 12:7) to us, or that the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14) or eternal life (Romans 6:23) were imputed to us, would we? No, we actually possess these things as a gift.

Of course we already know that we cannot obtain righteousness by works:

Ro. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 

 

Ro. 9:30-31 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 

The use of the word "obtained" is telling. The Greek word is katalambanó, to lay hold of so as to make one's own, to obtain, attain to... We seize righteousness and own it by faith. Certainly Paul would not use such language if righteousness was merely imputed.

We think Scripture plainly teaches that actual, real righteousness by faith is immediately ours at salvation because of the completely efficacious blood.

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

Misinterpreting Romans 10:17 - Faith comes by hearing

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

Can My Silence Cost Souls? - Interview with John Piper

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

The short answer for Calvinists is no, our silence will not cost souls because God has already irrevocably chosen The Elect.

Either the Calvinists are really pushing predestination right now or maybe they never stopped focusing on it. It certainly seems to be their favorite doctrine. We aren't quite sure why, since it's completely irrelevant to Christian living. How we got to be Christians no longer matters. 

So Dr. Piper contributes to the Calvinist narrative by attempting to explain how predestination doesn't conflict with evangelism.

He fails.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Is a Liturgy, and Should We Have One? - by Jonathan M. Threlfall

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

This article is huge at over 2800 words, and happily the author quotes a fair amount of Scripture. However, none of it speaks to his thesis that we need the liturgy. Starkly, it's the only thing not documented by Scripture even though it's the topic.

In fact, the author is unable to make any meaningful distinction between liturgical and non-liturgical churches. All of his principles and good advice applies to either.

And yes, it is good advice, especially the admonition that worship must be the adoration of God. We like that.

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

At The Cross - original song using Suno

A couple of weeks ago I posted my best original songs, for the purpose of enlisting the help of some friends in order to pick out the best of the best. They are posted so that you may listen to them as well.

The first recommendation was At The Cross, which I wrote in July 2013. (Audio link)

I hope you enjoy it and share it.

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

Worship in the church - programming or true worship - Faceborg conversation

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

Friend:

I’ve been hearing much about “worship participation” recently and how much of a consumer mindset has begun to pervade Christian communities.

The insight is that what happens on stages on Sunday mornings is beginning to be more and more of a concert performance rather than an invitation to participation.

This is a conversation we should have, but it extends outward past mere participation.

What do you think the difference is between participation and partnership?

Can’t wait to hear your insights below!

Potter’s hands shaping a clay vessel on a wheel Dinesh D’Souza’s Case Against Calvinism, Answered - by Anthony Faggiano

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has appeared in our blog twice before, and neither time did he acquit himself well. The second link was about predestination, which is his principal theme today as well.

But what is the actual reason the author wrote? D'Souza is guilty of the cardinal sin: He disagrees with Calvinism. Calvinists will defend to the death their doctrines. In fact, that's all Calvinists talk about, their Calvinism. They will never, ever, discuss the Bible apart from making sure these doctrines are inserted. 

Calvinism is stark in its surprising non-utility. There is no Christian obligation or privilege that changes as a result of Calvinism. The need for salvation, holiness, obedience, worship, generosity... none of it changes because of Calvinism. The doctrines are totally irrelevant to Christian living.

He writes over 3500 words, even after we redacted an irrelevant introduction. Only about 300 are words quoted from the Bible. Most of them are Scripture snippets and not full verses, and one verse (John 6:44) is quoted three times.

As much as we don't want to, it is inescapable that we will need to follow the author into the weeds. We apologize for this. 

The author tries hard to justify his Calvinistic doctrine but fails spectacularly. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------

Ryder Cross, the latest country western rising star - is he real?

Most of the debate surrounding A.I. centers on people claiming A.I.'s work to supplement or even replace their own work. This of course is problem, particularly if such things are used as a basis to judge a person's performance, merit, or competence. But there's another, perhaps less discussed aspect, and that is the use of A.I. to create music and performers without anyone supplying any original work. A song completely made up by computers into a real-sounding band. The state of the art makes this possible, and it's truly astounding technology.

But it's troubling.

Ryder Cross has benefitted from this technology as the latest rising star in country music, with a Christian emphasis. First showing up sometime in March, he's heavily promoted on Youtube, Instagram, Apple music, Spotify, and Faceborg. He has the quintessential cowboy look and a great sound. Judging by the numbers, he achieved overnight success.

But he's A.I. And his songs are A.I. and I can prove it. 

Who’s Raking it in as the National Debt Explodes? - By Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Three years ago Dr. Reich wrote this: 

So if you’re worried about the federal debt — and there are some good reasons not to be..."

He is not writing to inform, explain, or clarify. Facts are of little relevance to Dr. Reich. No, he intends to bolster The Narrative, which is the Party line, the factoids and tidbits disseminated by Central Command so that leftist talking heads and agitat"ors can regurgitate coordinated talking points. 

So keep in mind that Dr. Reich has an agenda.

This PhD is either woefully maleducated, or a liar. Or both. 

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

Can We Get Over John Piper Already? - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" doesn't like Piper, obviously. But he's on both sides of the issue based solely on who he likes and who he doesn't like. For example, celebrity pastors are both good and bad (good if they're "apostle-like" and bad if they hang out with the wrong people). It's a moving target.

We should say that we are not fans of Piper, because we have examined several of his teachings, and we think his Calvinism is false. 

Lastly, "Publisher" does not write to explain or even edify. It's nothing more than a long, sour whine to no one's benefit.

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

Is new prophecy done? If it is, what about that verse in Acts? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It's only a couple of weeks ago we looked at Ms. Prata's shortcomings. Well, she's back.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching. There is no other way to describe it. Ms. Prata creates doctrines based on supposition and assumption, denies the plain words of Scripture, and invents an entire fantasy scenario in an attempt to find a workaround for Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter.

This is dismal. We have had reason to question Ms. Prata's Bible competence in the past, but we no longer need to do so. The matter is now proven.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Answering a discernment objection… - by Michelle Lesley

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

Michelle Lesley gets pretty nasty here. Her hostile responses to this man's statement seems to indicate that she doesn't like to be disagreed with. She disproportionately mocks, denigrates, and disrespects the man for no other reason than he finds a particular Bible teacher to be of benefit.  

Arrogant, condescending, and boorish. Not great qualities for a self-professed Bible teacher to possess.

Now, we do not intend to defend Tara Leigh Cobble. We've never heard her speak. We are here to examine Ms. Lesley's presentation. 

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