Meme: "The United States will not let men steal trophies from women"

 A Leftist FB friend posted this bit of idiocy:

The simple and obvious response is that María Corina Machado gave her peace prize to President Trump to honor him. 

In addition, men completing in women's sports for championships and trophies has been happening at the behest of Leftists. This obviously denies women a fair playing field. This is the point of President Trump's quoted remark. 

Leftists approve of these men stealing trophies. Swimmer Lia Thomas:

Weight lifter Avi Silverberg:

If God Is Sovereign, Why Bother to Share Your Faith? - by Timothy Z. Witmer

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

The author is a Calvinist, so he believes in a set of peculiar doctrines known as TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The underlying assumption in all these is predestination. The centerpiece of Calvinism is that God has chosen all those who will be saved and there is nothing anyone can do about it, pro or con. So the author's purpose is to explain our obligation to evangelize in light of predestination, even though evangelizing is futile and makes no difference at all. 

As a doctrine, predestination fails because Calvinists assume it applies to everyone. It doesn't. It is our belief that in the NT only the very first of the early believers were predestined (the firstfruits), but we later Christians were added when we were saved (Ephesians 1:12). 

Thankfully, the author quotes several Scriptures, a welcome departure from the Scriptureless "Bible teaching" we are accustomed to seeing. But he will use terminology based on an assumption that we know what he means. For example, the author will use the term "sovereign" and its variants 16 times but never define the word.

Lastly, we note that Calvinists are always explaining Calvinism. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can talk about Calvinism. We think this is cultic behavior.

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

Jesus spilled His blood - why?

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

Making Sense of Praying With Faith - by Peter Witkowski

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is almost 1700 words, which means he has ample opportunity to explain his topic. But rather than the auyhor "making sense" of praying with faith, the result is mystifying and absolutely nonsensical. 

The author goes to great lengths to contrast praying God's secret will vs. praying God's revealed will. There is supposed to be some sort of difference in the way we pray, but we are unable to discern what that might be. He seems to be saying that we can rightly expect that God will answer prayers regarding His revealed will, but that we cannot expect this regarding His secret will. How these are different in practice, or where we find these concepts in Scripture, remain a mystery.

And, how does knowing this benefit us? What does it mean on a practical level? These also are mysteries.

Ultimately, if the reader expected to find a teaching on how to pray, he won't find it. If the reader wanted to know how to pray with faith, the author mentions the phrase only once without explaining it. If the reader wanted the Bible clarified, the author is only interested in explaining his doctrine.

This is author's sole intent, to explain his doctrine. That's what Reformed/Calvinist teachers do. They explain their doctrines. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can explain their doctrines. 

How do we know the author is Reformed/Calvinist? Easy. First, he begins his presentation with Reformed code words, the "means of grace." Second, he parses and categorizes his subject into compartments that appear to sound biblical, but they are simply inventions designed to fit the Bible into his doctrines. Third, he quotes go-to Scriptures that are always used by Reformists, in this case Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God.” Fourth, he approvingly quotes Reformists like Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and even Calvin himself.

But most importantly, the author completely fails to explain anything. If he did anything at all, he added confusion.

Confusion is the enemy's work. We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bolz Isn’t Enough: The Deeper Rot Inside the Charismatic Movement - by David Morrill

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Piggy-backing off of our recent post where Don Pirozok writes about corruption in the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation), we shall revisit the topic today with an excerpt from David Morrill's article on the same topic. 

We have examined Mr. Morrill's writing several times in our blog, mostly having to do with his "critiques" of worship songs. Invariably his writing is governed by undocumented statements, lack of biblical references, and guilt by association.

If the reader contrasts the tone and documentation between the two articles he will notice a profound and stark difference. Mr. Pirozok's article dispassionately explained the Bible and listed Bible references, while Mr. Morrill's article blasts away but contains no Bible explanation and no Bible references at all.  

Mr. Pirozok's article identifies specific issues and addresses them directly. Mr. Morrill's article is a generalized scorched earth indictment of an entire group of Christians, as if 65 million Pentecostal and charismatic Christians in the US (23% of protestant churches are charismatic) are all NAR-linked apostates. 

Mr. Morrill will continually conflate charismatics with NAR. We suspect this is purposeful.

Because Mr. Morrill's article makes no mention of the Bible, we must consider this to be bad Bible teaching. 

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

The Four Biblical Marks of Corporate Worship - by Jason K. Allen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We should note at the onset that the author is not here to tell us about worship, he's here to explain a proper Sunday church service according to his church tradition. For him, worship is not bowing before the King of kings, worship is the Sunday agenda. Worship is what the reformers told us what is permitted and not permitted.

This is the Regulative Principle of Worship, expressed by John Calvin this way:

God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.

This is the go-to definition that has been handed down to contemporary Reformed/Calvinist churches. Shockingly, the author will never quote this principle! This is a startling omission.

Lastly, we note that this article doesn't contain a single Scripture quote. Not a word. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Our Atonement Through our Lord Jesus Christ - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff first came to our attention a couple of years ago for his unwarranted certainty regarding his Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines. It's not that he's particularly arrogant, he's simply persuaded he's absolutely correct and anything else is heresy. That has earned him his own tag in our blog.

Today he discusses his doctrinal view regarding the atonement, once again with the absolute certainty he's correct. But he doesn't really explain anything, Of the 1300 words, 340 are devoted to the actual topic.

In actual fact, Jesus did not atone for our sins, He propitiated them. Mr. Ratliff will focus on Romans 5:11 which does not contain the Greek word commonly translated "atonement." This verse employs the Greek word katallagēn (reconciliation), not hilastērion, relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory...

A verse containing the correct word, hilastērion, is found here:

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood... [KJV]

Jesus' sacrificial death satisfied the Father's wrath. He propitiated for us by means of His blood which washed us clean. This is different than atonement, which is the covering over (Hebrew, kaphar) of sin. This means Jesus' propitiation is superior to atonement.

This propitiation (incorrectly rendered "atonement" in some translations) provides the means for reconciliation. Therefore, Mr. Ratliff not only misunderstands the atonement, he skips a step.

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

The Government of NAR Apostles and Prophets - by Don Pirozok

Found here. A very good article.

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

While the author focuses on the NAR, the problem of church leadership goes well beyond so-called apostles. Churches of every flavor have these same problems, and church leaders in non-NAR churches are falling like flies. 

The problem isn't NAR apostles so much as it is a Church that has left its biblical foundation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that makes apostles church leaders. Or pastors, for that matter. These five offices are gifts to the church, charged with the duty to raise up the saints to maturity of faith (Ephesians 4:11-15). That duty may imply some sort of leadership, but it's not required. However, it is certainly some sort of local ministry, because an apostle or prophet or evangelist cannot build up the church unless he is present in the church.

So the problems outlined by the author are spread throughout Christendom, not just the NAR. Many churches and denominations are operating without accountability, fidelity to Scripture, and/or with toxic or unbiblical leadership.

This is how churches and denominations fail, compromise, or fade into irrelevance.  

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

The Word of God is not "it" - 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.
----------------

How can I know God’s will? - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Kneale appears in our blog from time to time, and his teaching is invariably absent the Bible. Today he writes almost 1500 words, 400 of them a quote from a Confession, but only six from an unreferenced and misused Bible verse. 

On one hand, the author tells us that we can know and do God's will by studying Bible, but on the other tells us that God directs everything we do. This of course means that our choices aren't choices because they're predestined.  Which can only lead us to the conclusion that our choices don't matter because they are not choices.

He doesn't tell us where we find this information in the Bible, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Predestination and the remnant

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

Understanding the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - by Dave Jenkins

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is focused on refuting the Pentecostal doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the second blessing. We agree with him on this point, but he misses that being filled with the Spirit is the actual second blessing.

In a sense it's a matter of semantics. Pentecostals use the wrong descriptor for the second blessing, but non-Pentecostals use the wrong blessing for the right descriptor. 

Though the author biblically documents many of his assertions, the key conclusion he offers, that every Christian has the Holy Spirit and thus should not seek a second blessing, is not documented.

We have commented on some of the other writings of this author, and frankly, the below explanation is much better than others we have previously examined.

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

Renee Good’s Killing Has Unleashed MAGA’s Misogyny - by Jeet Heer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is astonishing on one hand, and predictable on the other. Astonishing is its raw, brain-dead bias, and predictable in its fidelity to The Narrative. 

As soon as Ms. Good was shot by law enforcement the Talking Points Generator got to work to craft the Leftist Narrative. The Left always wants to get a jump on the way an issue is viewed by quickly crafting their version of it. That version will be disseminated throughout the media landscape as quickly and thoroughly as possible. This serves to negate any competing characterization of the incident. Even when new information comes out later, the Narrative is preserved as "everybody knows this is what happened."

So the author is all set up to mock, accuse, and attack any statement or opinion that violates The Narrative, because The Narrative quickly becomes "common knowledge," and dissent from it is extremist, misogynistic, racist, et cetra ad nauseam.

This is the nature of Leftist agitprop. It's purpose is not to inform, provide facts, or add to understanding. No, it's purpose is to promulgate The Narrative.

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

Are Raised Hands in Worship Just Showing Off? - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a somewhat perplexing article. Dr. Piper is asked about a particular behavior and answers accurately and thoroughly, but he accepts the question's premise without examination. The presumption is that raising hands in worship is somehow controversial and ought to be examined.

There are church traditions where the musical worship is staid and unexpressive, and in fact any physical demonstration at all by the congregants is frowned upon as irreverent. It very nearly rises to the status of inviolable doctrine, which means if a person dared raise his hands in worship it would be scandalous, maybe even heretical.

But the basis of Dr. Piper's answer is public vs. private righteousness, and whether or not the worshiper is seeking the praise of men. He doesn't address that people might be offended, or the Matthew 18 process of how such offense is dealt with, or even any biblical exposition regarding the raising of hands. In fact, he quotes zero verses about raising hands.

Ezr. 9:5-6 Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God 6 and prayed...

Ps. 28:2 Hear my cry for mercy as I call to you for help, as I lift up my hands towards your Most Holy Place.

Ps. 63:4 I will praise you as long as I live, and in your name I will lift up my hands. 

Ps. 119:48 I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees. 

Ps. 141:2 May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.

Ultimately, the raising of hands is a thoroughly biblical practice that has been stigmatized by church tradition.

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

How Do I Know If I'm Called to Serve as a Pastor? - by J.V. Fesko

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

We have commented on J.V. Fesko's writing several times in this blog, most recently here. Too often, we have found him to be superficial and unnuanced. He seems to prefer regurgitating his doctrine while avoiding quoting the Bible.

But we're confused today. The below excerpt, pulled from a Scriptureless explanation, purports to tell potential pastors if they should take a job as a pastor. The reason we're confused is the author is cessationist (which is the idea that God no longer provides new revelation), yet he seems to believe that God will speak to the potential pastor as to whether or not he is called to the pastorate. 

This extra-biblical revelation is something the author needs to explain. 

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

The Sacraments and the Means of Grace - By Dave Jenkins

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

We have commented some of the author's articles here, here, and here. We have found him to be superficial and even dishonest when explaining his version of Christianity. 

In today's article the author attempts to explain his doctrine, "the means of grace." This is a somewhat odd phrase not found in the Bible. He offers this definition: "...the ways God communicates His grace to His people." So it seems God's grace is expressed through certain avenues, "...especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer..."

The author will repeat this idea of "the means of grace" over and over, connecting it to baptism, communion, and on occasion, sermons. This repetition gets to be a grind after while, especially since they are bare assertions, rarely documented with the Bible.

The first task a serious Bible study would want to do is undertake is to define "grace," which the author does not do. Yet he uses the term a dozen times. The Greek word for "grace" is charis:

preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

5485 /xáris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kaná ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.

God wants to be near us. He leans toward us without regard for our status. Grace seems to be God's primary motivation regarding His creation. We ask the reader to insert this definition each time the word "grace" appears, and you will soon discover that the author's usage of the word borders on ridiculous.

Regarding the Bible, the author does manage to quote a couple of Scriptures, but neither of them document his central thesis. He also cites four Bible references, but none of them proves what he wants to prove.

In essence, the author is regurgitating the doctrines of his church tradition. He uses many words but explains nothing. He's not teaching the Bible, he teaching his doctrines.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Wielding the sword of the Lord correctly - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author writes over 1000 words based on a misconception that Hebrews 4:12 is referring to the Bible. It's not. The “word” is the Greek word logos, preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.  

Logos is not the Bible, Logos is the source of the Bible. John tells us the Logos was made flesh (Jn. 1:1, 14). Logos is the articulated words of God, particularly represented by Jesus, the Word of God. 

If the writer of Hebrews wanted to refer to the Bible, he would have used the Greek word graphé, which is the written word. 

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

5 Ways Covenant Theology Applies to Everyday Life - by Sarah Ivill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

If someone wants an explanation of what covenant theology is, he won't find it in this article. If he wants to know how covenant theology *uniquely* applies to everyday life, he came to the wrong place. And, if a reader comes to this article with no knowledge of what a covenant is, the article will make no sense.

The author is writing with the expectation that her readers have prior understanding of the topic, yet she is not writing to deepen this understanding. Her explanations are bare and base. She is simply regurgitating a long procession of factoids.

The author names three covenants in her article:

• covenant of works
• covenant of grace
• covenant of redemption

She doesn't tell us what these are, because she assumes we already know.

Thankfully, the author does quote a couple of Scriptures, something we have discovered is rather rare among these Bible teachers. However, none of the Scriptures she quotes come to bear on the topic.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

On the Nature and Extent of the Atonement -- A Look at Paul's Doctrine of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 - Kim Riddlebarger

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author of today's article intends to explain the Calvinistic doctrine of "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that the scope of Christ's sacrificial death extends only to those God chose to be saved (the Elect.) 

Limited Atonement is one of of the five "doctrines of grace" represented by the acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

We are sorry to write about Calvinism again, but these largely useless doctrines are pursued with obsessive diligence by Calvinists. They are always teaching them. In fact, they will never teach the Bible unless they can explain some aspect of Calvinism. We call these doctrines useless because they simply have no application. No change to any privilege or obligation we have as Christians is affected by Calvinism.

And, the author writes almost 1450 words, yet no Bible verses are quoted. None. Zero. It continues to astonish us how these so-called Bible teachers can go on and on about what the Bible means but never quote it.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Tara Leigh Cobble, The Bible Recap, & D-Group - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley has appeared in our blog dozens of times, mostly for micro-dissecting 1 Timothy 2:11. When she is not examining every little detail about what women can and cannot do regarding church, she is one of the Doctrinal Police, continually scouting the spiritual horizon for heretics.

We at first thought she was a harmless, though mistaken, Bible teacher. However, we have come to the conclusion that she is not harmless. She is either unable or unwilling to honestly teach the Bible, preferring to interpret it via her doctrine, rather than obtain her doctrine from it.

Today she is evaluating the podcasts of someone named Tara Leigh Cobble, looking for instances of her not toeing the proper doctrinal line. She apparently found a problem, in Ms. Cobble's 8th episode.

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