Unclear Evangelism Leads to Unclear (and False) Conversions - by John Lee

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

The author is pastor of a baptist church in California. His church website has one of the most detailed statements of faith we have ever read. From it we were attempting to ascertain the author's doctrinal perspective, and it is definitely Calvinistic. From the statement of faith:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

This is textbook Calvinistic jargon, with their typical emphasis on Election. So the reader knows, this is the doctrine that God long ago chose who He would save.

Why is this relevant? It's simple. 

First, the author writes about the need for effective evangelism, which suggests that evangelism techniques are somehow relevant to people getting properly saved. Yet the church he pastors believes that God has already chosen the saved.

We acknowledge the commands of Scripture regarding preaching the Gospel. Nevertheless, we simply note the obvious: Evangelism, whether properly done, done poorly, or not done at all, has no effect on who will get saved. If God has chosen, then nothing will change that.

Second, the author bemoans his altar call experiences as if they were not genuine in some way. He doesn't really tell us at what point he was saved, but it seems that at least one of these experiences was real. 

He acknowledges that salvation is "the miraculous work of God’s Spirit," but seems certain he is saved. And this is crucial. He doesn't know. No one knows, only God. The author may be a false convert even now. 

Many Christians who persevered for decades and bore much fruit of the Spirit have fallen away. Many mature believers, theologians, and pastors have stumbled or wandered and have never returned. Probably every one of them thought of themselves as certainly saved. But apparently they were false converts. The fact of the matter is, no one can be secure, simply by thinking he's been properly evangelized, discipled, or has a long history in the church.

This of course means the author's presentation is entirely irrelevent if he were to be consistent with his doctines.

Lastly, the author does quote snippets of several Scriptures, but none of them are about evangelism. None of them are illustrative of "clear conversions." 

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

The spirit of witchcraft vs. Holy Spirit freedom

This is going to be direct and possibly offensive. 

The spirit of witchcraft is operating when there is

• Seeking position and false humility
• Flattery and a critical spirit
• Form of godliness and secret debauchery
• Generosity with resentfulness
• Bible knowledge and fruitlessness
• Bible knowledge without mercy
• Discernment without love
• Seated with Christ with arrogance and presumption
• Rebuking the devil without holiness

Christians: You've Been Lied To... The Forbidden Knowledge Series - by Rev. Valerie Love

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

The author is a self-described "Christian witch." What exactly is Christian about her religion? She claims to know and explain the real Jesus, which consists mostly of rejecting every historical and biblical claim about him. Basically her religion name-drops Jesus but in every other way is indistinguishable from paganism. 

We mean no disrespect to the author, but we require more than her word about what she espouses. She will make many claims, but document none of them. So, what we will read below is nothing more than undocumented opinions about some other dude named Jesus.

Lastly, despite the title, the author will identify no lie. What she does do is to point out things she disagrees with, but does not explain how they are lies.

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

Hitler didn't start with camps - faceborg memes

A Leftist faceborg friend posted this:



Transcript: Hitler didn't start with camps, he started with:

• Making Germany great again
• Banning books
• Targeting the press
• Blaming immigrants
• Creating enemies from neighbors
• Defunding the arts
• Stoking fear of outsiders
• Demonizing educators

Sound familiar? Or should I type louder?

****

Actually, we don't need him to type louder, he should type more rationally.

Flower Power: T.U.L.I.P. Analyzed and Applied - by Rut Etheridge III

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a somewhat peculiar approach to his Calvinism. He doesn't so much explain his doctrines as much as he assumes them. With this assumption he wants to explain how the Calvinist should respond and live in keeping with Calvinism.

That's what Calvinists always do: Explain Calvinism. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible without explaining Calvinism. 

The author only manages to quote two irrelevant Scriptures in this entire article. We therefore must deem it Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Leadership and Service in Christ’s Church - by Dennis Johnson

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

The author is a cessationist, which means he believes the "supernatural" activities and gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for today. His entire thinking process is colored by this, so much so that he uses words incorrectly, overlooks key Scriptures right in the middle of passages he references, and teaches more to his tradition than he does the Scriptures.

In addition, the author repeatedly uses the Christian vernacular "Word" to refer to the Scriptures. This is a continual irritant to us, because the "Word" is not the "Scriptures." We will explain below.

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

Bad worship songs: Elohim - Bethel Music, Aubree Archibeck

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, Elohim.

Video link.

Government prosperity

Introduction

It seems there are many who believe that the measure of a successful economy is how much money government has and how much is spent. The government spends so much money it could give every single person in the US more than $20,000. Every single year:

The federal government is projected to spend roughly $7 trillion in fiscal year 2026, making it the largest single entity of spending on Earth.

The numbers involved here are colossal. $7 trillion, for all practical purposes, is an inconceivable amount. So much so that other colossal numbers pale by comparison. This quote attributed to Everett Dirksen (a former congressman and senator) illustrates the concept:

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

These kinds of numbers have a numbing effect on the mind, leading many people to simply choose to not think about it.

Stop Trying to Discover Your Spiritual Gift. Start Serving the Church - by Alistair Chalmers

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

On one hand the author acknowledges spiritual gifts, but then seems to dismiss them in favor of just volunteering to serve the church with what you're good at. In doing so the author does his best to avoid some uncomfortable Scriptures.

The author never does manage to actually explain what spiritual gifts are. So, we shall do the author's work for him. "Spiritual gifts" in the Greek is pneumatikos charisma, of the spiritual realm, and, empowerment. The two words appear together only once in the Greek text, in Romans 1:11: 

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...

charisma hymin pneumatikon
    gift      to you    spiritual

but the connection between the two is clearly presented in Scripture. Every spiritual gift is a spiritual empowerment. 

This is quite different than a natural skill or ability. While it is certainly true that a person's natural ability might give a hint of a spiritual gift, a spiritual gift is a notably a supernatural endowment. 

It is clear that some of these spiritual endowments make the author uncomfortable, because they are unnecessarily supernatural. The reason is, the author is a cessationist who doesn't believe in prophecy, tongues, words of knowledge, healing, or miraculous powers. Yet all these are listed as gifts. 

So rather than engage these uncomfortable things the author either doesn't mention them or glosses over them. Though he manages to quote a few Scriptures, he doesn't quote any part of the verses that mention spiritual gifts.

We must therefore regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why I'm a Calvinist - by Kyle Borg

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is colored by his Calvinism to the point where he cannot see or understand what the Scriptures clearly teach. In the one instance he actually recognizes a contrary perspective he does not discuss it.

He begins with Dinesh D'Souza but never responds to his claims. Rather, he just moves on to spout his Calvinism. That's what Calvinists always do. They never teach the Bible unless they can include their Calvinism. Calvinism is their bottom line, and it must be continually taught, reinforced. reiterated, and restated.

This is very nearly cultic behavior. It is certainly Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Will Christians Really Judge the World? - by Alistair Chalmers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

On the whole this is a good presentation, which is the first time we are able to say this about Mr. Chalmers. He explains the topic well, uses the Scriptures correctly, and even reaches a proper and edifying conclusion. 

Except on a couple of points, where his Calvinism/Reformed doctrine creeps in. Let's take a moment to examine those two items.

First, he writes,

"For those who are in Christ, the final judgment is not a trial to determine whether Christ has paid enough for our sins, the gospel has already answered that question." 

Jesus did not pay for our sins. There is no Bible verse that says such a thing. Rather, he paid for us: 

1 Cor. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 

1Pe. 1:18-19 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

1Ti. 2:5-6 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

There was no exchange. No bargaining. Nothing changed hands. Jesus didn't pay anybody to redeem us because no one was owed anything. Paying for our sins is not a concept found in the Bible.

Jesus' death was not financial, it was sacrificial.  

We discuss this in detail here.

The second issue is this:

"We are sinners who deserve judgment. And yet the Judge entered his own courtroom. The one who will judge the living and the dead came into the world and stood condemned in the place of sinners. At the cross, Christ bore the judgment his people deserved." 

Jesus' death was not a legal transaction. There is no courtroom where evidence is presented, and there is no presumption of innocence. There is no prosecutor, no jury, and no defense attorney. 

There is no verse in the Bible that tells us that Jesus walked into court and took our place. None. Jesus did not substitute Himself for punishment, for indeed, no legal jurisdiction would allow such a thing. 

Jesus did not die in our place. Rather, He gave His life for our sins:

1Pe. 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

Ga. 2:20 The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Ep. 5:2 ...just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1Ti. 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men...

Tit. 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness...

"For" in all these verses is huper, which never means "in the place of." Huper means on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning. It was for our benefit He endured the cross. It was for our sake His blood was spilled. 

Nor was Jesus punished for our sins. He died to spill His blood, for "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). The blood itself is completely effectual:

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins... 

 

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

Jesus' sacrificial death alone is sufficient to satisfy the Father's wrath. There is no need or reason to punish Jesus in addition.

Therefore, 

• Jesus' death was not a legal proceeding.

• Jesus' death was not financial. 

• Jesus' death was not substitutionary. 

• Jesus' death was sacrificial. 

We discuss this in great detail here.

If the reader is able to keep these truths in mind, the article will be of benefit.

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

Do We Have Free Will? - by Scott Christensen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles unsuccessfully with the contradictions caused by his Calvinism. The basic problem, unresolved by any Calvinist, is that if God chooses then we did not choose. That's it, the bare, unvarnished equation. But Calvinists like the author wants to hold mankind responsible for choices mankind did not make, for the purpose of absolving God from bad outcomes. 

It requires quite of bit of verbal gymnastics to attempt to escape the Calvinistic trap, a futile thing no matter the rhetorician.

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

What is the gift of speaking in tongues? - Gotquestions.org

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

Gotquestions is supposed to be a provider of Bible explanation. It represents itself as a sober, unbiased source of truth. But in fact it has a definite doctrinal tilt toward Reformed/Calvinist and cessationist. 

For the serious Bible student, Gotquestions is not a trustworthy source.

We see that quite clearly in Gotquestions' explanation of tongues. They make absolutely no effort to explore the charismatic doctrinal viewpoint at all.

We are therefore happy to assume that role and explain the other side.

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

What Is the Job of the Pastor? - by Collin Hansen, Jonathan Leeman

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

The author actually explains the job of the elders, not the pastor. He wants very badly for the two to be the same, because he wants the pastor to be a leader, maybe even the chief leader, as is practiced in most churches today.

But biblically speaking, pastors aren't leaders or even teachers. They are shepherds. They care for the flock. They comfort, encourage, restore, counsel, and reconcile. They might teach or lead, but the Bible doesn't tell us this. 

In fact, the author will never explain biblical pastoring. He will never use the word "shepherd." 

The bottom line is, the author cannot bring himself to upset the apple cart. The traditional church with a CEO pastor is a given for him. He either likes it this way or isn't willing to challenge it. He seems to know better, but unfortunately he is part of the system and cannot unplug from it.

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

We All Want More of God - by Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Challies is Reformed/Calvinist, but he really doesn't tell us anything about his tradition or how it comes to bear on the topic. He makes numerous assertions about this, seemingly pulled out of thin air. He makes many vague, uninformative statements.

It's mystifying, really. 

He seems to possess a knowledge about things but never tells us what it is. But his presentation is premised on this. Further, he neither appeals to or quotes the Bible, except to assert that "Reformed theology is experiential, but crucially, it constrains itself to the experiences the Bible permits." In contrast, he presents the opposition perspective in the most unflattering way, tilting the debate toward his preferences. 

Further, Mr. Challies believes that having the desire for more of God can be dangerous, but Paul himself writes of his longing: 

Phil. 3:10-15 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Ph. 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining towards what is ahead, 14 I press on towards the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenwards in Christ Jesus. 

Paul had a deep longing for more, but notice his conclusion: 

15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things.

The longing for more of God is a function of maturity. The Bible contradicts Mr. Challies. 

Lastly, he neither quotes nor references the Bible. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

How Trump Has Lowered the Wages of American Workers - By Lawrence Wittner

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is Leftist, and he does what all Leftists do, spout The Message. The Message is the daily talking points distributed to media talking heads, commentators, and polemicists. The Message is not intended to inform, explain, or clarify. Its sole purpose is to facilitate The Agenda. 

The Agenda is the dismantling of the American system. The reader should keep this in mind.

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

What Is Predestination? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul does what all Calvinists/Reformists do, explain Calvinism. They will never explain the Bible unless they can teach their doctrines. 

In addition, Dr. Sproul writes 950 words about his doctrines, but not a single Bible verse is quoted. Not one. He doesn't even provide a Bible reference. 

Astonishing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Faceborg conversation: How the church is run, or how to run in the church

Posted on Faceborg:

Me: I don't need to know how my church is run, I need to know how to run in my church.

Elijah: Love the syllogism, the conclusion of which is integrally linked to the initial premise.

I don’t know how everything in my car runs, but I do know how to drive my car. If my car doesn’t work, I take it to Mike: he knows how it runs. There is a dynamical relationship between authority and those they serve: authority must know how the church runs and ensure it is in working order to empower those in it to run at optimal performance. The need in the first half of your statement is the function of authority, and the second half is the need of those they serve.

As I have worked to refine and define my grace in God, I find that the majority of my focus and delight in God is invested in the first half of your statement: I delight in knowing how the church is run and helping service it to help those who run in it. I delight in tuning things to optimal performance and then seeing people romp on that accelerator! Love driving with them, too, but my passion is rooted in the first half of your statement.

Where would you say your passion and focus lays? My sense is that you deeply delight in the mechanics. I love watching you drive your Camaro, but I also see you delighting in the process of cutting out rust, fabricating new parts, painting, polishing, restoring and enhancing. Would you say you carry the same passion towards the church? My sense is your deep delight in your Camaro flows out of the knowledge of all the working parts that are synergized by your hand on the wheel and foot on the pedals.

Does this resonate with your experience and individual grace in God towards the church?

Me: The local church structure's sole purpose is to implement and express its functional objectives as it facilitates the advance of the pleasure of the Lord and His Kingdom. The purpose of the church's structure is different that the purpose of the church itself. The structure is for the purpose, the purpose does not subordinate to or serve the structure.

Churches tend to make the structure the big deal. And people have traditionally valued the structure itself rather than their part in God's work in that context. Thus they stay sheep for decades, enjoying the structure for its own sake. They even take it to the point of pride. "My church has elders who do this and that, and deacons that do these things, and we vote on them every five years."

Ugh.

What Should You Look for in a Church? - By Costi Hinn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Costi Hinn wants to explain how to find a good church. We certainly agree that a good church ought to reflect the features Mr. Hinn describes, but we don't agree that such a church is necessarily a good church. Nor do we agree with Mr. Hinn that a person ought to seek a church with these features. That is a consumerist mindset, where a church must tick all the right boxes. 

Further, Mr. Hinn is predisposed to a certain kind of church, one that we suspect doesn't look anything like his uncle's church. So in essence he avoids one extreme (an extreme charismatic church where any sort of craziness might happen) in favor of the other (a somber, staid, traditional church where there are no surprises and no life). And his presentation reflects these extremes. There is nothing in between.

Also, Mr. Hinn has nothing to say about the Holy Spirit. He's not even mentioned. One might think that a church that keeps in step with the Spirit [Gal. 5:25] might be an important feature, but apparently not.

Lastly, Mr. Hinn can only manage to quote three words from the Bible out of a little over 1000 words. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

On restoring fallen pastors - by Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is back on the topic of restoring fallen pastors after only a couple of weeks, and it's also a truly awful teaching. She has a theory that a fallen pastor cannot under any circumstances be a pastor again. Permanently disqualified. So she goes looking for Bible verses in hopes of finding backing for this opinion.

Unfortunately, there are no such Bible verses. Ms. Prata tries really hard to make some verses say this, but she mangles them beyond recognition. Yes, it's that bad.

We don't wish to be disrespectful, but this sorry situation reminds us again that this woman should not be teaching anyone. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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