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.

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. 

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

Bad Worship Songs - Midst - The Belonging Co. (Andrew Holt)

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, Midst.

Video link.
---------------------------------

Speaking of Tongues… - by Amy Spreeman

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

We have spent a lot of time searching for a coherent biblical explanation for the cessation of the "miraculous" spiritual gifts. We have yet to find one.

Today we shall examine Ms. Spreeman's attempt to refute contemporary tongues. This is relatively short at 690 words, which means she ends up explaining precious little. She quotes precisely two Scriptures, neither of which come to bear on her effort to refute contemporary tongues. The balance of her presentation will be made up of various claims and assertions, using pejorative phrases to make her case.

The author will be focused on private prayer language. She will pretty much avoid explaining general tongues. And she doesn't even understand what charismatics believe.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Restful Finality of Pentecost - By Melody Muniz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Over 1800 words, but only 33 of them are words quoted from the Bible. But none of these Bible quotes were employed to document the author's assertions. In addition, there are many undocumented assertions, stated as if they were unvarnished truths. 

In reality, the author wanders around searching for a point. She seems to want to refute Pentecostalism, spending a great deal of time on it, but this is only a rabbit trail. We are guessing, but we think she wants to tell us that receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation is enough, and more of Him is not possible. Which makes Pentecostals heretics. 

Or not Calvin/Reformed or something.

We do not intend to defend Pentecostals. Nor do we intend to mock or denigrate the author. We are here to examine her deficient writing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Let’s Stop Imaging Jesus - by Aaron Roberts

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

There are some Christians who believe that any visual representation of Jesus is idolatry and is therefore forbidden. The author is one such person. One would thing that in 1650 words (including footnotes) a presumed competent rhetorician could make a convincing appeal, but his case is surprisingly vapid. 

The relevant Scripture he quotes is

Ex. 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God... (NIV)

But the author writes:

...we shall not make an image of the LORD our God...

The two are not the same.

Let's take a closer look at the verses. There are two parts. 

1. We are forbidden to make an image depicting creation:

• anything in heaven
• anything on earth
• anything in the waters

2. We cannot 

• bow down to it
• worship it

Hmm. 

How might this apply to a movie depicting Jesus, or a children's book illustrating Jesus’s life? Because this is what the author says is being forbidden. 

However, we can clearly see that God isn't even mentioned. It's about forbidding images of anything in creation. 

Any image that is made to look like creation is forbidden. And of course God isn't created. 

Strike one.

It's possible the author is focused on the word "heaven" since God is heaven. In this case an image of Jesus would be an image of something from heaven. But the Hebrew word for heaven variously means the sky, the abode of spiritual beings like powers and principalities, or the highest place where the Glory dwells.

Context is the key. In the quoted passage we see heaven, earth, and seas mentioned together. Clearly this use of the word "heaven" is about the things of creation found in the natural sky with its creatures and stars. It's not about God's dwelling place.

Strike two.  

One might think this forbids any image period. But an image of creation is only part of the command. An image is not an idol, but an idol is an image. In order for an image to be an idol ("a manufactured, carved image set up for religious veneration") it needs to be worshiped. It's not a matter of simply making or possessing an image. So unless the author worships his wife's picture he's fine to have it. 

Strike three.

Bottom line: We are forbidden from fashioning something that looks like some aspect of creation and then bow down and worship it. Two things are required: Make an image as an idol, and worship the idol. Grandma's picture of praying Jesus hanging on the kitchen wall is not an idol unless it was created to be an idol and is worshiped.

We are going to redact a large introductory portion that has very little to do with the topic. We will pick it up here:

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

Heresy of the Day #24: Generational Curses - by Publisher

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

Disntr appears in our blog with alarming frequency. Disntr represents itself as a Christian watchdog. We would call the organization one of the Doctrinal Police, or perhaps, heresy hunters. 

Now, what Disntr does might be a valuable service provided to the Christian community, but such a ministry must be dispassionate, doctrinally accurate, and correctly representing the subject they are examining. Disntr regularly fails these standards.

We don't know Kathryn Krick and have never heard her speak. She may indeed be a false teacher, so we do not intend to defend her. But neither are we advocates for the "generational curses" doctrine as represented by Disntr. We're not sure Krick is, either, because the author never quotes her.

Krick's beliefs, and our beliefs, are not the purpose of this post. We are here to evaluate the unnamed "Publisher's" presentation. And "Publisher" misuses Scripture. Further, he doesn't explain anything, preferring to make undocumented assertions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Pastoral Time Guilt - By Joe Keller

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The modern pastorship is unbiblical. There, we said it. There is no Bible verse that tells us the pastor presides over the local church. The expectations for a CEO pastor is the main reason he fails. 

But the author doesn't address that. He's more intent on telling pastors to not worry about not getting everything done. Time is in God's hands. Just don't waste it. 

Though the author quotes some Bible verses, he never teaches on proper church leadership. He simply accepts that status quo and looks for ways to work around it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

From snow cone stands to hay fields: Montana stories show why Social Security is earned, not given - Tim Summers Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author lays the schmaltz on thick. It practically drips from his word processor.

He tells a tale of the typical hardworking citizen who works his fingers to the bone, he's a pillar of the community, a saintly figure, he never did anyone wrong. And because he paid into Social Security all his life, he's entitled to his Social Security check. Indeed, we can't imagine anyone more deserving of a government handout, solely by virtue of having hundreds of thousands of dollars extracted from his paycheck whether he wanted it or not. 

This is how the author frames it. Such a noble soul deserves this money. It's his birthright. He sacrificed and is due his reward.

But in reality the author as a representative of the AARP is trying to manipulate us. He's cozying up to his constituency, the ones who pay their dues to this organization. They keep the money flowing, which empowers the AARP to access the halls of power in Washington D.C.. 

That's what's at stake here, government money. But not for seniors, for the AARP.

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