Can I Tell an Unbeliever ‘Jesus Died for You’? - by JUSTIN DILLEHAY

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

----------

The author grapples with a problem created by his Calvinistic doctrine. He believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that the author cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because he doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect.

However, if one is not a Calvinist it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around.

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

Responding to Dr. Michael Brown's Questioning of Discernment Ministers - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Discernment" ministers don't like to be discerned. They bristle at being questioned, held to their own standards, or subject to any sort of evaluation.

Rev. Wade is offended at the questions posed by Dr. Brown. He's outraged that anyone might suggest that "discernment" ministers ought to be held accountable. The thing about it is, "discernment" ministers are often worthy of criticism. They are too often over-the-top, insulting, and, yes, down right wrong. 

In keeping with their hyperbolic tendencies, their response to criticism is also hyperbolic.

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person who believe that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers towards false teachers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia) as follows:

hideously ugly

post-menopausal woman 

bizarre wardrobe choices

a penchant for cackling

no personal charisma

a face that scares children

a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard

pugnacious

unladylike

uglier on the inside than she is on the outside

the personality of a Roomba 

 the personal charisma of fetid corpse

unpleasant and evil woman

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• T.D. Jakes might have some problems, but here's what a Rev. Wade himself wrote about him: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men. Like you, he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• Rev. Wade also says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

There are many more examples, including from Rev. Wade, that we could list. We don't want to suggest the above examples are typical, but they happen frequently enough that they're not aberrations. 

Lastly, Rev. Wade's "devotional" doesn't contain a single quote from the Bible or a discussion of any spiritual principle. It's continually dismaying to us how these people think they can be any sort of minister, let alone a discernment minister, without quoting or even discussing the Bible.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Women Bible Translators… Doctrinally sound deliverance ministry… Brain fog and Bible/book reading) - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley is back, once again parsing 1 Timothy 2:12, which she doesn't even bother to quote:

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

She writes to add yet another subdoctrine derived from an improper application of this verse. This astonishingly bad and unbiblical description ought to be an embarrassment, but she presents it as unassailable truth. 

This verse is not describing a church service, it's not about what pastors do, and it has nothing to do with what generic women can or cannot do on Sunday. You can read our explanation here.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Wayback Wednesday ~ Risky Business - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------

The author takes issue with what some people supposedly say about taking risks in faith. But she then concedes that walking in faith is indeed risky. 

-------

His sheep and the doctrine of election

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.

Both Worm and Worthy - by TREVIN WAX

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles with the dichotomy between our prior lost status vs. our position as new creations. He thinks that God previously regarded us as the lowest of the low, but the Bible never records God saying anything like this.  

But God does regard his creation as having value, because He sent His Son to save us. We have value because the Bible says so: 

1Co. 6:20 you were bought at a price.   

 

"Price" is timé, perceived value; worth (literally, "price") especially as perceived honor – i.e. what has value in the eyes of the beholder; (figuratively) the value (weight, honor) willingly assigned to something.

The price Jesus paid for us according to the value He assigned to us. We were never worms, no matter how we may have regarded ourselves as such.

-----------

The Battle for Grace Alone - by R.C. Sproul

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

In the article Dr. Sproul discusses the difference between predestination and pelagianism, and mentions a position half way, which he calls semi-pelagianism. 

He concedes that semi-pelagianism is not a matter of heresy, yet the very name implies a heretical stance. If it's not heretical, then why not call it semi-predestinationism?

Dr. Sproul seems to think that the "battle" is about the degree of corruption brought by sin, which is a framing based on the Calvinistic idea called "total depravity." However, Calvinists actually demand "total inability" to respond to the gospel, not "total depravity. " So, all Christians can consent to "total depravity" while differing regarding the sinner's ability to respond to the gospel. 

However, the issue isn't about the degree of corruption brought by sin (i.e., our ability or inability to respond to the Gospel), but rather, the nature of God's sovereignty. For Calvinists like Dr. Sproul, God's sovereignty must be viewed as having total control, dictating every outcome. The two ideas correlate but are not synonymous. God defines His own sovereignty, so we must grant Him the power to be sovereign and at the same time acknowledging that He created us with free will. It is not a binary, either-or situation.

A particular thing of note in the below excerpt is that there seems to be some difference between an eternal decree and foreknowledge, but Dr. Sproul does not explain or discuss it.  

And, there isn't a single Scripture quoted or even referenced in the entire article.

Lastly, the entire issue is actually irrelevant. None of Calvin's doctrines matter. People still need salvation, Christians are stilled called to holiness, fruitfulness, and worship no matter what one believes about Calvinism.

SACRED NAME OF GOD? or BLASPHEMY? - by R.H., July 2005

Found here. An interesting presentation.

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

I genuinely appreciate that many people are attempting to take a sincere religious position by honoring a sacred name for God, like Yahweh. I think it is being done somewhat in reaction against the organized Christian churches which are nothing more than painted sepulchres. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that such "sacred?" names originated in non-Israelite pagan cultures of the Ancient Near East. There is evidence that YHWH was the name of a god worshiped by neighboring races but there is no evidence that such a name was used by true Israelites in ancient times. From the historical evidence, it appears that the Edomites have given true Israelites one more fraud which some of our people have claimed with enthusiasm, even making it central to their religion. Here are some details of the history of the word YHWH.

Only Bad Calvinism Abandons Souls: The Story Behind a Missions Revival - by Ryan Griffith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author offers Andrew Fuller's critique of "high Calvinism." "High Calvinism" is a doctrinal position which is simply the logical conclusion of the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty, taken to the nth degree. 

Calvinism teaches "irresistible grace," which means that those whom God has chosen to be saved must and shall be saved. The author doesn't like that "high Calvinism" actually embraces this doctrine in fullness: If the elect are already selected to be saved then evangelism is irrelevant.

This conclusion is logical. But it's unbiblical. It's not unbiblical because failing to evangelize is unbiblical, it's unbiblical because Calvinism is unbiblical. Calvinism is in fact "bad Calvinism" if it actually holds to what it teaches.

The author should be sensible enough to come to this conclusion from Andrew Fuller's list of "six reasons to plead," which he quotes below. The list comprehensively explains why evangelism is biblically required. Which is a de facto refutation of Calvinism.

If  the elect are predestined, then "high Calvinism" ought not offend the author. If the conclusions of "high Calvinism" are repugnant, then the author ought to abandon the Calvinism that gives it weight. Calvinism of any flavor must regard evangelism, at least in theory, as irrelevant. Therefore a Calvinist who believes that evangelism must occur should abandon Calvinism.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only one Scripture. That's it. 

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

Teen girl speaking at a conference? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata has returned to our blog, and provides some more parsing of this verse: 

But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12).

This is a verse that has been subject to much abuse, and Ms. Prata adds to this. She writes about a teen girl giving a talk in church, adding to the list of sub-doctrines and rules:

Since the prohibition in scripture is against women speaking during church to a congregation (and by extension in parachurch ministries/conferences) teaching men or usurping their authority by exegeting scripture, I think the teen’s talk is fine.

Ms. Prata continues on, offering even more rules:

...it’s fairly clear that sharing thoughts or testimonies to an audience is fine.

A woman sharing knowledge, testimony, or expertise when not under ecclesiastical authority is fine. Or at church but not during the Sunday services, say, during a Saturday conference where the church becomes a venue. 

...A woman or teen standing in the place where scripture is exegeted during church services, even if she’s just giving announcements, is part of that slippery slope. 

Dear reader, take another look at 1 Timothy 2:12. Does the reader see any of these commands, provisos, or prohibitions in this short verse? No? Then how does Ms. Prata arrive at her endless list of rules?

Well, it's convoluted series of assumptions and false premises:

• Paul's letters to Timothy are deemed to be "pastoral." But Timothy wasn't a pastor.

• A "pastoral" letter therefore consists of instruction on how to be a pastor. But actually, this is a personal letter to Timothy containing a variety of advice, instruction, and doctrinal teaching

• Since the letter is presumed to be about how to be a pastor, it is presumed 1 Timothy 2:12 must be about Sunday morning church order. But Paul doesn't talk about church order until chapter 3. Chapter 2 is in fact general instructions about Christian conduct.

• If 1 Timothy 2:12 is about Sunday morning church order, then "woman" and "man" need to be changed to "women" and "men" in order to force 1 Timothy 2:12 into the congregational setting.

• Then, since most contemporary pastors are teachers and pastors are the boss, that makes teaching into an authority role. However, the biblical authority in the local church is not the pastor or teacher, but rather the elders (1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1-2)

Ms. Prata must squeeze 1 Timothy 2:12 through this gauntlet of assumptions in order to derive all these little doctrines and prohibitions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The biggest contrast in the upcoming election (other than democracy vs. "blood in the streets" fascism) - By Robert Reich

Found here.

Today Dr. Reich is more incoherent that usual. If he didn't have his bumper sticker slogans handy he would be completely unintelligible.

He wants to "save" Social Security for the umpteenth time. It's been saved before, but because rich people do bad stuff it needs saving again. And this time only more taxes will save SS. Tax increases always make things better.

Why The Unbiblical IHOP 24-7 Prayer Model Has to Go - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade has now written in excess of 20 "devotionals" about the IHOP debacle. Astonishing. Today he writes almost 1700 words, but 1520 of them are employed to simply rehash his previous "devotionals" about IHOP. That leaves only 177 words spent actually discussing the subject.

So let's examine his "biblical" case that the 24-7 prayer is unbiblical. For clarity, we have eliminated everything else he writes about.

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

Your Body Is Not the Temple, But THE Body Is - By Nicholas G. Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The authors are making a big deal out of whether or not our individual bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit or if it's the universal body of Christ. The authors want it to be a binary choice, either/or. It's not.

This is one of those intellectual exercises that really does not matter. If the community is the temple or if each individual is a temple (or if both are true) is actually irrelevant.

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

Why Is Good Friday Called “Good”? - by Karrie Hahn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We noted here that Jesus was not crucified on Friday, because that does not allow three nights in the grave. 

The author makes several Calvinistic doctrinal claims that just don't bear up. Contrary to the author's claims, the Father did not punish Jesus,  Jesus did not swap Himself for us, and He did not pay for our sins. In fact, the whole idea of Penal Substitionary Atonement is false.

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

How do Calvinists explain Satan? The illusion of free choice

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.

Woman “Pastor” Claims That Names in the Bible Have Been Changed to Hide All the Female Apostles - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" cannot be bothered to quote or reference the Bible. He hyperventilates about some woman making various claims, but cannot seem to tell us exactly where in the Bible she goes wrong.

This is par for the course for "Publisher." No Bible verses and no biblical exposition or logical refutation.

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

Hell to Pay: What Truly Happened to Jesus on the Cross? - By Nick Batzig

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We don't intend to disrespect the author, but his article is a contender for a top ten position as the worst Bible teaching we have ever read. It has all the indicators:

• Lengthy quotes from theologians
• Lengthy quotes from pastors
• Lengthy quotes from statements of faith
• A quote from a hymn
• No Bible quotes
• No Bible verses referenced
• Cherry-picked opposition position

How is it possible to teach on a doctrine without quoting or even referencing the Bible? This is astonishing. But this is what the author routinely does. He rarely, if ever, quotes Scripture.

We think that the reason the author avoids the Bible is because none of his statements can be backed up with the Bible. Jesus wasn't forsaken, the Father did not punish Him for our sins, and He didn't experience hell on the cross. We will explain below.

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

Was Jesus in the Grave for Three Days? - by Gabriel N.E. Fluhrer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Church has traditionally taught that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday morning. This teaching creates a time problem. 

The author is going to supply us with the conventional apologetic for the problem of how long Jesus was actually in the grave by counting partial days. However, this explanation does not account for required three nights. 

Our full solution to this problem appears at the bottom.

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

For every player who credits God for the win, a player from the opposing team can logically blame God for the loss

A Faceborg friend posted this:

The text:

For every player who credits God for the win, a player from the opposing team can logically blame God for the loss. Neil deGrasse Tyson

We have a few comments, assuming of course that Dr. Tyson actually said this.

The first thing we want to mention is that when we have questions about astrophysics, we will want to know what Dr. Tyson thinks. When it comes to religion, we will ask someone who believes in God and has some expertise in religion. 

How to Read the Pastoral Epistles - by William Barcley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a mistaken view of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, yet for some reason he still manages to hit all the right notes. 

Timothy and Titus were not pastors, so these three letters cannot be pastoral epistles. Both Timothy and Titus were on assignment from Paul (1Ti. 1:3, Tit. 1:5) to set things in order until Paul could arrive (1Ti. 4:13) or until these men could return to him (2Ti. 4:9, Tit. 3:12). They went on other assignments as well (Ac. 19:22, 1Co. 4:17, Ph. 2:19, 1Th. 3:2, 2Co. 7:6).

They weren't pastors because they were sent to establish the leadership of these churches, not be the leadership (1Ti. chapter 3, Titus chapter 1). They weren't pastors because they ordinarily traveled with Paul (Ac. 17:14, Ro. 16:21, He. 13:23, 2Co. 7:6, Ga. 2:1). They weren't pastors because these men were charged with correcting doctrine, dealing with false teachers, and modeling and teaching holy behavior.

They were not pastors.

We mentioned the author otherwise hit all the right notes. Had he omitted the word "pastoral" he would have been right on.

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