Undeserved favor

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

This meme is false. Let's explain.

The mailbag: potpourri (Women sharing the gospel) - Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley has a penchant for analyzing what Christian women can and cannot do. She has created an endless series of micro-doctrines regarding women's roles in the church, all based on a faulty interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12: 

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 

But she will never quote this or any Bible verse. Because of this we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss the issues of women and leadership here.

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

Chosen by Grace – Why Predestination Should Give You Confidence, Not Fear - by Alistair Chalmers

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

The author is a Calvinist, and as is typical for Calvinists he does not intend to explain the Bible, he's wanting to explain Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach some aspect of Calvinism.

This essay uses about 1500+ words, comprised mostly of bare assertions. Assertions about Calvinism. Predestination, to be specific. A doctrine that cannot give anyone confidence, as we will explain below.

Predestination is one of the so-called "doctrines of grace," roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

The reader will likely notice that the author directly or indirectly references almost all of these five doctrines. Again, that is what Calvinists do, talk endlessly about Calvinism.

Though the author quotes a few Scriptures, they are standard Calvinist go-to verses. Because the author misrepresents these verses, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Trump stories that turned out to be hoaxes - by John C. Wright

Found here. https://americandebunk.com/

In addition to the Russian Collusion Hoax, and the Wu Han Wet Market Origin Hoax, please do not forget these. Years passed. To date, not one newsman, social media oligarch, pundit, nor politician has printed correction, retraction, nor apology.

The Bloodbath Hoax
The Find Votes Hoax
The Fine People Hoax
The Drinking Bleach Hoax
The Dictator from Day One Hoax
The J6 Insurrection Hoax
The Trump Overfed Koi Fish Hoax
The Trump Mocked A Disabled Person Hoax
The Border Patrol Agents Whipped Migrants Hoax
The Threat to Democracy Hoax
The January 6 Protesters Killed Police Hoax
The Presidential Immunity Hoax
The Muslim Ban Hoax
The Suckers and Losers Hoax
The Grabbed Steering Wheel Hoax
The Hunter’s Laptop is Russian Misinformation Hoax

Crowds without Conversion - by Ethan Jago

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Crowds don't equal revival. We agree. This article is built on those four words, with John chapter 6 providing Scriptural cover for the author. But John chapter six isn't about revival or the possibility of crowds not meaning revival.

It takes a long time for the author to get to his solution, which he equates with evaluating a church. That is, he wants all the elements of a church expressed in a revival. 

But ultimately the author is skeptical. His skepticism is based on semantics, tradition, and preconceptions. We can't call it revival because we don't know if anyone is being revived. We can't call it revival because revival must look the a certain way. We can't call it revival because revivals are like churches. It can't be revival because the Gospel wasn't preached.

However, it seems to us that revival is whatever God wants it to be. It looks however God wants it to look. God can use any sermon, any setting, and any group of people to bring revival. And every church and every supposed revival is a mix of Holy Spirit and flesh. That does not determine whether not God uses them.

Revival is chayah:

3. quicken, revive, refresh:

a. restore to life, the dead 1 Samuel 2:6; Deuteronomy 32:39; Hosea 6:2; the dying Psalm 71:20.

b. cause to grow, grain Hosea 14:8.

c. restore, a ruined city 1 Chronicles 11:8, stones destroyed by fire Nehemiah 3:34.

d. revive, the people by himself with fulness of life in his favor Psalm 80:19; Psalm 85:7; Psalm 119:25,37,40,50,88,93,107,149,154,156,159; Psalm 143:11; Ecclesiastes 7:12.

Some OT verses that speak of revival:

Ps. 119:37 Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things, And revive me in Your way.

Is. 57:15 For this is what the high and lofty One says — he who lives for ever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.

What the NT has to say:

Ac. 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 3:19-21 ESV Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

Ro. 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Ephesians 5:14 ESV For anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Surely the Church, this nation, and the world needs revival. Revival in a rekindling of flagging faith, revival via new salvations, and revival of the preaching of the Gospel. We need revival in every facet of the faith, revival that invades godless structures, cold, dead churches, and revival in evil strongholds for the sake of the Kingdom. 

It's God's purpose and desire in these Last Days: 

Ac. 2:17-18 In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Does the author want this? Then he might want to abandon his skepticism. It isn't useful. In fact, the author ought to be praising God for the possibility that it might be revival. And he might want to check out what actual witnesses have written about Asbury. Nearly every criticism the author makes gets negated. 

Crowds don't mean revival, but revival means crowds. If maybe it's not revival, we yet rejoice over a taste of a greater thing to come.

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

Bad worship songs: Worthy (Elevation/Brown, Furtick)

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, Worthy. 

Video found here.

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

You have to know when to stop evangelizing - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is Reformed and Calvinist, which means she believes God predestined those whom He will save. These are known as The Elect, and their destiny is set and cannot be changed. which means her recommendation that at some point evangelism should cease is very puzzling. 

We say this because a justifiable criticism of the doctrine of predestination is that since God has already chosen, evangelism is rendered meaningless. Nothing anyone does will change God's choice. Calvinists would respond that though God has chosen The Elect, He has also ordained the manner of their salvation and therefore has commanded us to evangelize. 

But Ms. Prata flips the coin over and tacitly accepts the fact that in certain cases evangelism made no difference. Yet if these people are part of The Elect they will get saved. If not, they won't. Which begs the question, what difference did it make to share the Gospel then decide to stop, versus never bothering to share the Gospel at all? 

It made no difference.

Now, we happen to believe that evangelism is not only necessary, but effective. Salvation is completely a work of God, we do not save ourselves. Yet we do not believe God predestines all people. We believe the revelation of God's holiness comes to a person and they respond with faith. The act of faith is not a work, despite the claims of Calvinists.

So this makes evangelism real and crucial, and not an empty exercise. 

Lastly, we note that the verses Ms. Prata uses to bolster her case are all taken out of context. Every verse she cites is regarding a community, not an individual. Each of them are examples of the Gospel being rejected by Jews, which means these verses speak to the idea of the Gospel shifting from the Jews to the nations: 

Ro. 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

 She therefore misuses these verses, and as a result we must deem her article Bad Bible teaching. 

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

The Pastor’s Responsibility in Discerning Worship - by David de Bruyn

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

The author wants to teach his tradition, not the Bible. He likes the old hymns and the traditional worship service. He does quote a couple of relevant Scriptures, but explains them in terms of his preferences, not for what they actually teach.

His greatest fear is that people might worship emotionally. He cites no Bible verse regarding this supposed danger, but he's absolutely certain it is dangerous. And, his remedy is to obligate the overworked pastor to keep the musicians in line.

What is the real purpose of this article? Well, actually, to admonish pastors to keep modern worship music out of their churches. This music is upsetting, it sounds worldly, and it doesn't have enough theology in it.

Because the author does not draw his conclusions from the Bible, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

False Teacher of the Day #61: Isaiah Saldivar - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

1362 words, zero from the bible. Zero from documented sources. Zero quotes of Saldivar's supposed false teaching. There are many undocumented claims and inferences and implied causes and effects. But no actual discussion of the issues, and no explanation of the truth contrary to Saldivar's teaching.

This is nothing more than a long, unattributed, unverifiable screed, full of loose accusations and summary conclusions. There are no facts stated at all.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching. Really bad.

We should note that we are not here to defend Saldivar. We are only interested in evaluating the unnamed "publisher's" unfocused rant.

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

Gifts for All Time? The Purpose and Cessation of Revelatory Gifts - by Todd M. Rester

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We began our quest for the biblical case for cessationism in 2013. As of yet we have not found anyone who is able to clearly explain this doctrinal stance. Our criteria for proponents of cessationism is simple. The explanation must

1. be from the Bible (quote the verses that speak to the point being made)
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata (what a church happens to believe is not the biblical case)
3. Not appeal to silence (i.e., what the Bible does not say)
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history (i.e., the historical absence or presence of something, or the statements of post-biblical writers)

The article below is another faulty attempt to explain cessationism. The author is guilty of inventing terminology, making undocumented claims, and misleading us about Bible verses. His key premise, that the close of the "apostolic" age means the close of revelation, is repeatedly asserted but never discussed.

But worse, he quotes a mere three Scriptures (one is a short snippet), only one of which comes to bear on his argument.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Ordinary and Enduring Gifts of the Spirit -by William Barcley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Let's quote the pertinent verses so that it's all together: 

Ro. 12:6-8 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

It is interesting that the author chose to explain this passage and not 1 Corinthians chapters 12 - 14. He probably made this choice because 1 Corinthians is substantially more problematic to his cessationist doctrine. But even so, the author will have to find a way to explain away the gift of prophecy.

It will not be a good explanation. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Who Was Timothy? - by William Barcley

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

The author does a good job in describing Paul's relationship to Timothy. He ably explains Timothy's role as Paul's associate and helper (we redacted most of this, however), but somehow ignores his own observations when it comes to pastors. It is here where he goes off track by thinking Timothy was a pastor. He was not.

The author is simply teaching his tradition that pastors are the CEO heads of local churches, with everyone else subordinate to him.

First and Second Timothy and Titus have been characterized as "pastoral epistles." The assumption is that Paul wrote these letters to teach these men how to pastor their churches. However, there is nothing in the Bible that even suggests that these men were pastors. "Pastor" and "shepherd" are not found in these letters. 

From this initial errant assumption descends other errors, which eventually leads to a complete misapplication of these letters. These assumptions  

• are used to justify the unbiblical leadership structure that a singular pastor presides over the congregation
• unduly expands the scope of Paul's personal instructions to apply universally
• derive unbiblical ideas about how church services should be conducted

We would therefore assert that these letters are not "pastoral" letters, which means Paul was not giving "pastoral" direction. These men were not sent to preside over these churches, but rather to correct them and install leadership.

Regarding Timothy, Paul's clear purpose in writing to him was to first, encourage him to stay true to the faith; second, to provide guidance on the conduct of Christians; third, to instruct him on how to handle situations in this church; and fourth, to install elders to lead this church.

He wasn't sent to be a pastor, he was sent to fix this church.

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

How Can We Be Ready to Meet the Lord? - By Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Our various experiences with this author's writing are generally positive. We would rate him as a competent Bible teacher. He quotes Scripture, explains it adequately, and doesn't inject his preconceptions into his explanations. 

This heartens us, considering the numerous self-styled Bible teachers we've examined in our blog, who couldn't exegete themselves out of a paper bag.

Today's article contains a few noteworthy flaws, which we will discuss below. 

Regarding the author's title, in our opinion, there is nothing we can do to be ready to meet the Lord.

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

Bad Worship Songs: What a God, what a God - by SEU Worship

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, What a God.

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

Who Was Stephen? - by Danny Myers

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

We know the author is a Calvinist/Reformist, so of course we shall be on the lookout for errant teaching. However, in this case it's not what is taught, but actually, what is not taught. The author seems to provide a comprehensive explanation of who Stephen was and what he did, but he studiously avoids mentioning this significant factor:

Ac. 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Why would he not mention such a important thing?

Even worse, though he writes nearly 1100 words, only eleven are from the Bible. How can someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

He does quote the lyrics from a song (We wouldn't call it a hymn, though. Helen Lemmel wrote it in 1922.)

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

God’s Plan for Your Prayers - by John Piper

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

Dr. Piper will use the word "sovereign" and its variants 18 times but will never define it. In fact, it is quite clear that he does not use the actual definition. Let's explain what sovereignty is. Acts 4:24 reads, 

Act 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them..."

The Greek word for "sovereign" is despotés, a word used ten times in the NT: (despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints..." 

Mostly used in terms of a monarchy, sovereignty describe a position of highest authority and absolute rulership. A king has unquestioned authority, with even the law itself being subject to him. His commands are law, his desires are carried out without question.

Sovereignty is a position, not an activity. Sovereignty doesn't describe actions, because the king as sovereign determines his own actions as he chooses. Further, his subjects operate according to his rulership, but he does not go to every field and tell the plower how to do his plowing. He does not show up to explain to the baker how to make bread. He does not personally go to the seamstress to see if she's sewing correctly.

The king is the ultimate authority, but he has no need to control every single thing in his kingdom, because he delegates his authority. He has agents to do his bidding, and they operate with authority under the king's authority. We see this in Gabriel's words: 

I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. Lk. 1:19

The centurion amazed Jesus when he placed himself in subjection to Him: 

For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, "Go," and he goes; and that one, "Come," and he comes. I say to my servant, "Do this," and he does it. Lk. 7:8 

This chain of authority descends down to the lowliest subject in his kingdom. Even the poorest sap has a modicum of authority as he lives out his life in the kingdom. That is why the king has no need to dictate every action of every soul in his kingdom. His authority descends down to the lowest place.

It is crucial we understand that sovereignty doesn't speak to actions. Sovereignty doesn't require action or forbid action, because the king determines the expressions of his sovereignty as it pleases him. He is not subject to any required action. He is not forbidden from any action. If he was required to to act, he would not be sovereign. If he was required to stand there and make sure the baker made every single loaf of bread correctly, he would be at the mercy of what he was required to do.

Thus sovereignty is a position, not an action. The actions of a sovereign are a matter apart from his position.

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

The God Who Saves: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Anthony Faggiano

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

As is typical with Calvinists, the author is here to explain Calvinism, not the Bible. That's what these Calvinists do. They never will explain the Bible unless they can explain Calvinism.

Almost 1200 words, and almost 700 of them are quotes and summaries from agreeable theologians and statements of faith. About 100 words are actual Scripture quotes, though most are only snippets of verses. Only a few verses got quoted in their entirety. Astoundingly, only one is an actual predestination Scripture, which the author merely quotes with only perfunctory discussion.

We are at loss to explain this presentation, it's almost totally devoid of any substantial instruction. It's nothing more than a series of undocumented claims regurgitated from others who themselves make the same claims. Every single quote from a theologian is a Scriptureless bare assertion. Every one is simply a restatement of the author's bare assertion. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Who Should Serve the Elements of the Lord’s Supper? Who may offer and who may withhold the bread and the wine? - by O. Palmer Robertson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Hot on the heals of our recent post regarding who can receive communion comes this article regarding who can administer it.

And once again we find an author who does not teach the Bible, he teaches his tradition. Worse, the author only manages to quote one verse and snippets of four others in a 2050 + word essay. Incredible. How does one explain doctrines without quoting the Bible?

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Are you SURE you want “the first century church”? - By Elizabeth Prata

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

This is the way political Leftists argue. "Oh, so you want to go back to the 1950s? You must want women repressed and separate drinking fountains for blacks." "Oh, so you want government to obey the Constitution? You mean the document written by white European slave-owners?"

Those who want to regain the passion and power of the early church are obviously not including the faults of the early church. This is simply nonsense. To insist that to have such a desire means we must take the bad with the good is to argue dishonestly and divert from the matter at hand.

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

Who Should Be Admitted to the Lord’s Supper? 4 Views - by Davy Ellison

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

The author considers communion only in terms of his tradition, that it is a somber, introspective church ceremony. So the debate for him is who is eligible to partake of the ritual.

This completely misses the teaching of the passage. The early church was actually gathering together to eat a meal, a "commun"-ity practice:

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

The Lord’s Supper was a potluck, not a ceremony. It was likely a joyous event, with lots of laughing. But the problem was, certain people were eating all the food and getting drunk while others were left hungry. This dishonored the Body of Christ, that is, the community of believers: 

1 Cor. 11:22 ...do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

The self-examination Paul commanded was to consider one's attitude toward the brothers: 

1 Cor. 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

This thought continues into chapter 12:

1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.

One might say that Paul’s discussion about the Lord’s Supper continues all the way to chapter 14, because it is all regarding how the Body ought to conduct itself when it gathers together.

Clearly we are not dealing with a ritual here. Given this, it almost seems nonsensical to discuss categories of participation in a community meal. In fact, to exclude anyone would be ironic, since that's what Paul was correcting. 

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