Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Bad Worship Songs: Center - Bethel Music & Abbie Gamboa

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, Center.
------------------

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

When God Answers the “Wrong” Prayer - Michelle Lesley

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

We have had much to complain about in our blog when it comes to Ms. Lesley, so much so that we awarded her a label. For example, she obsesses over 1 Timothy 2:11 and what a woman is allowed to do and not do. She's developed a substantial list of do's and don'ts from this Scripture, almost all of which is based on a false idea.

This is what characterizes a lot of her teaching, false ideas. 

But today, we celebrate her for a comprehensive and accurate teaching about prayer. With one small caveat (which we will note below), we are pleased to be able to acknowledge that Ms. Lesley is capable of truly excellent work.
------------------------------

Monday, April 20, 2026

Before you Decree and Declare - Kuza

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

We recently commented on another article by this author and found his teaching to be suspect. However, the below article contains a lot of good information. 

We usually consider the follies of cessationism in our blog, but less often we examine claims of errant charismatics when the situation warrants it.  Less often because large portions of the blogosphere are devoted to examining charismatic teachers and doctrines, so we don't feel the need to add to that. This is why we recently introduced a new label, "bad charisma."

We have never been comfortable with the charismatic "decree and declare" practice, as if we somehow have the ability to create reality with our words. This is what some charismatics believe, mostly based on a handful of verses:  

“...calling those things which are not, as though they were” (Rom 4:17)

This verse is not about us, it refers to what God does.

You will also decree a thing, and it will be established for you; and light will shine on your ways. Job 22:28 NASB

Eliphaz the Temanite spoke these words, not Job. We would regard any statements made by Job's interlocuters as suspect and not worthy of repeating as if they were true.

The tongue has the power of life and deathProverbs 18:21

Most people who quote this verse neglect to quote the entire thing:

Pr. 18:21 The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit.

In Scripture, the fruit of the tongue is generally regarded as a dangerous and negative thing, and the damage caused by the tongue is much more emphasized than any benefit it might have:

James 3:5 Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.

The last verse we have seen mentioned is:

Matthew 18:18, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The agreement of heaven is certainly a required part of this transaction. However, the unilateral decree/declaration we think is mistaken.

We therefore have little regard for those who would engage in this practice.

The author does a great job explaining this.
-------------------------

Friday, April 17, 2026

The Battle to Defeat Climate Change: The Dumbest, Most Incompetent War Ever Waged (With More at Stake Than Ever) - By Bernard Starr

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

The author of this ironic yet colorblind complaint about the lack of progress regarding climate change tries to understand why there is a supposed lack of global organization and central command structure within the climate change movement.

He must be unaware of the
Actually, the author doesn't have a problem with the climate change effort or its organization. In reality, he doesn't like the fact that everyone is not on board with The Agenda. 

The Agenda is the underlying continual effort to move the U.S. in particular, and the world in general, to replace or overthrow their governmental systems that do not coincide with one-world government, which which would be Socialism.

Climate change is simply a convenient issue to further the Leftist goal of implementing Socialism.

Power is the real goal. Centralized, global power. The unquestioned power over peoples' lives, decisions, religion, finances, and even children. The implementation of a system of government responsible for the deaths tens of millions of deaths.

The Left don't care about the climate. They care about power.
--------------------

Thursday, April 16, 2026

Cessationism - Episode 19 - Hebrews chapter one and the cessation of the sign gifts

Our next Episode in the cessationism series.

Additional Episodes:
Our criteria for the cessationism debate is that the argument must
  1. be from the Bible
  2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata
  3. Not appeal to silence
  4. Not appeal to events or practices of history
That is, any defense of cessationism must be Sola Scriptura.

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Chosen by Grace: Understanding the Doctrine of Election - Kuza

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

This is perhaps the most thorough explanation of the Reformist/Calvinist doctrine of election we have read. The author asks the right questions and tries to answer them. He acknowledges the confusion brought by the doctrine, and attempts to clarify.

Unfortunately, he fails. He fails because his entire explanation is built on presumption, that the doctrine is true. But that is the matter to be demonstrated. 

We are certainly delighted the author quotes Scripture. But he misuses or misinterprets almost all of this. Regretfully, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
---------------------

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Letter to the editor: Who would have thought a dictator would rule U.S. on 250th birthday?

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

This letter writer thinks he's pinned down the nefarious and eeeevil Trump. But like most leftists, the letter writer can't put together a coherent string of thoughts. 

This letter is a pretty good example of the left's unceasing obsession with taking out Trump. Not just to get him out of office, but to negate him, bankrupt him, destroy him, destroy his family, or even, kill him. 

This irrational hatred oozes from the letter writer's prose, so much so that he can't even see that he's being stupid. He so believes the Leftist narrative that he is unable to think rationally.

We are no great fan of Trump, but dictator? That's just dumb.
----------------------------

Monday, April 13, 2026

What is the purpose of Jesus interceding for us in heaven? - gotquestions.org

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

Gotquestions attempts to explain Jesus' intercession for us in terms of a courtroom scene. Such a scene is not found in Scripture. The whole scenario is a complete fiction. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We will explain below.
-------------------------

Thursday, April 9, 2026

God’s Providence and the Privilege of Prayer - by CILAS MENEZES

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

We are going to do our best to untangle this mess. A lot of what the author writes is based on unstated underlying premises. He assumes we know these premises and agree with them. But for someone who is unacquainted with these things, the article reads as nothing but nonsense.

What are those premises? Well, they are all founded upon Reformist/Calvinist thought. This area of theology has some particular beliefs which come to bear on the author's thought processes, including:
  • God is sovereign - This does not simply mean God is King of kings and ruler of the universe. It means God controls everything.
  • Everything is pre-ordained - This is perhaps the extreme version of Reformism. Most Reformists will say that God did not create evil or sin. But the author does not make these exceptions.
  • Obeying God's commands means we participate in what He has pre-ordained.
From these and other assumptions the author will make his conclusion, that prayer does not change God's mind because God has already made all the choices and lined up every event in everyone's lives.

We find this in one of the author's last statements:

"...the God who ordains all things has also ordained our prayers as a means to accomplish his perfect will." 

In what way has God ordained all things, and where do we find this in the Bible? Does this mean God ordains tornados? Sin? The devil? "All things" seems to be pretty inclusive, right? 

So if He indeed ordains all things, then the script is written. Every single molecule in the universe is doing exactly what it was planned to do. Every power and principality, every angel, every human, can only do the precise things that were ordained by God. Period.

Thus we are in the middle of an elaborate ruse. We think we are living out our lives, responsible for our choices, and trying to live virtuous, God-honoring lives. But we're not. Everything is pre-ordained, according to the author. So in reality, no one is responsible for one's actions. It's all pre-planned. 

In addition, the author doesn't quote a single Bible verse. We must say, this is one of the worst Bible teachings we have ever read. We must assign it the tag, "Bad Bible Teaching."
---------------------------

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

This 1 Passage of Scripture Left John Bevere Stunned, And He’s Finally Explaining Why - By James Lasher

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------
Mr. Lasher wrote this article about Mr. Bevere's 47 minute video (youtube link), but it's only about 400 words. 

We aren't inclined to view the entire video, however, based on Mr. Lasher's summation. The 20 minutes we did endure also dissuaded us, mostly because of Mr. Bevere'e emphatic, over-the-top presentation. 

The timing of the rapture is actually irrelevant to our Christian walk. End times doctrine does not come to bear on any aspect of our obligations or privileges as Christians. So the issue under discussion is actually an empty pursuit.
------------------------

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Three Days and Nights In The Heart of the Earth by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff wants to solve the problem of there not being enough days and nights between a Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection. He does this by including extra time where Jesus was not dead but merely in the custody of the Jews and Romans. He extends this custody status all the way through to the resurrection, and thus claims the problem solved. 

We admire the novelty of his "solution," but even still, he fails to accommodate the prophesied "three days and three nights." We provide our more coherent alternative here.

We commented on Mr. Ratliff 's blog and provided our analysis, found below at the end, but for a response he simply reposted part of the article. Then he closed commenting. This tells us that Mr. Ratliff does not like to be disagreed with. A person with an unteachable spirit should not be teaching the Bible.
-----------------------

Monday, April 6, 2026

What’s so spiritual about spiritual gifts? It's not what you think - by Michael Jensen

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

This seems to be a discussion of nurture vs. nature. Are people born naturally talented (and by analogy, specially gifted by God), or are the environment, dedication to the craft, and training more important (or by analogy, service to the church that comes by self-improvement)? The author wants to apply this to the spiritual gifts.

He believes that giftedness is acquired, not bestowed, in the same manner as physical or intellectual skills are developed. He provides no biblical reason for this, since he quotes only five words of Scripture.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
-------------------------

Friday, April 3, 2026

If God Doesn’t Need Us, Why Did He Create Us? - by: Samuel G. Parkison

Found here. Our comments in bold

This very odd (and Scriptureless) explanation of a doctrine that changes nothing about our obligations or privileges as Christians.

Particularly since the author is a theologian, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
-------------------------

Thursday, April 2, 2026

What Is Original Sin? - by Hans Madueme

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

We can't really fault the author for adhering to his doctrinal tradition. He's steeped in Reformist/Calvinism and interprets the Bible through that lens, which of course produces his desired result. This is the too typical practice, to teach doctrines and not the Bible.

Original Sin is one such doctrine. The author takes us through what we would consider a pretty accurate explanation of the elements involved, but he inexplicably reaches a conclusion in variance with the explanation.

His doctrine overrides his explanation.
 
Let's quote the author's key moment:

The key to understanding original sin is in Romans 5:12–21, where Adam’s fate and ours are irrevocably bound together. Paul is incessant on this point: “Many died through one man’s trespass” (Rom. 5:15); “The judgment following one trespass brought condemnation” (Rom. 5:16); “Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man” (Rom. 5:17); “One trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18); “By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). We all sin and die physically because of Adam’s first sin (1 Cor. 15:21–22).

Does the reader see it? "Many died." "Brought condemnation." "Death reigned." "Condemnation for all men." "Many were made sinners." It's right there. Adam's sin brought us death and condemnation. We inherit spiritual death from Adam, not his sin. Our sin is a product of the death we inherited. Dead people sin. It's axiomatic.

It's "original death," not "original sin." Adam was paid his wages: 
Ro. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death...
It's death that we inherited.

From this mistake the author derives his second mistake. Let's quote: 

When Adam sinned, God counted all his descendants as guilty of the first sin; in other words, He imputed the sin to every human being. This imputed sin, sometimes called original guilt, is the other half of original sin. God considers us culpable for a sin that only Adam personally committed. Why would God do that? Because Adam acted as our federal head.

Notice the author's biblical documentation has disappeared. No wonder, because this part of his explanation is not found in the Bible. Adam's sin was not imputed to us because we are responsible only for our sin: 
Ez. 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
Adam does not represent us in our sin. Humankind experiences no punishment for Adam's sin. We are not culpable for his sin. We are [or were] dead people whose natural state is to sin, and Jesus died to wash away our sin and to bring us out of death and into life.

Adam's sin is not relevant to us. Only the consequence of his sin, i.e., death, comes to bear on us.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
-----------------------

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Easter with the King: The Story of Nabal, Abigail and David - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley repeats a too common error regarding the nature of Jesus' death. Her theology is Reformed/Calvinism, which unfortunately misrepresents Jesus' saving work, taking His sacrifice and making it a transaction.

We shall explain below.
----------------------

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

What Does the Bible Say about Demons? - by Robb Brunansky

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

The author asks question in the title but never provides an answer. His article quotes no Scripture. Zero. almost 1600 words, none of which are Bible quotes. How does a supposed Bible teacher teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
---------------------

Monday, March 30, 2026

Civil discourse is a Montana value - Chuck Tooley, Guest columnist

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

 Did we just experience a bait-and-switch? The author lures us in with the promise of a discussion about civil discourse, but immediately morphs into a commercial for The Burton K. Wheeler Center

We spent some time on their website and found it to be curiously non-specific about its agenda. Like the article below, great effort is expended there to make the Center seem to be above the fray, reasonable, measured, fair, and unbiased. 

This sets off alarms for us. Especially since the debates of society are not just simple disagreements, they are active hostilities. The Left in particular is actively toxic in its tactics against the Right, tactics that are almost exclusively comprised of name-calling and character assassination. For the Left, the Right is not simply wrong or mistaken, it is evil and not fit to exist. 

It is not possible to come together and have friendly discussions with such people.

This is not to say that the Right doesn't have its bad actors. It certainly does. But one would be hard-pressed to find any Leftist who has the ability to make a thoughtful case for their beliefs absent of any reference to some sort of caricature of the Right. 

The author uses the word "we" nearly a dozen times in the context of "you and I together." He thinks that all we need to do is sit down and talk. We're all a part of one big family. Let's just have a beer. We can certainly work it out together, Right?

The language and tactics of the national Left is coming to Montana. In fact, it's already here. We can't be sure, but the author feels this undercurrent and thinks the Center is the answer. That would make him naïve, for the Left isn't interested in discussion or compromise. It intends the total annihilate its opponents.

Discussion with such people is not possible.
-----------------------

Friday, March 27, 2026

Letter to the editor: SAVE Act is desperate move by dying party to stay in power - by Vickie Sehy

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

The clueless letter writer does her duty to The Narrative, but all she manages to do is regurgitate leftist bumper sticker slogans.

Why would a leftist be concerned about the opposition? Why would she want to "help?" Well, she doesn't. She wants to reinforce the talking points. She's not interested in the truth, explanation, or increasing understanding.

Lastly, the reader will note the letter writer will accuse Republicans of numerous things, which the Left has already been doing for years, if not decades. We have deemed this rhetorical technique "Mountain Man's Law."
-----------------------------------

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

God's sovereignty and sin

We continue to work through the problems of Reformed/Calvinist theology.

Reformed/Calvinism is a deterministic version of Christianity, where God's sovereignty means He controls everything. This of course creates a problem when it comes to sin and evil. The Calvinist needs to find a way around this. We think they fail, and that is what we are discussing today.
------------------------

Monday, March 23, 2026

How the Early Church Baptized - by Wyatt Graham

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

Wow. This clocks in at over 12,000 words. While we do appreciate the author's thoroughness, and also that he quotes a lot of Scripture (an all-to-rare thing among these supposed Bible teachers), he still operates according to traditional assumptions. And he assumes his tradition is correct, of course. 

But what if there is a different approach, one the author never considers? What if the practice of water baptism was supposed to fade out over time to be supplanted by Holy Spirit baptism? John the Baptist actually prophesied this:

Mt. 3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Now, we ask the reader to bear with us. Let's see if we can refilter our understanding of everything the author writes through a new lens, that water baptism was to be replaced by Holy Spirit baptism. Read all the author's scriptural documentation, but try to understand it via this new paradigm. The reader will no doubt see that nearly every Scripture the author cites fits neatly into this.

In addition, we need to note that the author makes a very substantial omission, that neither Paul nor Jesus baptized:
Jn. 4:1-2 The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

1Co. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel...
If baptism was to be the standard practice of the Church, then why did both Jesus and Paul avoid baptizing?

Lastly, we will omit the post NT witnesses cited by the author. We are only interested in what the Bible itself teaches. We will insert comments as he proceeds.
--------------------------------