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.

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

I used A.I. on my original songs

These songs are really songs I have written. My melody, my lyrics, my chords. But the thing about writing songs has been that you need a band to play them and a recording studio to produce them. 

Not any more. Recently a friend introduced me to a website called Suno, which is an A.I. tool used to create music. I uploaded rough audio versions of my songs and Suno created a virtual band and an arrangement of each song.

These are entirely an A.I. band. That's right, nothing you will hear in the below links is real, except for the original material that underpins them.

So, this post is for the purpose of evaluating the songs. I asked four faith-filled friends, all of them excellent musicians, worship leaders, and/or songwriters, to listen to these songs and pick the best ones.

My request for them is to keep in mind the following:

• Consider the congregation. These songs are for the purpose of our church's worship. A good song is not a good song if it doesn't speak to our church.

• Consider the music. Are the melodies good? Are the chords interesting? What about the tempos? Are the songs singable?

• Consider our band. Suno arrangements can sometimes be too much, like a lot of lead guitar solos, vocal gymnastics, or intricate arrangements. Try to look past the arrangements and discern the song itself.

• Consider the doctrinal and lyrical clarity. Does the song make sense? Is it off base or heretical?

• Consider the Holy Spirit. 

I picked what I think are my twenty best songs. I divided them up by tempo. But there's no need to select songs from every category. Frankly, there's no need to select any songs at all. You can select as many or as few as you like.

Many thanks to Chelsea, Jerry, Elijah, and Megan.

Testing the “God Told Me” Claim; Part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold. Our examination of part one is here.

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

We ask the reader to forgive us. As we proceeded through our analysis we grew increasingly frustrated at all the undocumented claims, faulty logic, bad exegesis, and irrelevant factoids. We don't wish to insult Ms. Prata, but this is a terrible presentation. She attempts to refute what she thinks is false teaching and botches it terribly. 

Ms. Prata is just not a very good teacher. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Testing the “God Told Me” Claim; Part 1 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is reliably cessationist. But it isn't a biblical or rational position, it's reactionary. She doesn't like certain doctrines but is unable to intellectually articulate, from the Bible, her doctrines. 

A cessationist believes that God no longer speaks, among other things. But apparently there is some level of revelation from God that is acceptable, though Ms. Prata draws the line arbitrarily. So the Holy Spirit pricks the conscience, but doesn't inform us about the decisions we face. He warns us about sin, but not about danger around a street corner. He informs us about the contents of the Bible, but not about discerning someone's need.

None of this parsing is backed up by Scripture. She's inventing the whole scenario.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Does God Punish Us for Our Parents’ Sin? - by Aaron Garriott

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

The author doesn't really answer the question, attributing the troubles of subsequent generations to "indirect" punishment. So in some manner, one might conclude that God does punish children for their father's sin.

The author doesn't like this answer, except when punishment comes from Adam's sin. He's ok with us being "directly" punished for someone else's sin if that someone is Adam.

In addition, the author's biblical documentation disappears at the key moment when it's time to answer the question. After liberally quoting the Bible at the beginning, we look in vain for any Bible verse in the article that bolsters the author's case.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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.

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