Justification: Union by Imputation - by Michael Schultz

 Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It's one thing to make honest mistakes. And, it's not necessarily an emergency if someone has a different doctrinal perspective. We don't even get overly concerned when some Bible teacher doesn't get a Scripture quite correct.

But this author egregiously misrepresents Scripture, lies to us about Christ's work, and gets salvation itself perilously wrong. This article is a tour de force of Bad Bible Teaching, coupled with the various bad doctrines of Calvinism/Reformed.

We often examine bad teaching while still giving a pass to the author, but this author is a false teacher and should be marked and avoided.

For the record:

• The Father did not impute our sins to Jesus. Jesus' blood washed them away (Ep. 1:7). We discuss imputation here.
• Jesus did not impute His righteousness to us, He made us righteous by faith (Ro. 1:17).
• The Father did not punish Jesus. Jesus' blood was enough, so there is no reason to additionally punish Jesus (Ep. 2:13). See our explanation here.
• Sin is not a debt we owe. Jesus did not pay for our sin debt, He paid for us (1Co. 6:20) We discuss this here.
• Jesus' obedience through suffering, though prophesied, does not come to bear on our salvation. It is His death on the cross that is effectual (Ph. 2:8). We discuss Jesus' suffering here.

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

Cut to the Chase: Discerning “Experiencing God” by Blackaby & King - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------
"Why was 'Experiencing God' so damaging," Ms. Prata asks. Indeed, why? Specifically, what was damaged, and why is it so concerning? What is the great peril caused by this book? We hope Ms. Prata will answer. From the Bible.

Sadly, this will not happen. in a little over 900 words she quotes only one passage,  2 Timothy 3:16-17, and even that she misinterprets. 

She cites three things from Blackaby that are supposedly dangerous, even "damnable:"

• Normalizing hearing from God
• Believing we can see where God is working
• That we can come to know God through our own, self-interpreted experiences

What is the exact peril? We will never find out. Why does she sound the alarm? Unknown. What's the big danger? She never explains.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Pastors, Don’t Forget to Shepherd Your Deacons - by Gus Pritchard

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

This is an extremely frustrating presentation, for the author separates elders from pastors, then treats them as synonymous, then elevates pastors to the top of the church pyramid. 

In the end, we have no idea what the author was attempting to teach about church leadership. It appears that he wants pastors over the elders, and elders over the deacons. We're guessing. However, he never provides the biblical basis for this. In fact, we suspect that he's simply attempting to reinforce the traditional view that pastors are the highest church authority.

The Bible teaches that the elders govern the church (1 Peter 5:1-2, 1 Timothy 5:17), not pastors. In fact, there is no Bible statement that the pastors must be in leadership.

Further, the author doesn't tell us what is promised in the title. There is absolutely no information about shepherding deacons. Rather, he's focused on simply dividing up the duties. This is not a description of shepherding.

Lastly, the author quotes but a single Scripture in the 1100 plus words he writes. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs - So Be It, by Mutendji, Wong, Furtick, Hudson

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, So Be It.

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

Church Staff Belong in Two Buckets: Elder-Qualified or Deacon-Qualified - by Jonathan Leeman

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

The author wants church leadership defined in a certain way, but never makes his case from the Bible. He does quote a handful of Scriptures, but they do not bolster the author's position. 

He really doesn't explain anything, he's basically riffing on his undocumented premise. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Gospel’s Bookends: Wrath and Love - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata makes another appearance in our blog, and for the usual reasons: Bad Bible Teaching, lack of focus, and undocumented doctrinal claims, combined with an almost arrogant certainty of her correctness. She fancies herself a Bible teacher, a corrector of doctrine, a bulwark against the onslaught of false teachers. But she's not. 

As we have repeatedly observed, she is a superficial thinker at best, and a false teacher at worst. We don't wish to dishonor her, but we must take a stand against people like her who lead Christians astray. So we will refrain from personal attacks and examine her doctrines only.

Ms. Prata titles her article "wrath and love," and picks Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel to expound upon these. It really doesn't fit very well, however. There are certainly better examples, like king David or Moses, who experienced both God's love and His wrath in profound ways. So her presentation is somewhat awkward in order to fit this particular Bible story into her narrative.

Beyond that, she makes two undocumented and false assertions:

"The reason He sent Jesus is to rescue us…from His wrath."

"The Lord will punish the sins of His people in due time."

Let's deal with the first assertion first. We don't know for sure, but perhaps Ms. Prata has this verse in mind:

1Th. 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead — Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

The reader will note that this verse does not say the Father sent Jesus to save us from the Father's wrath, but to rescue us from His wrath. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle, but we think it's important. 

The reason is, the Father would have no wrath if there was no sin. Therefore sin is the problem, for which there proceeds wrath. So the Father did not send Jesus to rescue us from His wrath, but to save us from sin and the resultant wrath.

The second assertion can be answered simply and quickly: God does not punish sin, He punishes sinners. Look it up, dear readers. There is no Bible verse that tells us God punishes sin.

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

American Conservatives Are Disgusting Frauds - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We've examined Ms. Johnstone in our blog before (Here, here, and here). She is reliably doctrinaire Left, and she is the worst kind: A producer of substanceless screeds designed only to gin up hatred. She provides absolutely no specifics, documentation, or identifies any conservative. That's because she's not writing to inform or explain. She's here to inflame, to demonize and isolate an imaginary target. This is what Leftists do.

In actual fact, it's the writing of a junior high student.

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

Dumb Will Do: Why Satan Doesn’t Need Heresy - by Tim Challies

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

The author is going to explain how contemporary style worship is bad while his church tradition is good. He will use 963 words to do so, but not a single word from Scripture. Not even a verse reference.

The article is actually not about worship at all, it's about the right way to do a Sunday service. But for some reason he will never actually tell us the right way to do a Sunday service. In his mind there is a right way, but it must be a secret.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Isaiah and Jesus Sound Like Marx (Again) - By Mike Rivage-Seu

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have had one previous opportunity to examine this author, and he did not fair well.

He pretends to be a sober commentator on religious matters, cloaking his presentation in Scripture references and a scholarly veneer. But in actual fact he is a political leftist who interprets the Bible and Jesus through a progressive lens. This of course creates all sorts of problem, since Jesus was in no way a Socialist.

We need to be clear about the reason the author writes: He did not write to explain, clarify, or provide information about Jesus or Christianity. His purpose is to reinforce The Narrative. The Narrative is the leftist talking points disseminated all over the media landscape. They become sacred truth through endless repetition and withering criticism directed towards those who disagree. 

The reader would do well to understand this.

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

Bozeman's Democratic Socialists of America chapter works to fill gap in community food resources - Bozeman Chronicle

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Socialists and Leftists believe that government should be the source of all compassion, like providing food, housing, income, healthcare, and cell phones. They think government is necessary because people will starve and freeze to death without government. 

The Chronicle thinks that this Socialist food giveaway is newsworthy, but churches and charities have been doing this for decades and centuries. But suddenly it is important when Socialists start doing this themselves. Perhaps this is why the Chronicle did this report, because it was so unusual that a Socialist would do such a thing.

Clearly the Chronicle and these Socialists don't get the irony of them stepping up to meet needs out of their human compassion. It likely feels very strange to them, exciting and innovative, but it's exactly what conservatives do every day, personally meet the needs of those who are less fortunate. They give of their time, money, and labor for the sake of those less fortunate. They do this without coercion, without regard for government programs, and solely motivated by human compassion.

We welcome these Socialists to our side.

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

Did God Need to Kill His Own Son? - by Cory Brock

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author spouts boilerplate Calvinist/Reformist doctrines with facility as if they were self-evident truth. But he never actually explains them. In fact, we're not entirely sure why he mentions some of them, because they don't really come to bear on the question asked in the title.

But here's the thing. The author probably feels obligated to draw in various Calvinist/Reformed doctrines because that's what these Bible teachers do. They never will explain the Bible unless they can explain their doctrines. Over and over again. So they don't really teach so much as they enforce the doctrinal narrative.

The author does quote some Scripture (a refreshing thing considering these Bible teachers too often never bother), but he gets so lost in the weeds we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We explain the sacrificial death of Jesus in detail here.

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

Finding Satan: The Origins of the Evil One - by J. Gary Millar

Found here.

C.S. Lewis wrote, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them." This is true, which is why the topic of Satan's origins should be approached carefully. We don't really want to talk about Satan when we can declare the glories of God instead. But in recent times Satan has actually been portrayed as a sympathetic character, misunderstood and even persecuted unjustly. So we think the author does well to remind us of the unrighteous being Satan is. 

The author spends most of his time discussing the OT references, but very little in the NT, mentioning in passing Matthew 4:1-11 for example. However, the parallel account in Luke adds a noteworthy detail not mentioned in Matthew, that the devil has authority:

Luke 4:5-6 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.

The author also does not mention this very important detail:

Luke 10:18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Jesus was an eyewitness to the devil being cast down. As one of the morning stars (Job 38:7, c.f. Isaiah 14:12) his fall from heaven would look exactly like lightning, wouldn't it? 

Also, Revelation 9:1:

The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.

This is clearly a reference to the morning star cast out of heaven.

Last one: 

2 Peter 2:11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.

We can now put the story together satisfactorily. Satan was a glorious morning star. He obviously was beautiful and important, anointed as guardian, and the greatest of the heavenly host. 

Until iniquity was found in him. We would surmise that as one of the morning stars that celebrated the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), he had a change of heart when man was created and made "a little lower than the angels" (Psalm 8:5. The Hebrew word for "angels" is Elohim). He was cast down like lightning to the lowest of places in the form of a dirt-dwelling serpent. 

He has no access to heaven now, yet he retains some measure of his former glory:

2Co. 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

This glory, in whatever amount he still possesses, is sufficient for him to deceive men. He also has the power to give earthly pleasures in exchange for worship. And with his hatred of men, his ire is directed to them.

And this is probably the key. He envied God for the worship He received, and was jealous of man because of the high place he was given. Angels weren't made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27,) didn't receive dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28), and weren't given the charge to guard the Garden (Genesis 2:15). 

It's a sad story, to be sure. To have such position and glory in the very presence of the living God only to fall has to be one of the great tragedies of all time. 

Satan's ultimate end will be the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

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

The Greatest Theological Statement Ever Written? Nine Observations About John 1:14 - by Mitch Chase

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

On the whole, this is a good presentation. The author takes a familiar verse and reawakens our wonder at the glory of God expressed through His Son.

There are a couple of problems, however, which we will explore below.

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

Meme: "The United States will not let men steal trophies from women"

 A Leftist FB friend posted this bit of idiocy:

The simple and obvious response is that María Corina Machado gave her peace prize to President Trump to honor him. 

In addition, men completing in women's sports for championships and trophies has been happening at the behest of Leftists. This obviously denies women a fair playing field. This is the point of President Trump's quoted remark. 

Leftists approve of these men stealing trophies. Swimmer Lia Thomas:

Weight lifter Avi Silverberg:

If God Is Sovereign, Why Bother to Share Your Faith? - by Timothy Z. Witmer

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

The author is a Calvinist, so he believes in a set of peculiar doctrines known as TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

The underlying assumption in all these is predestination. The centerpiece of Calvinism is that God has chosen all those who will be saved and there is nothing anyone can do about it, pro or con. So the author's purpose is to explain our obligation to evangelize in light of predestination, even though evangelizing is futile and makes no difference at all. 

As a doctrine, predestination fails because Calvinists assume it applies to everyone. It doesn't. It is our belief that in the NT only the very first of the early believers were predestined (the firstfruits), but we later Christians were added when we were saved (Ephesians 1:12). 

Thankfully, the author quotes several Scriptures, a welcome departure from the Scriptureless "Bible teaching" we are accustomed to seeing. But he will use terminology based on an assumption that we know what he means. For example, the author will use the term "sovereign" and its variants 16 times but never define the word.

Lastly, we note that Calvinists are always explaining Calvinism. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can talk about Calvinism. We think this is cultic behavior.

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

Jesus spilled His blood - why?

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.
----------------

Making Sense of Praying With Faith - by Peter Witkowski

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is almost 1700 words, which means he has ample opportunity to explain his topic. But rather than the auyhor "making sense" of praying with faith, the result is mystifying and absolutely nonsensical. 

The author goes to great lengths to contrast praying God's secret will vs. praying God's revealed will. There is supposed to be some sort of difference in the way we pray, but we are unable to discern what that might be. He seems to be saying that we can rightly expect that God will answer prayers regarding His revealed will, but that we cannot expect this regarding His secret will. How these are different in practice, or where we find these concepts in Scripture, remain a mystery.

And, how does knowing this benefit us? What does it mean on a practical level? These also are mysteries.

Ultimately, if the reader expected to find a teaching on how to pray, he won't find it. If the reader wanted to know how to pray with faith, the author mentions the phrase only once without explaining it. If the reader wanted the Bible clarified, the author is only interested in explaining his doctrine.

This is author's sole intent, to explain his doctrine. That's what Reformed/Calvinist teachers do. They explain their doctrines. Over and over again. They will never explain the Bible unless they can explain their doctrines. 

How do we know the author is Reformed/Calvinist? Easy. First, he begins his presentation with Reformed code words, the "means of grace." Second, he parses and categorizes his subject into compartments that appear to sound biblical, but they are simply inventions designed to fit the Bible into his doctrines. Third, he quotes go-to Scriptures that are always used by Reformists, in this case Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God.” Fourth, he approvingly quotes Reformists like Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and even Calvin himself.

But most importantly, the author completely fails to explain anything. If he did anything at all, he added confusion.

Confusion is the enemy's work. We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bolz Isn’t Enough: The Deeper Rot Inside the Charismatic Movement - by David Morrill

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Piggy-backing off of our recent post where Don Pirozok writes about corruption in the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation), we shall revisit the topic today with an excerpt from David Morrill's article on the same topic. 

We have examined Mr. Morrill's writing several times in our blog, mostly having to do with his "critiques" of worship songs. Invariably his writing is governed by undocumented statements, lack of biblical references, and guilt by association.

If the reader contrasts the tone and documentation between the two articles he will notice a profound and stark difference. Mr. Pirozok's article dispassionately explained the Bible and listed Bible references, while Mr. Morrill's article blasts away but contains no Bible explanation and no Bible references at all.  

Mr. Pirozok's article identifies specific issues and addresses them directly. Mr. Morrill's article is a generalized scorched earth indictment of an entire group of Christians, as if 65 million Pentecostal and charismatic Christians in the US (23% of protestant churches are charismatic) are all NAR-linked apostates. 

Mr. Morrill will continually conflate charismatics with NAR. We suspect this is purposeful.

Because Mr. Morrill's article makes no mention of the Bible, we must consider this to be bad Bible teaching. 

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

The Four Biblical Marks of Corporate Worship - by Jason K. Allen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We should note at the onset that the author is not here to tell us about worship, he's here to explain a proper Sunday church service according to his church tradition. For him, worship is not bowing before the King of kings, worship is the Sunday agenda. Worship is what the reformers told us what is permitted and not permitted.

This is the Regulative Principle of Worship, expressed by John Calvin this way:

God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.

This is the go-to definition that has been handed down to contemporary Reformed/Calvinist churches. Shockingly, the author will never quote this principle! This is a startling omission.

Lastly, we note that this article doesn't contain a single Scripture quote. Not a word. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Our Atonement Through our Lord Jesus Christ - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff first came to our attention a couple of years ago for his unwarranted certainty regarding his Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines. It's not that he's particularly arrogant, he's simply persuaded he's absolutely correct and anything else is heresy. That has earned him his own tag in our blog.

Today he discusses his doctrinal view regarding the atonement, once again with the absolute certainty he's correct. But he doesn't really explain anything, Of the 1300 words, 340 are devoted to the actual topic.

In actual fact, Jesus did not atone for our sins, He propitiated them. Mr. Ratliff will focus on Romans 5:11 which does not contain the Greek word commonly translated "atonement." This verse employs the Greek word katallagēn (reconciliation), not hilastērion, relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory...

A verse containing the correct word, hilastērion, is found here:

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood... [KJV]

Jesus' sacrificial death satisfied the Father's wrath. He propitiated for us by means of His blood which washed us clean. This is different than atonement, which is the covering over (Hebrew, kaphar) of sin. This means Jesus' propitiation is superior to atonement.

This propitiation (incorrectly rendered "atonement" in some translations) provides the means for reconciliation. Therefore, Mr. Ratliff not only misunderstands the atonement, he skips a step.

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