We All Want More of God - by Tim Challies

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Challies is Reformed/Calvinist, but he really doesn't tell us anything about his tradition or how it comes to bear on the topic. He makes numerous assertions about this, seemingly pulled out of thin air. He makes many vague, uninformative statements.

It's mystifying, really. 

He seems to possess a knowledge about things but never tells us what it is. But his presentation is premised on this. Further, he neither appeals to or quotes the Bible, except to assert that "Reformed theology is experiential, but crucially, it constrains itself to the experiences the Bible permits." In contrast, he presents the opposition perspective in the most unflattering way, tilting the debate toward his preferences. 

Further, Mr. Challies believes that having the desire for more of God can be dangerous, but Paul himself writes of his longing: 

Phil. 3:10-15 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Ph. 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining towards what is ahead, 14 I press on towards the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenwards in Christ Jesus. 

Paul had a deep longing for more, but notice his conclusion: 

15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things.

The longing for more of God is a function of maturity. The Bible contradicts Mr. Challies. 

Lastly, he neither quotes nor references the Bible. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

How Trump Has Lowered the Wages of American Workers - By Lawrence Wittner

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is Leftist, and he does what all Leftists do, spout The Message. The Message is the daily talking points distributed to media talking heads, commentators, and polemicists. The Message is not intended to inform, explain, or clarify. Its sole purpose is to facilitate The Agenda. 

The Agenda is the dismantling of the American system. The reader should keep this in mind.

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

What Is Predestination? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul does what all Calvinists/Reformists do, explain Calvinism. They will never explain the Bible unless they can teach their doctrines. 

In addition, Dr. Sproul writes 950 words about his doctrines, but not a single Bible verse is quoted. Not one. He doesn't even provide a Bible reference. 

Astonishing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Faceborg conversation: How the church is run, or how to run in the church

Posted on Faceborg:

Me: I don't need to know how my church is run, I need to know how to run in my church.

Elijah: Love the syllogism, the conclusion of which is integrally linked to the initial premise.

I don’t know how everything in my car runs, but I do know how to drive my car. If my car doesn’t work, I take it to Mike: he knows how it runs. There is a dynamical relationship between authority and those they serve: authority must know how the church runs and ensure it is in working order to empower those in it to run at optimal performance. The need in the first half of your statement is the function of authority, and the second half is the need of those they serve.

As I have worked to refine and define my grace in God, I find that the majority of my focus and delight in God is invested in the first half of your statement: I delight in knowing how the church is run and helping service it to help those who run in it. I delight in tuning things to optimal performance and then seeing people romp on that accelerator! Love driving with them, too, but my passion is rooted in the first half of your statement.

Where would you say your passion and focus lays? My sense is that you deeply delight in the mechanics. I love watching you drive your Camaro, but I also see you delighting in the process of cutting out rust, fabricating new parts, painting, polishing, restoring and enhancing. Would you say you carry the same passion towards the church? My sense is your deep delight in your Camaro flows out of the knowledge of all the working parts that are synergized by your hand on the wheel and foot on the pedals.

Does this resonate with your experience and individual grace in God towards the church?

Me: The local church structure's sole purpose is to implement and express its functional objectives as it facilitates the advance of the pleasure of the Lord and His Kingdom. The purpose of the church's structure is different that the purpose of the church itself. The structure is for the purpose, the purpose does not subordinate to or serve the structure.

Churches tend to make the structure the big deal. And people have traditionally valued the structure itself rather than their part in God's work in that context. Thus they stay sheep for decades, enjoying the structure for its own sake. They even take it to the point of pride. "My church has elders who do this and that, and deacons that do these things, and we vote on them every five years."

Ugh.

What Should You Look for in a Church? - By Costi Hinn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Costi Hinn wants to explain how to find a good church. We certainly agree that a good church ought to reflect the features Mr. Hinn describes, but we don't agree that such a church is necessarily a good church. Nor do we agree with Mr. Hinn that a person ought to seek a church with these features. That is a consumerist mindset, where a church must tick all the right boxes. 

Further, Mr. Hinn is predisposed to a certain kind of church, one that we suspect doesn't look anything like his uncle's church. So in essence he avoids one extreme (an extreme charismatic church where any sort of craziness might happen) in favor of the other (a somber, staid, traditional church where there are no surprises and no life). And his presentation reflects these extremes. There is nothing in between.

Also, Mr. Hinn has nothing to say about the Holy Spirit. He's not even mentioned. One might think that a church that keeps in step with the Spirit [Gal. 5:25] might be an important feature, but apparently not.

Lastly, Mr. Hinn can only manage to quote three words from the Bible out of a little over 1000 words. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

On restoring fallen pastors - by Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is back on the topic of restoring fallen pastors after only a couple of weeks, and it's also a truly awful teaching. She has a theory that a fallen pastor cannot under any circumstances be a pastor again. Permanently disqualified. So she goes looking for Bible verses in hopes of finding backing for this opinion.

Unfortunately, there are no such Bible verses. Ms. Prata tries really hard to make some verses say this, but she mangles them beyond recognition. Yes, it's that bad.

We don't wish to be disrespectful, but this sorry situation reminds us again that this woman should not be teaching anyone. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The connection between Ephesians and Romans - the mystery we miss

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

What Do Pastors Do With All Their Time? - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This may be the worst teaching we have ever read regarding church leadership and what it means to be pastor. We don't wish to be mean, but yes, it's that bad.

The author has no idea what the Bible teaches about pastors. He doesn't bother with this at all, preferring to reinforce his church tradition which places the pastor at the top of the local church pyramid. 

He then lays a guilt trip on the attendees of his new member class. The poor, overworked pastor is represented as the do-it-all CEO working his fingers to the bone while the parishioners all sit around. Now, he doesn't come out and say this directly, but that's the implication.

His remedy to this situation is to invest even more expectation into the pastor position. Apparently the pastor is the sole surviving member of the five ministries listed in Ephesians 4:11. And as that sole survivor the pastor is supposed to do all the work of training and maturing the sheep into ministry. By himself. 

That is, he is to train the sheep to do all the stuff he as the pastor doesn't want to do. 

The Bible tells us something quite different about church leadership: 

1 Tim. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 

1 Pet. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers... 

Lastly, the author only manages to quote a single snippet of Scripture, which may explain why nothing he writes here is biblical. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching. 

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

The Remarkably Ordinary Church - by Darryl Dash

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are happy the author found virtue in the various churches he attended. We understand the author's sentiments, and we generally agree. In an era where carefully choreographed, highly produced and professionally polished church services are highly visible and even revered, the ordinary church with ordinary people and ordinary preaching might seem preferable.

However, it's too easy these days to complain about mega churches with their laser lights and high tech wizardry, but the other side of the coin, the rudimentary church based in tradition and somber reflection is not automatically virtuous. A contemporary service is neither better nor inferior to the liturgy. An organ-led hymn is not better or worse than a full-on worship band. 

Our criteria should not be established on how men organize or express a particular church. This mistake values flavor over substance, structure over the spiritual, and habit over purpose. 

In our opinion, the gathering of the saints is for the primary purpose of giving God the glory due His name. If a church does not worship, that is, extoll the Lord in words, songs, and holiness, it is not a good church. 

Further, a church shouldn't be defined by its Sunday services. Unfortunately, that is the way people tend to judge churches, which ultimately is a consumerist mentality. But a truly good church must include

• a passion for prayer
• a pursuit of holiness
• a vision for the lost
• ministry to the poor

It must be emphasized that the Bible doesn't tell us to find a good church. In fact, it almost seems like the churches mentioned in the Bible were uniformly troubled and dysfunctional. We would therefore suggest that finding a good church to attend should not necessarily be the goal. Perhaps what we should do is find a church we can help to be better.

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

Why focus so much on lowering income taxes? - by Chris Cargill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is the typical right-leaning quasi-conservative. We don't wish to be mean, but the the fact is he thinks the Montana tax system can be improved by some tinkering. So, adjusting tax percentages, creating exceptions and deductions and tax shifts are right in the author's wheelhouse.

In other words, more of the same. More rules, exceptions, carve-outs, credits, and surcharges. Page after page of tax law few have read and no one understands.

In actual fact the tax system needs total overhaul. Scrap what's there and create a brand new piece of legislation. We don't care if the state gets less revenue. We don't care if the rich pay their fair share or not. We don't care if Big Business pays zero tax. 

Eliminate the tax system. Make a new one.

We want a one page piece of legislation. Can Montana have a one page tax system? Yup. It's quite simple, and as such is doomed to be rejected by the powerbrokers. 

Before we reveal our proposal, we shall assert that any tax system must embrace these truths:

• Truth #1: Taxes are a penalty, a disincentive, a confiscation. Taxes dampen economic activity.
• Truth #2: Taxes are an invasion into the privacy of people. The government should not be privy to the most personal details of a person's life.
• Truth #3: The sole purpose of taxation is to operate the constitutionally authorized functions of government. It must not be behavior modification.
• Truth #4: It is wrong to tax something that doesn't engage in economic activity. A house, personal property, vacant land, and vehicles, are in this category. 
• Truth #5: It is immoral to tax something that has already been taxed. Inherited money, for example, has already been taxed.

So these truths stand in total opposition to the stated goals of the author.

What is this one-page tax system? A flat retail sales tax, levied only on Montana purchases in Montana, constitutionally capped at 4% and constitutionally defined as the only permitted tax. Period. No exceptions, exemptions, or credits. This is the only tax, fee, levy, permit charge, or assessment the government is allowed. Forever.

A retail sales tax ties government revenue to economic activity. If people are doing well they are buying stuff. If people are struggling, they buy less. It doesn't matter if government happens to get less revenue. It needs to live on a budget just like every family does. It needs to be reigned in anyway.

 

In principle, the payment of a sales tax is voluntary. One must buy things to pay it, so the poor won't buy as much, as contrasted with a person who must have lots of money in order to buy lots of things. 

It doesn't matter if people buy out of state. The state must adhere to its own boundaries. It doesn't matter if out of state people come from a no-sales-tax state. When they are in Montana they pay Montana retail sales tax.

If the feds threaten Montana by withholding federal grants, perks, and loans, that doesn't matter either. Montana will learn to be properly budgeted, independent, and economically self-sufficient.

Yes, this is severe. But the problem of big, intrusive government is more severe. 

Reel it in.

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

Why There’s No Middle Position Between Calvinism and Arminianism - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

This utterly Scriptureless presentation was not written to explain, uplift, or instruct. No, the author wants to force the reader into a binary choice based solely on his Calvinism. This is what we find time after time. Calvinists only want to talk about Calvinism. They will never discuss the Bible unless they can insert their Calvinism.

He will assert that there is no middle position while simultaneously admitting there is a mix of beliefs: 

The questions of grace and election themselves have binary answers, but how you hold the matrix of the doctrines of grace is not a binary matter.

Thus he acknowledges the legitimacy of having a mix of each position even as he claims it's not possible.

Not only must we deem this Bad Bible Teaching, it is utter nonsense.

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

Do You Want to Hear From God? Open Up Your Bible - by Lumuli Mwakasungula

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

The author will never come out and tell us his purpose for writing. He's definitely concerned that people are picking and choosing Scripture, and it's also clear that he believes the Bible is the only way God speaks. However, he misuses several Scriptures and completely omits the Holy Spirit's role in the daily lives of Christians.

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

Who Wrote the Bible? - by Robert Cara

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a somewhat odd article. It's as if the author had an idea and liked it so much that he sought out Scripture to fill in the blanks. His idea is that God is the "primary" author of the Bible while the prophets and others were "secondary" authors. 

But God didn't write the Bible, He spoke it. We see this clearly in the author's own Scripture selections: 

Matt. 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet...

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Ge. 12:1, 3b The LORD had said to Abram... 3 ...all peoples on earth will be blessed through

you.”

God speaks. His Logos sustains the universe (Heb. 1:3). The words God speaks are not the Bible, but the Bible is wholly comprised of God's words. These words are what saves us:

Ro. 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The word "word" is rhéma, a spoken word, made "by the living voice." This is not the Bible being preached, it is the living word of Christ, the Gospel. We therefore think that referring to the Bible as the "Word" is confusing and inaccurate.

Further, we must question what it means to be a "secondary" author. Is the "author" the one who heard the Word or the one who wrote it down? Was Paul the "author" when he heard the Word of the Lord, or was the person who on occasion transcribed it for him (Galatians 6:11) the author? Did what God spoke become the Word only after it was written down?

The authors of some books (Hebrews, Esther, and Job for example) are unknown. Others who spoke the Word of the Lord did not write down what they spoke (1 Sam. 10:11, Acts 19:6, and 21:9, for example). The Word was also recorded outside the Scriptural canon (Jude 14-15)!

Many women spoke the Word but did not write it down:

• 1 Sam. 2:1-10  Hannah 
• Judges 5:1-9 Deborah
• 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah 
• Exodus 15:20-21 Miriam 
• 2 Chron. 9:5-8 The queen of Sheba

• Luke 1:41-45 Elizabeth 
• Luke 1:46-55 Mary
• Luke 2:36-38 Anna
• Mark 16:7 Mary Magdalene

The prophetic inspired Word is the thing spoken, not who wrote it down. Thus the question, "who wrote the Bible" misses the point entirely.

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

What is the spirit of wisdom and revelation in Ephesians 1:17? - by GotQuestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Gotquestions never quotes the passage all together, instead quoting chunks here and there. Here it is:

Ep. 1:17-20 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms...

Paul covered a lot of ground here, and we see a procession of thought as he builds concept upon concept. We need to understand this as we analyze the verses in order to properly answer the question. But by dividing up the passage and deleting parts of it, Gotquestions misses this development. Gotquestions then compounds the problem by summarily dismissing alternatives (most likely charismatic) to their view. 

We will explain below.

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

NEW! Counterarguments to Egalitarianism - by Michelle Lesley

Ms. Lesley never defines "egalitarian." One must go to the link she supplies to get a definition:

Egalitarianism is the anti-biblical view that women can do anything men can do in the context of the church and home. Women can be pastors, elders, heads of denominations, preach and teach the Bible whenever, wherever, and to whomever they want, and they don’t have to submit to their husbands.

Superficially correct. As with any doctrinal perspective, however, there are graduations along the continuum. We suspect that there are very few true Christians who would completely agree with her definition.

Why does Ms. Lesley write? Well, because it gives her another opportunity to further parse 1 Timothy 2:12 into additional micro-doctrines. This is one of her favorite topics. And she does it badly.

We discuss 1 Timothy 2:12 in great detail here.

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

On fallen pastors who seek the pulpit again - By Elizabeth Prata

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

While we share Ms. Prata's concern when these sinning pastors so quickly re-appear in the pulpit, sometimes after very serious sin, we reject the idea that there is no possibility for restoration to the pulpit. We would embrace a broader criteria, since sin of every kind is present in the Church and potentially disqualifying for every person (1Co. 9:27, Col. 2:18), not just pastors. And every man who comes into the Kingdom has a sinful past, even pastors.

It seems Ms. Prata thinks that the sin dividing line is when a man is saved. That is, a grievous sinner, once saved and having grown to maturity of faith, can be qualified to lead, but sin after being saved is not permissible for a leader. So someone like this man, a former porn star who repented, got saved, and is now a pastor, isn't disqualified. 

Such a dividing line is completely arbitrary, however. 

Ms. Prata lists a single disqualifier, failure to be above reproach. She derives these from 1 Tim. 3:2:

Now the overseer must be above reproach...

So, a pastor who falls into sin violates this criteria permanently, according to Ms. Prata. She makes a leap to get to this unexplained and undocumented conclusion. She quotes no Scripture that tells us this. Probably because there isn't one. There is no statement in the Bible that a fallen leader cannot be restored to leadership.

In fact, the Bible is replete with examples of leaders who sinned and stumbled, even severely, yet were not disqualified from leadership. David, Samson, Paul, Peter, Noah, Abraham, Jacob... it's a long list. Murders, adulterers, hypocrites, and liars. Yet God used them powerfully. They are historical giants of faith.

So, what does the Bible tell us about restoration, whether it's regarding leadership or not? Ms. Prata never tells us. In fact, she manages to quote only a single Scripture in his whole presentation. It seems important to us to discuss biblical restoration as a concept in an article questioning pastoral restoration.

We find that the church has a responsibility to restore:

Ga. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

The word "restore" means exactly fit (adjust) to be in good working order, i.e. adjusted exactly "down" to fully function. So a leader or pastor or any Christian who sins needs to be put back to full function, if at all possible. The person needs to be restored to "good working order." That must always be the goal. No sin should disqualify any truly repentant person to return to their God-given gifts.

Of course, this requires repentance, counseling, examining of subsequent fruit, and continued accountability and evaluation. It is not done quickly or casually. But there is no hint in the Bible that restoration isn't possible or isn't permissible.

We should also mention that the Bible does not teach that pastors lead churches, the elders do (1Pe. 5:1-3). We therefore think that the Church is trying to treat the symptom but not the disease. The problem is that pastors are placed too high. They occupy unbiblical positions at the top of the pyramid. They have too much power, they are subject to too many expectations, and they carry a burden God never put on them. Of course they would tend to fall in such an environment.

Churches are to be led by a group of godly men, not a CEO pastor. This fact underlies the issue of pastoral missteps.

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

Bad worship songs - "See A Victory"

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, See A Victory.

Video link.

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

The Five Points of Calvinism -The Doctrines of Grace, Defined and Defended from Scripture

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have been devoting a lot of blog space to Calvinism, since it seems to us that its most vociferous defenders are getting increasingly loud. So once again we find ourselves examining another defense of Calvinism.

At almost 5000 words (including footnotes but not including charts), this is perhaps the most extensive defense of Calvinism we have seen on the internet. However, extensive does not mean thorough. Or Biblical. 

The author examines only a single, though significant, hostile source, The Five Articles of the Remonstrance. We are gratified that the author actually quotes from it, pretty unusual for a Calvinist. But there are also many thoughtful critiques of Calvinism subsequent to this 500 year old document.

In addition, the author quotes various sympathetic sources to explain his doctrines, but when it comes to the Bible he tends to quote it without commentary. The problem is, many of those Scriptures do not speak to Calvinism, while others are misinterpreted or taken out of context.

But the bottom line is, the author, like most Calvinists, devotes a lot of energy explaining and defending his Calvinism. In fact, Calvinists will never talk about Scripture unless they can insert their Calvinism. Their entire world revolves around the continual reinforcement of these doctrines.

This is very nearly cultic behavior.

Lastly, it continually strikes us that the "Doctrines of Grace" actually don't matter.  Everything about these doctrines is from the "now" looking back. Everything Calvinists are arguing about is a matter of the past for Christians. How we were included, who is included, and our prior status as lost men, all of that is past and makes no difference at all to those who are already saved. Therefore, Calvinism is moot to the saved, and irrelevant to the lost. 

Much of what the author offers has been answered elsewhere in our blog, but we will nevertheless attempt to offer succinct commentary.

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

Pleading My Righteousness? - by Dan Crabtree

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

The author works hard to establish his premise. He goes to great lengths to document his ideas with Scripture and then lays out a well-reasoned process to reach his conclusion. But his entire foundation is built upon a false assumption, that Christians are not actually righteous. This premise is the only one he does not document, which creates the need for explanations, work-arounds, and ultimately, verse twisting.

The false ideas that impede the author are:

• We are still regarded as sinners
• We only have Jesus' righteousness
• Righteousness is imputed
• The OT accounts of David's righteousness come to bear on us

It's a common idea that we are "sinners saved by grace." But in actual fact this ought to be past tense - we were sinners but Jesus' blood cleansed us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). ALL unrighteousness. We therefore have no need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us because He already took care of our unrighteousness on the cross and made us new:

2Co. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 

 

Heb. 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our former self, the sinful nature, is to be abandoned in favor of the new life and true righteousness He has given us:

Ep. 4:22-24 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

So the author really misses the point with his explanation. And in fact he never really answers the question or even tells us why we should even be "pleading" righteousness at all. 

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

Predestination: God chooses us. We don’t choose Him - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata is back too soon, this time to provide some Bad Bible Teaching about predestination, the Calvinist's favorite doctrine. Yes, we've written a lot about predestination, but it's like wack-a-mole. So, we'll keep wacking.

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