Examining Dream Claims in Christianity - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is rare that we find Ms. Prata profusely quoting Scripture. Too often she quotes none at all. But the problem with the below article is that she doesn't get a single explanation or application of the quoted Scriptures correct. It's that bad.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Orthodox Christian view of sin - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Ratliff will tell us that either you believe in Original Sin or you believe in no sin at all. But there's more than two alternatives. 

-------

Covenant Theology for Kids: A Beginner’s Guide - Meredith Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have noticed that covenant theology is a topic coming up more frequently in recent times. The same sorts of people who advocate for Calvinism are also on-board for this brand of theology. We critiqued one explanation here, and another here and found both to be lacking.

We should note that we have not sought out explanations of covenant theology or made any deep dives into it. We simply comment when given an opportunity. So we really don't have an axe to grind.

Today's article recites standard Christian doctrine, but claims it as covenant theology. It appears, therefore, that covenant theology simply rebrands biblical concepts with new titles and then represents itself as unique.

One of the links the author provides leads us to an article that mentions an alternative understanding, dispensationalism. We don't know why we should prefer one over the other, or if there are more alternatives than these two. On the whole, the issue seems like an intellectual exercise with no practical benefit. Covenant theology doesn't change any obligation or privilege we have as Christians, and as such is of little benefit.

Lastly, in her title the author proports to offer us "a beginners guide" to teach covenant theology to kids. As such we would expect to find a basic explanation of the origin of, and reasons specific to covenant theology, how it better explains Scripture, and what particular benefit there is in knowing it.

She does none of this. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Saccharine Lyrics: A Response to Kendall Lankford - by Nathan Wright ("How Deep the Father's Love for Us")

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We did a thorough examination of "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" here. The lyric in question is 

How great the pain of searing loss

The Father turns His face away

Reformed doctrine teaches that the Son was imputed with our sins, the Father punished the Son in our place, and that punishment satisfied the Father's wrath. This is known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the supposed reason the Father turned His face away, that He was unable to look upon the totality of sin imputed to Jesus.

None of this is found in the Bible. We consider it to be a false and pernicious doctrine. Jesus was not imputed with our sin. Rather, He carried and lifted our sin to the cross like He was taking out the garbage. The Father did not punish Jesus. Rather, Jesus died and spilled His blood to wash us clean. The blood was enough. Nothing more was needed, especially not the punishment of Jesus. 

We discuss this in detail here and here.

But more to the point. Mr. Wright will go on and on about Mr. Lankford's word choices, writing style, and lack of understanding. Since this is a technique frequently used by political Leftists, we are disappointed that a supposed Christian would descend to such tactics. However, since the bar is now set low, we shall at times also engage him on his terms and similarly deal with his logical shortcomings.

Happily, Mr. Wright will eventually get to the doctrinal issues, only to gloss over them. His defense is basically just a restatement of what he believes. 

We must consider the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Reformed Soteriology Matters - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have commented on some of the author's other articles, and without exception we have also found them to be obtuse and uninformative. 

There are times when the author is completely inscrutable. He uses terminology he doesn't explain, refers to the theology of others but doesn't explain, and quite simply, doesn't actually explain anything. Nothing. 

Plus, he quotes but a single Scripture, one that doesn't explain his presentation. On that basis we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

He does provide a quote from the Canons of Dordt. So that the reader understands, Centuries ago, Reformed/Calvinistic theologians gathered together in something called the Synod of Dordt to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. The Canons of Dordt were the defenses of Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine and the refutations of Arminius. In addition, Arminius was declared a heretic.

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

Do You Need a Fresh Word from the Lord? - by Barbara Harper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We often comment on the writings of supposed teachers who engage in Bad Bible Teaching, but today's article is one of the worst. Because the author believes that God does not speak to His people anymore except via the Bible, she filters everything she writes through this preconception. Therefore, almost every Bible verse she cites is incorrectly interpreted.

Careful Bible students would want to set aside their preconceptions and discover what the Bible is actually saying. Since the author does not do that, we will provide that service for her.

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

“The Error of Teaching That Original Sin Condemns the Entire Human Race” — The Rejection of Errors, Third and Fourth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1) - by KIM RIDDLEBARGER

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dear reader, you'll need some background information in order to understand the author's article.

The Synod of Dort was a tribunal of sorts assembled in the early 1600s by Calvinists/Reformists to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. His followers were called Arminians. 

The Synod issued condemnation of Arminius' view (known as the Canons), thus affirming the doctrines of Calvin, including Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (TULIP).

The below article explores the issue of "original sin" from the Calvinist perspective, which ties in with "total depravity."

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

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? part two - by Michelle Lesley

Part one is found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

We continue our slog through this supposed explanation of what the NAR is. Ms. Lesley does manage to quote a few Scriptures in this half of her presentation, but add little light to the matter. She goes on and on about the NAR, leveling charge after accusation, never documenting a single one.

To add insult to injury, Ms. Lesley is unable (or unwilling) to teach what she considers to be the correct Biblical view. 

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

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? part one - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Part one of two.

The NAR is Ms. Lesley's boogie man. They are evil, heretical, and deceptive. She's deathly afraid that people will be drawn in unawares. So she's here to warn us of the dangers about what they believe, but she is unable quote a single primary source.

And in part one of this long article she only manages to quote a single Bible verse and snippets of three others. That's it.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching. 

We should mention, we are not here to defend the NAR, but rather to examine Ms. Lesley's flawed presentation. 

--‐--‐------‐---

Bad worship songs: The Wonderful Blood - Tiffany 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, The Wonderful Blood.

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

God’s Absolute Sovereignty - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur is a Calvinist. Calvinism is a theological system promulgated by John Calvin in the 1500s, a collection of odd doctrines that have gained wide acceptance and are fiercely defended by its adherents. Calvinism is roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

• Total depravity - people do not have the ability to participate in the salvation process in any way.
• Unconditional election - those who God chose to be saved are the elect.
• Limited atonement - Jesus died only for the elect.
• Irresistible grace - the elect cannot resist salvation.
• Perseverance of the saints - the elect cannot lose or forfeit their salvation.

Notice that none of these doctrines have anything to do with Christian living, generosity, worship, growing in faith, or living a holy life. They simply aren't relevant. But they are endlessly explained by the likes of Dr. MacArthur, which is really the purpose of his article. He's not explaining Christianity or even God's sovereignty, he's explaining Calvinism.

He wrestles with the conflicts created by his Calvinistic doctrine. Recognizing that he backs himself into theological corners, Dr. MacArthur declares that the reasons are unknowable and simply moves on. Now, we should say that we are not suggesting that everything about God is explainable, but rather that Calvinism makes it harder.

The main issue here, however, is the idea of God's sovereignty. We think Dr. MacArthur misuses the term. Sovereignty is simply the power or authority to rule. But to Calvinists like Dr. MacArthur sovereignty means absolute control. That is, because God is sovereign He is required to control everything. We think, however, that God gets to define His own sovereignty, that He isn't required to exercise His power simply because He possesses it, and that free will does not limit God's power or majesty in any way.

This means that the word must be misdefined to fit Calvinistic doctrine. The Bible doesn't really use the word in the manner Dr. MacArthur does. In the OT it is Yahweh Adonai [God the Lord; for example, in Ge. 15:2 where the NIV translates it "Sovereign Lord"]. The NT, also in the NIV, has several instances of "Sovereign Lord," but here we find single word, kurios [Lord or Master; for example, Matt 4:10] or despotés [ruler, for example, Luke 2:29]. "Sovereign" isn't in the Greek.

Lastly, we are thankful he quotes a good amount of Scripture, something surprisingly rare among some of these so-called Bible teachers. All of the verses are the standard ones Calvinists appeal to. 

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

Answering the Opposition- Responses to the Most Frequently Raised Discernment Objections - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley, like many "discernment" types, is extremely sensitive when it comes to criticism [even mild] leveled at her. She happily blasts away at supposed false teachers, but when it comes to being on the receiving end, well, she gets pretty defensive.

We first note that Ms. Lesley never defines "discernment." She never shows us from the Bible where it describes what she is doing. In actual fact, there is no such thing as a discernment ministry beyond the four walls of the church she attends, and it's probably not her.

Second, Ms. Lesley commits several obvious doctrinal errors. Yet she considers herself a teacher. This is troubling.

Third, she will refer to the supposed false teacher as "twisted sister." This semi-disrespectful moniker means that she is describing a Christian person who has some things wrong. False teachers, however, are probably not Christians, and also lead publicly lascivious lifestyles.

Lastly, she quotes the Bible only when convenient. There are several instances (we have noted them as "Strikes") where she botches the contents of these unquoted Scriptures.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - JOHN A. BATTLE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a typical cessationist presentation regarding tongues, but there are a couple of twists we had not heard before.

This is a long article, almost 4000 words, so we request the reader bear with us.

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

Our View: In snubbing Helena's overreach, Bozeman wins one for The Gipper - Bozeman Chronicle

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In an astounding display of ignorance, double think, and illogic, the editorial board of the Chronicle provides us with this opinion piece. The premise is, President Reagan opposed big government, so when the state of Montana tells the city of Bozeman it can't do things, Reagan would apparently approve when the city resists.

We, your humble bloggers, were unable to type for some period of time, so boggled we were by the pure, unadulterated nonsense found in this editorial. We make no guarantees, but will do our best to untangle this mess.

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

Five Prayers Every Pastor Should Pray for His Church - by Tim Counts

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

We are completely puzzled by this presentation. First, the author is a pastor, and apparently everything revolves around him in his church. He is the instigator of prayer as if there was no prayer ministry in his church. He is the leader of evangelism, apparently because no one else is available. He as pastor seems to have no need for, or cannot obtain, anyone in his church to serve, minister, or lead. 

He mentions his associate pastor, but we wonder what this man does. He also mentions leaders in item #3, but apparently they don't lead anything. What has led this man to believe he is the CEO of his church, and why is there no one else qualified to lead within his church?

Second, he is giving advice to other pastors, and the problem is that pastors aren't praying enough. Again, why not teach the congregation to pray? 

Third, the prayer advice he gives actually has nothing particular to do with pastorship, it's actually advice that belongs to every Christian.

Though the author does quote some relevant Scriptures, he teaches as if pastors are unique and special. Now perhaps he set out to advise pastors without realizing that it isn't actually advice for pastors. More likely, he has a skewed view of pastorship, one that makes him the top dog, and everyone else are underlings.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.

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

Ongoing Prophecy - by Rev. Angus Stewart

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We thought we had heard every argument in favor of cessationism, but this author offers a couple of truly odd twists. And he makes some glaringly false assertions.

A continuing complaint we have with these so-called Bible teachers is they are so averse to quoting the Bible. The author writes a little more 1500 words, but only 56 of them are actual quotes from the Bible.

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

Christian faith and hope - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have finally pulled the trigger and awarded Mr. Ratliff with his own tag. This unfortunately is not a compliment.

Mr. Ratliff spends a lot of words explaining "hope," mostly by quoting Martin Luther and then restating those quotes. He does provide us with some Scriptures, but none of them really demonstrate what he is explaining.

It seems like Mr. Ratliff is simply riffing. For example, he claims that "faith is bound to our intellect," but hope is in our wills. How does he know this? He never says. He makes many assertions like these but simply pulls them from Luther and/or his own imagination.

The Greek word for "faith" is pistis, which means:

From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

This suggests that faith is the act of believing, whether the initial "persuasion" to belief, or the continuing cultivation and growth of it. Certainly we know that faith, in particular, saving faith, is a gift (Ephesians 2:8). Yet we also find that faith is a "quantity" of sorts, which can be little (Mt. 6:30), great (Mt. 8:10), increased (Lk. 17:5), or fallen away from (Hebrews 10:38).

Hope is closely related to faith. The Greek word is el-pece':

Word Origin: [from a primary elpo "to anticipate, usually with pleasure"]

1. expectation

2. (abstractly or concretely) confidence

expectation of what is sure (certain); hope.

Mr. Ratliff tells us that hope is like wanting his college football team to win, but faith is like knowing his team will win. We see from the above definitions that this is incorrect, that hope is actually the certainty while faith is the belief.

We find little value in Mr. Ratliff's explanation, because it is nothing more than Luther's opinion regurgitated.

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

15 Ways to Discern False Teaching - by Kevin DeYoung

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

We have examined several of the author's previous articles, and have found them to be less than persuasive. In today's article he sort of supplies us with a framework for discerning false teaching, but really it's more like how to recognize teaching you disagree with. 

Sadly, as is typical for him, he quotes no Scripture here. At all. 

We shall explain what the author neglects, using Scripture to do so. Discernment is a spiritual gift, a supernatural empowerment:

1Co. 12:10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues...

Discernment requires the Holy Spirit: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Discernment can be honed into maturity:

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Discernment happens in the gathering of the saints for their edification and evaluation: 

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Discernment bears spiritual fruit: 

Ph. 1:9-10 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ... 

Ultimately, discernment is fundamentally recognizing the Holy Spirit: 

1Jn. 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

 

The author never mentions the Holy Spirit. And, he doesn't seem to be aware of the biblical case for discernment, or perhaps, it doesn't matter to him.

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

Social Security has plenty of reserves, and other myths

Introduction

We often see leftists defend Social Security by asserting that the Social Security Trust Fund is a stand alone account with trillions of dollars of assets, and therefore does not have anything to do with the finances of the federal government, or national debt or deficit.

They also brag that the assets of the Trust Fund are invested in safe Treasury bonds paying interest to the Fund. 

Leftists further claim that SS is completely solvent and only needs the income cap to be rescinded so that millionaires pay SS tax on their entire income.

In addition, they claim that SS has an account for each person that accumulates on their behalf

Lastly, they claim that SS is like an insurance policy.

None of this is true.

As is typical for the Left, they tell partial truths, omit key details, and twist and dissemble until it is impossible to discern the real situation. So our purpose today is clarify.

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

Bad worship songs: Spirit break out - Bryant, Hellebronth, Dhillion, Hughes (Bethel)

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, Spirit Break Out.

The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Jesus died for YOU?) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here.

Ms. Lesley grapples with a problem created by her Calvinistic doctrine. She believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that Ms. Lesley thinks she cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because she doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist then it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around. When confronted with Bible verses that contradict their doctrines, Calvinists must invent explanations. However, we choose to read the Bible for its plain meaning:

Ro. 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 

(Plain meaning: He didn't die just for the elect, He died for the ungodly. )

2Co. 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all...

(Plain meaning: Jesus died for all, not just the elect.)

Jn. 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

(Plain meaning: He took away the sin of the world, not just the sin of the elect.) 

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 

(Plain meaning: His one act of righteousness brings life for all men, not just for the elect.) 

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(Plain meaning: God's intent is to have mercy on all men.) 

1Ti. 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

(Plain meaning: He is given as a ransom for all men, not just for the elect.) 

1Ti. 4:9-10 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

(Plain meaning: He is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.)

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

Crushed For Our Iniquities - by Justin Huffman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author explains the Calvinist/Reformed belief that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. We reject this repulsive and pernicious doctrine. We will explain below.
-----------------

Distorted Doctrine Destroys Lives - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have commented on Dr. Piper's teachings several times on our blog. We haven't been impressed, unfortunately.

Today Dr. Piper provides us with a moving target. He uses the terms doctrine, theology, beliefs, reality, truth, and knowledge of God as if they were synonymous. This makes it difficult to ascertain his point, and in fact he never really tells us what the title promises. Certainly a poor or mistaken belief about God is a bad thing, but we want to know how distorted doctrine destroys lives.

If we were to speculate we would discern that Dr. Piper intends to tell us that having the right set of doctrines is more important than anything else. In fact, he implies that one cannot love God without complete doctrinal purity.

Therefore, it seems the intellectual process is the only avenue by which one can come to God. This might make the reader wonder, what about the intellectually disabled, those with Down's Syndrome, autism, or other afflictions that impair cognitive function? Are these people unable to love God? What about those folks who aren't intellectually based in their cognitive make-up? We all know people who are more "feelers" than thinkers.

It seems narrow to suggest that one cannot know, love, or please God without the proper intellectual framework.

Happily, he does quote several Scriptures. This is somewhat a departure from his usual practice. 

Letter to the editor: Dissent was once part of our DNA; now we see automatic consent - by Douglas Mawhinney

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Apparently the letter writer doesn't understand that dissent is only permitted for the Left. Conservatives are shouted down, deplatformed, shadow banned, and boycotted. Here's the Left's position on dissent:

The letter writer bemoans the loss of the 60s protest culture, viewing the past through rose-colored glasses. Such a wonderful time it was. Just, moral, and noble they were. Opposing "the Man," uplifting the downtrodden, free love and free money for all.

Apparently the letter writer doesn't realize that all that supposed "distrust of big government" eventually led to those same people populating the halls of congress, school boards, and the judiciary. 

When the dissenters and protestor got power they became "the Man." They now are the oppressors, the silencers, the policers of conformity.  They are the persecutors, the intolerant ones, they are the ones who silence people who express their dissent. It is the intolerant Left that has wielded the power of government against their adversaries. 

The Left prosecutes grandmothers for silently praying outside of abortion clinics. 

The Left accuses parents of being terrorists for speaking up in school board meetings. 

The Left runs people out of their jobs for violating leftist orthodoxy. 

The Left accuses conservatives of being book banners for opposing pornography in schools.

The Left forces cake decorators to endorse speech they disagree with.

The Left tells you want you cannot say, think, and do. 

The Left, not Trump. 

Burning buildings and taking over entire city blocks is noble and desirable, but a mostly peaceful protest in Washington DC is treason and insurrection. 

Dismantling government power structures is Gestapo tactics, but forcing people to do things they don't want to do is not authoritarian. 

When Trump defunds entire government departments and cuts bloated bureaucracy, that makes him a fascist, but when leftist California governor Newsome bans gas powered vehicles and wants California to be totally net zero, that's a permissible exercise of government power.

When encountering dissent, Trump actually has a rejoinder and doesn't just roll over like previous Republican presidents. The Left doesn't like it when someone disagrees with them, and especially when Trump disagrees with them.

So Trump tells these publicly funded colleges that they are no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. The letter writer wants these colleges to "dissent," i.e., continue favoring certain races over others in its admission and grading practices. This apparently is tyranny.

In actual fact, with Trump as president the leftist oppressors are being negated. The entrenched power structures are being overturned. They are losing their power to control your lives

Leftists stand for, embrace, and implement, oppession, persecution, hate, and division, all the while accusing their political opposition of doing the very thing they're actually doing. 

So the letter writer is completely unaware of his own irony. He really believes the leftist agitprop coming out of the mouths of the talking heads on TV. He thinks that he's being told the truth by the very people who want to take away his freedom, take his money, and force him into government programs and government facilities.

Such is the sad legacy of the 60s anti-war, anti-government, anti-tyrant movement. They are laughable caricatures of themselves. 

They became what they protested.

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

What Does a Pastor Do? - by Joel Smit

Found here.

This author repeats the talking points of the traditional church view, that the pastor is the presiding head of the local church. This is not found in the Bible.

Paul used used the term "pastor" [poimén] only once, in Ephesians 4:11. Besides this verse and the references to the literal shepherds who witnessed the company of angels [Luke 2:8], the term is never used in the NT regarding a man. 

Another related word, poimainó, is used in 1 Peter 5:2, among other places: 

1Pe. 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Peter wrote these words to the elders. The elders are supposed to be the shepherds and overseers, not a pastor. There is nothing in the NT that indicates anyone was named to be a pastor, or that pastors lead churches, or what their duties are. 

In addition, though the author quotes several Bible verses, he either misrepresents them or the verses he cites do not bolster his case. In fact, he lies to us.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.)

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

What Is TULIP? - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have previously commented on this author's articles here and here. We are not surprised, therefore, that he does not quote Scripture today, because he didn't before. Well, in fairness, we must concede he quote a snippet of a verse, but it does not document any of the points he makes.

Over 1600 words, nine of which are Scripture. Really, how can a "Bible" teacher teach the Bible without quoting it? It continually mystifies us.

The biggest problem Calvinists have is their need to create complicated explanations in order to harmonize Scripture with their doctrines. Invariably this means to take verses out of context and insert themselves into them. 

This is what happens when doctrines are used to interpret Scripture.

But ultimately, our issue is the irrelevance of these doctrines. TULIP does not change any aspect of Christian living. These doctrines do not change any privilege or obligation we have. None of them speak to generosity, worship, obedience, holiness, or fellowship. A lost person still needs repentance and salvation, regardless of the truth of Calvinism.

As such, these doctrines are diversions, intellectual exercises that have no practical purpose. Aside from their repugnance, these doctrines are irrelevant.

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

The Mailbag: Is it biblical for women to carry out The Great Commission? - by Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

It hasn't been that long since Ms. Lesley last appeared in our blog. As is typical, she seems unusually preoccupied with parsing, subdividing, and micro-analyzing 1 Timothy 2:12. However, in the below excerpt she doesn't quote it. In fact, she doesn't quote any Scriptures at all. 

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

We shall quote it: 

1Ti. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

From these nineteen words Ms. Lesley has in the past provided excruciating analyses about what a woman can or cannot do: Read the announcements in church, sing in the choir, teach Sunday school, give pro-life talks in church, administer communion, be a deacon (ess), teach the children's sermon during the service, and, teach the Bible in a nursing home. All this based on a single misinterpreted verse.

So, continuing in this vein she now wants to explain if women can evangelize or baptize. As mentioned, her explanation will not explain any Scripture. In fact, she will provide no evidence or documentation at all, nothing but bare assertions.

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

Hebrews 2:3-4 and the Sign Gifts - by Bible.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article goes way over our heads in its discussion of Greek grammar. We could barely follow. However, the presentation has a fatal flaw. It's not the author's analysis of the Greek, but rather the assumptions upon which that analysis is based.

In a departure from our usual practice, we will begin by only pointing out the assumptions the author makes. Because it doesn't matter how sound the exegesis of the Greek is if the assumptions are wrong. Towards the end we will provide some commentary as the author begins to draw his conclusions.

We will find that the author completely drops the ball. He's filtering Scripture through is doctrine, and it colors his presentation.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What is "born again?" - rethink

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.

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

Five Years (Pastors making changes in their churches) - By J.V. Fesko

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

Dr. Fesko has quite a resume:

Dr. Fesko is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Harriett Barbour Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi. He initially served as a church planter from 1998 until 2004 when the church particularized and called him as their pastor. He served as pastor of Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church from 2004 until 2009 when he was called to serve as Academic Dean and Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California until June of 2019. Dr. Fesko's research interests include the integration of biblical and systematic theology, soteriology, and early modern Reformed theology. Dr. Fesko’s publications include, Reforming Apologetics, Romans: Lectio Continua, The Spirit of the Age, Death in Adam, Life in Christ, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption, The Covenant of Redemption, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, Songs of a Suffering King, and Beyond Calvin: Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology, among many others. His scholarly essays have appeared in various books and journals including Perichoresis, Reformed Theological Review, Journal of Reformed Theology, Church History and Religious Culture, Calvin Theological Journal, Trinity Journal, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Westminster Theological Journal.

As a scholar and a highly-educated pastor and theologian, Dr. Fesko is expected to provide us with an unparalleled and insightful biblical commentary. But there isn't a single mention of the Bible, let alone a quote from it. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Dr. Fesko wants to advise new pastors to wait before making changes in their new churches. That's it. That's the whole of his article. While we would concede that the advice is sensible, what we don't understand is why he thinks a pastor ought to be in a position to impose his will on a church at all. The biblical role of a pastor is to care for the flock. There is no mention of a pastor being in charge of the local church. 

A church is governed by elders:

 

1Pe. 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...

Seminaries are selling their students a falsity, and thus are preparing them for operating in deception. Dr. Fesko is participating in this when he should be advising churches to embrace the biblical model of church leadership.

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

Social Security can benefit future generations – if Congress acts Margie McDonald, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has nothing new to say. She repeats, almost verbatim, the inane talking points the Left has been using for decades. Here's one recent example.

Inevitably, the Social Security system is proclaimed solvent, followed by recommending crucial fixes. So it isn't solvent. Then, the solution always offered is to increase taxes, always on the rich. Reforms like clamping down on fraud or increasing efficiencies are always rejected.

So the author isn't really advocating for saving Social Security, her intent is to bolster leftist positions and attack and denigrate Republicans. 

She is all-in on The Agenda, and parrots The Narrative. The Agenda is the disassembly of The System, which is the American culture and way of life. The Narrative is the daily talking points disseminated by "Central Command," serving the implementation of The Agenda, and dutifully repeated by the media and talking heads.

Almost everything written here is false, misleading, or mistaken. But that doesn't matter, because accuracy or truth is not relevant. Only The Agenda is relevant.

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

Why did you use the word "Imputed?" An analysis of imputed righteousness

Introduction 

I asked a friend to explain his use of the word "imputed," and he sent me this detailed analysis (source unknown.) Therefore, because my friend is a careful and analytical thinker, I resolved to provide him a systematic, detailed (and I hope biblical) analysis. It's somewhat long post, so I hope the reader will persevere to the end. 

My initial, perhaps visceral response was a wholesale rejection of the doctrine of imputation, because it is rooted in Calvinism/Reformed theology. This blog has analyzed various Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines quite frequently, and to our surprise we have found the biblical basis for them to be astonishingly weak.

Let's first provide the dictionary definition of imputation:

impute - verb

1. To ascribe (a misdeed or an error, for example) to:

affix, assign, blame, fasten, fix, pin on, place.

2. To regard as belonging to or resulting from another:

accredit, ascribe, assign, attribute, charge, credit, lay, refer

This means imputation is a quality or attribute affixed or assigned to something that doesn't actually belong to it. So this doctrine teaches that Christ's righteousness is assigned to believers, and our sin is assigned to Christ (double imputation). 

We are therefore "imputed" with Christ's righteousness, which is often expressed something like, "when the Father looks at you He sees Jesus." Thus Christians are only regarded as righteous because they are not actually righteous themselves. God essentially pretends we are righteous. It seems we are barely even saved because we're still sinners. We have only been "imputed" with righteousness.

Background

The biblical basis of imputation originates here:

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (KJV)

The Hebrew word for "counted" is chashab, to think, account. That is, something was added to Abraham that God took into account. God thought of Abraham differently. 

I could find no translation of this verse that used the word "imputed," even though this is the source of the doctrine.

The same word, chashab, is used in these verses:

Ps. 44:22 Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

Ps. 88:4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like a man without strength.

Ps. 144:3 LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

Is. 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

I quoted some of the other uses of the Hebrew word in order to broaden the sense of how the word is used in various contexts. Notice that none of these verse make sense if the word "imputed" is substituted. Our preliminary conclusion is that imputation rests on a shaky foundation. 

In the NT Paul quoted Genesis 15:6:

Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (KJV)

I used the KJV because it is the only commonly used translation that uses the word "imputed." 

Chapter four of Paul's letter is where he explained how righteousness is obtained. As it happens, Romans 4 is also the focus of the below explanation of imputation my friend sent me. So that is where my focus will be.

I will insert my rejoinders in bold within the text of the explanation.

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

Contemporary Challenges to Christian Soteriology - Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes a superficial attempt to explain his topic, but requires his readers to possess an understanding of terminology not commonly known. Thus it is a basic explanation which requires advanced knowledge. We simply don't understand what profit there is to require the reader to know so much to understand an explanation about elementary things, but this seems to be the author's preferred approach.

Most obvious, the title. The author presumes his audience knows what soteriology is, and everything he writes is premised on this. For the benefit of the reader, we will define the word. Soteriology is the study of the various doctrines relating to salvation. 

The author approaches this from the Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinism is the collection of doctrines taught by John Calvin 500 years ago, most particularly the idea that God has already chosen everyone who will be saved (predestination).

This knowledge will help the reader to some degree, but as we will note, the author fails to explain a lot of the terminology he uses, as well as the concepts he references. We will insert a double question mark whenever we come across one these instances. There will be a lot of them.

In addition, the author doesn't quote a word of Scripture. Not one. How does someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Since Satan Knows the Ultimate Outcome of God’s Plan, Why Does He Continue Opposing God? - Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an incredibly well-documented presentation, filled with Scripture and light on personal commentary. Truly a Bible teacher after our own heart.

The author makes a series of observations and backs each with one or more pertinent Scriptures. We followed along with pleasure as the author presented this explanation, murmuring amens under our breath.

Until the end. The very last paragraph. It starkly contrasts with the bulk of the article. Let's quote:

If Satan was free to decide not to do what the Bible reveals he will do, then Satan would be more powerful than God. God would be proven not to be Sovereign. Additionally, God tells us He is Truth (“I am the way, the truth, and the life,” John 14:6) and His Word is Truth (John 17:17); if, in fact, Satan could decide that he will not act as prophesied in Revelation, then the Word would be false. If the Word is false, and it is the source that reveals both God and Satan, then nothing could be believed about either.

This is the author's only undocumented assertion in the entire article. He tells us that Satan does exactly what God purposed him to do, he has no choice. This idea has profound ramifications regarding the Problem Of Evil and the issue of free-will versus Calvinistic predestination. But the author doesn't discuss this. 

And in fact the rest of his presentation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that Satan is doing only what God has decreed. But he also writes, 

Satan’s entire delusion is that he is “like God.” This is the reason he fell and introduced sin into the creation. 

This would mean that God's purpose for creating Satan was so that he would rebel and bring about sin. Therefore, God created sin. It's inescapable. God dictated everything, including Satan's fall, therefore God is the cause of all the misery and perversion in the world.

If the author has an explanation for this, we would love to see it.

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

Why We Urgently Need a Progressive Policy Infrastructure - By Rob Kall

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author seems to believe that the 80-plus years of Leftist political domination didn't happen, that the wrecking ball of leftist policies is non-existent, and that the installation of Leftist politics at every level of government isn't actually there. The leftist control of the news media, Hollywood, public education, and corporations is near total, but not according to the author.

He thinks that the Left lacks the infrastructure to compete with the Right.

Astonishing.

The unstated truth is, the Left thought it had a lock on the power structure, but the walls of the Leftist citadel have been cracking. Conservative ideas have been seeping in, and there became more and more avenues to obtain a right-leaning perspective. Regular America has always been in varying degrees politically Right, despite American institutions tracking Leftward. 

Within the last 40 or so years prominent conservative voices began arising, like Rush Limbaugh, who articulated the things mainstream America knew in their bones to be true but never heard from the media voices. When leftist agitprop is all people see and hear, the conservative message is like a breath of fresh air.

The Leftist citadel had never been challenged before, so they didn't know what to do. But being authoritarians, dissent cannot be permitted. So rather than develop rhetorical skills or logical arguments, they simply turned to personal attacks, deplatforming, and censorship, strategies which continue to be utilized with impunity by the Left even today.

So the author wants a leftist infrastructure built to compete with the Right. He appears to have forgotten that the Left has made many abortive attempts to compete with the conservative media. Air America, Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhoads, Al Franken... None of them has gained any traction in terms of popular appeal. 

No one wants to listen to the Leftist message. 

True to form, Leftists attribute their failures to packaging, presentation, or any other reason besides the message itself. They don't understand (or refuse to admit) that their message, unless camouflaged in euphemisms and feel-good language, is just not popular. People don't like the Leftist worldview. Period.

We hope the author gets his wish, and we will witness the inevitable demise of this latest leftist enterprise, accompanied with the excuse-making as to why it failed that will inevitably follow.

It should be entertaining.

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

Soul ties? - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley is asked a question about soul ties and completely drops the ball in her answer. And she doesn't quote a single Bible verse. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Gallatin County Health Department - Happy pride month

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a very odd Faceborg post from our county health department. It's really nothing more than pandering, a simpering show of support, with tobacco usage being used as the excuse.

Apparently gays are at higher risk because they smoke more. Do they smoke more? Well, yes. But Gallatin County wants to place blame, and the blame is 100% on external factors. Discrimination, stress, targeted advertising. Why? We don't know, except for the County's clear desire to virtue signal.

As much as they want to blame society and intolerant straights, discrimination is simply a questionable reason for higher tobacco use:

...if tobacco use is conceptualized as a coping behavior resulting from psychological distress associated with social rejection and stigmatization—as is the case in the Minority Stress Model26—then what accounts for the greater disparities in use among sexual minority women compared to sexual minority men?

Indeed, Since lesbians have a higher rate of tobacco use, are they subject to more discrimination than gay men? Of course not, blaming discrimination is nonsense. 

14% of people age 18 and above use tobacco products in Gallatin County. There are 126,000 people in the county, which equals 18,000 tobacco users. We will generously grant that 5% of Gallatin County residents are gay, which is 882 people. We will round that off to 1000 because we are so charitable. 

That is 0.8% of the population. This is what we mean by pandering. 

And because of this supposed stress, Gallatin County believes it's harder for gays to quit than it is for straights. They face "unique challenges." However, there is no evidence that quitting very addictive tobacco products is harder for one category of people than it is for another. Again, Gallatin County is simply trying to ingratiate themselves.

How are gays not offended by this?

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

Understanding the Old Testament sacrifices - By Simon van Bruchem

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has written about this before, and commits the same errors:

• Jesus did not "pay for the depth of our sins," He paid for us:

  1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

• Jesus is not "the substitute for all who believe." Jesus didn't substitute for us, His blood washed our sins away. His sacrificial death was propitiation, that is, the turning away or satisfaction of wrath: 

  Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

  There was no need for Jesus to be punished in substitution for us if His blood is sufficient.

Lastly, we note that there is not a single Bible verse and only one tangential Bible reference in this article. How can a supposed Bible teacher explain the Bible without using it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Trump isn't the fascist here - by Paul Kienitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author warns us of all the fascists. He identifies fascists by name. He traces fascism back decades. George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, Harding. 

Fascists. 

All of them. In fact, the Republican party is all fascists. Has been for decades. Fascists here, fascists there, fascists everywhere. So many fascists.

Fascists.

They're all fascists. We are all fascists. Except Democrats. Wag your finger, Democrats. Clutch your pearls. Burn some Teslas, throw some rocks, turn over some cop cars, loot some businesses. Because of the fascists. 

Fascists.

Your neighbor is a fascist. Your pastor. Your grocer. Straight white male? Fascist. But not Trump. Trump is not a fascist, he's a narcissist. Even he's an authoritarian, a tyrant, and a dictator, he's not a fascist. No, really. Trump is not a fascist. At least there's one person who's not a fascist.

That's a relief.

He's not a fascist, but we all are. Fascists. All of us. Half the country is fascist. 

Fascists.

What Must I Do to Be Saved? - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We were filled with hearty amens as we read Ms. Lesley's explanation of the Gospel. Until close to the end, where she writes two erroneous things. The first, 

The gift God offers you is that, on the cross, Christ took the punishment you deserve for your sin.

This is a false and pernicious statement. There is no Bible verse that says Jesus substituted for us. None. Nor did the Father did not punish Jesus. Ever. To state otherwise is to completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) Jesus' sacrificial death. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that tells us the Father punished Jesus or poured out His wrath on Him. Not one. Check it yourself, dear reader.

The first thing we need to note is typology. The OT sacrifice is a type (or illustration) of a greater truth, Jesus' one sufficient sacrifice.

It is important to note the OT animals:

• were not tortured to satisfy the priest
• were never imputed with the sacrificer's sin
• did not receive God's wrath
• were not regarded as substitutes

Similarly,

• Jesus was not tortured to satisfy the Father
• Jesus was not imputed with our sin 
• Jesus did not receive God's wrath
• Jesus did not substitute Himself in our place

Jesus carried (Greek: anapheró), He took, He bore away our sin as a burden to the cross:

He. 9:28: ...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

He didn't "bear" our sin as in "bear" our punishment, He carried it away. He was sacrificed, not sacrificed and then punished. 

His work is described in the Bible as the propitiation for our sin: 

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

"Propitiation" is the Greek word hilaskomai, which means appeasement/satisfaction of divine wrath on sin") – properly, to extend propitiation, showing mercy by satisfying (literally, propitiating) the wrath of God on sin; "to conciliate, appease, propitiate... 

Jesus's death on the cross, His spilled blood, is the effective agent in His propitiation:

Col. 1:19-20 For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

So Jesus by spilling His blood appeased the wrath of God, turning away what God was going to do in righteous judgment to sinners. By the spilled blood the Father was completely satisfied. Jesus' work was sufficient and totally efficacious. Any man who comes under the blood finds that the Father's wrath against him has been appeased.

The blood is enough. Nothing else. Period. Including the punishment of Jesus. 

If God's wrath against the sinner is totally appeased by Jesus' blood when he repents, why do some think that His wrath must be poured out somewhere else, i.e., on Jesus? This is the crucial question, and why we began with our assertion that the Father did not punish Jesus for our sin.

Read this carefully: If the Father punished Jesus for our sin, then He didn't forgive at all, He simply redirected his wrath and carried it out anyway.

The second glaringly false statement made by Ms. Lesley:

The way you receive that gift and have Christ’s righteousness “credited to your account” is to repent from (have the heart desire to turn away from and ask God’s forgiveness for) your sin and trust that Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection paid the penalty for your sin.

Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins, He paid for us:

1Co. 6:19-20 You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 

1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

In fact, we were condemned to death already:

Ro. 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...

This means Jesus paid no penalty for our sin, rather, His death and resurrection propitiated for our sin and brought us from death to life, lifting our condemnation: 

Ro. 8:1-2 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Ms. Lesley must not be allowed to misrepresent any part of the Gospel, especially regarding the nature and character of God.

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

The problems with being a Calvinist

Introduction

Calvinism is a set of doctrines derived from John Calvin's teaching in the 1500s. Calvin was a pastor and theologian, dedicated to the ideas of the Reformation while having his own doctrines as well. He was and is a controversial figure, not only because of his doctrines but also because of his often severe way of dealing with theological dissenters.

Over the centuries Calvinism has insinuated itself almost everywhere. Even churches that would claim to be non-Calvinist hold some Calvinist views, likely unawares. So we view it as important that we understand the problems of Calvinism, and as needed amend our beliefs accordingly.

Calvinism is roughly described with the acronym TULIP (aka, the doctrines of grace):

• (T)otal depravity
• (U)nconditional election
• (L)imited atonement
• (I)rresistible grace
• (P)erseverance of the saints

Total Depravity is the idea that we are not able to participate in our salvation. We cannot make a decision for Christ. God accomplishes 100% of our salvation without our participation in any way.

Unconditional election means that God already chose and predestined who would be saved. The elect are destined for salvation, and everyone else is destined for hell.

Limited atonement is that the atoning work of Jesus applies only to the elect and does not apply to those who are not chosen.

Irresistible grace means the elect cannot resist their salvation, they must be saved.

Perseverance of the saints means that because the elect are chosen they cannot fall away from the faith.

In summary, because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. Our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace.  Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.

Since the purpose of this post is not to evaluate specific Calvinistic doctrines, we refer the reader to our many doctrinal critiques here, along with the Scriptural support for our positions.

Rehabilitating ministers? Why churches and organisations need to be careful about the idea of 'restoring' their leaders - by Andrew Roycroft

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

It has been said that the Church is the only organization that shoots her wounded. Or in this case, even if it heals the wounded it still treats them as wounded. The transformative power of the Holy Spirit that brings new life to the condemned soul apparently cannot operate in a fallen pastor. 

However, we believe the idea that a church leader, having done particular sins, is permanently disqualified from ministry is not a Biblical one. We are not saying that restoration ought to be quick, universal, or without conditions or careful consideration. But such a person, faced with the situation where he can never, under any circumstances, be completely cleared of charges, might understandably never bother with the littler repentances required of him. Really, what good would it do to clean up one's life (or even, be renewed by the Holy Spirit) with no prospect of obtaining one's calling, or perhaps even a higher one?

Now, it might be years or even decades before a person might be restored, but in any case we should not deal with these things like the world does. Further, we should have the discernment to ascertain the quality of fruit of the truly repentant church leader:

Matt 7:17-20 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.

A repentant sinner who consistently bears good fruit for a long time must at some point be relieved of his scarlet letter.

But more important to us is the unwarranted and unbiblical high and lofty position most pastors occupy. Churches are to be led by a council of elders (1 Peter 5:1-3). If we want fewer pastoral failures, we should reform the unbiblical idea of a CEO pastor.

Also, the author writes over 1700 words, but not a single Scripture quote, and but a single (irrelevant) Scripture reference. We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs: When wind meets fire - by Gamboa, Holiday, Mooring, Furtick (Elevation Worship)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, When Wind Meets fire.

"Pastors Only Work 30 Minutes A Week” - by Michael Krahn

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

This article smacks of self-aggrandizement. Here we have a noble, selfless pastor laboring away under a great burden, called to selfless service, who is the only one in his church able to carry these responsibilities and endure these hardships. And it seems the congregation simply doesn't appreciate him enough. 

"To all of this, pastors are called," he writes.

Oh, please. If one consults the Bible, one will not find any of these duties or privileges explained, or even mentioned, regarding pastors. The biblical fact of the matter is that pastors don't lead churches, the elders do (1 Peter 5:1-3). 

This is not to diminish the efforts of well-meaning, though probably misguided pastors like the author. We appreciate these men for their devotion, but we would suggest they embrace a more biblical view of church leadership and let the elders and deacons share the load and lead the church.

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

Friendship With the World is Enmity with God - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author attempts to explain James 4:4, but doesn't get around to it until the second to the last paragraph. After hundreds of words devoted to tangents, he supplies us but a single line of explanation:

It is doing whatever it takes to imitate worldly ways of thinking and worldly activities. 

He goes on to provide a very appropriate remedy, thankfully, but does not explain how the remedy works out practically. This is really what he should have written about.

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

1 Timothy: Women Preaching as Pastor or as a Guest Violates Scripture, even with “Permission” - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata, like so many Bible teachers who consider this topic, imposes upon Scripture things that are not there. The Scripture in question is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which Ms. Prata does actually quote: 

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Ordinarily those who approach this Scripture do so by forcing it into the context of a church service. They do this by thinking the epistle is "pastoral," that is, instructions on how to pastor a church. This is false, because Timothy wasn't pastor of this church, he was a troubleshooter sent by Paul. Otherwise Paul would not tell him that the elders direct the affairs of the church (1Ti. 5:17). 

Why is this important? Well, if this is not a "pastoral" epistle, then the instructions given by Paul are not telling Timothy how to run the church. But if Ms. Prata can place all of the epistle into the church service, it allows her to assert that Paul was forbidding women to preach in church. 

Because Timothy wasn't a pastor, then Paul was not telling him about how to prevent women from preaching in a church service. In fact, in 1 Timothy chapter 2 there is no hint in this passage that Paul was dealing with church structure at all. He doesn't breach the topic of leadership until the next chapter. It is actually quite clear that Paul was not dealing with a church service, first because he refers to "a woman," and "a man," not "women" and "men;" and second because his justification for this submission is Adam and Eve (vs. 13), which is a marriage relationship, not a church service. 

Because of the mistaken idea that this is about a church service, Ms. Prata extends the error by raising the issue of pastoral authority, i.e. the pastor as the leader cannot give permission to do an unbiblical thing like allowing women to preach. Since we believe that Paul was not talking about women preaching in church, this point of course is moot. 

But arising from the issue of church authority is the false idea that teaching IS exercising authority. Ms. Prata writes:

"[Scripture] denies a woman the ecclesiastical authority to teach men or be an authority in the church. (1 Timothy 2:12.)"

The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to inflate the role of pastor to the singular leader of the local church. And because the pastor preaches, this is exercising authority because the pastor is the boss. Thus a woman preaching is exercising authority. Thus women can't preach.

So the error compounds. 

Let's solve the problem. 

• Paul wasn't talking about what happens in a church service, he was telling us about what a woman cannot do to her husband. Thus Adam and Eve. 
• Pastors, biblically speaking, do not lead churches, elders do:

1Pe. 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...

• Preaching, therefore, is not an exercise of authority.

The blight of CEO pastors - rethink

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.

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

Bad worship songs: Fullness, by Steve Furtick, Chris Brown, Matthews Ntele

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, Fullness.

Video here.

Is there Injustice on God’s Part? - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author didn't write this article to teach about the Bible, he wrote it to teach about his Calvinism. He thinks it is critical to understand the Calvinistic doctrine of election, but he doesn't tell us why it is important. But in actual fact, it isn't important. Whether we are saved by His sovereign choice or if we are saved because we responded to His invitation, it doesn't make any difference at all in our lives or Christian walk. 

But the bottom line is that election is a doctrine that makes the mistake of including ourselves in the election of the first generation of Christians. We will explain this below.

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