Please stop insisting ‘God told me’ - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We would agree with the author that "God told me" is problematic, but not for the same reasons. We take issue because the statement is a conversation-ender. He takes issue with it because he's a cessationist and doesn't believe the gift of prophecy or any other sort of "supernatural" manifestation is available for the contemporary Christian. 

We think the prophetic spiritual gift is or should be in operation today, because we live in the "last days" (He. 1:2), where the Holy Spirit is poured out and our sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17). As to how that should manifest we leave that discussion to church leadership. 

The bottom line here is that the author expects every revelation from God is Prophecy with a capital "P." And for unexplained reasons, every revelation must be confirmed by signs and wonders. We long for the author to make a biblical case for these astounding claims, but alas, the author manages to quote but a single ancillary Scripture. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss prophecy in some detail here and here.

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

Rescuing Faith from Capitalism: A Theological Response to Project 2025 - by Mike Rivage-Seul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This tarot card-reading "theologian" wants to tell us what the authentic Christian faith is. Really. Amazingly, while proclaiming another Jesus, he is somehow able to simultaneously determine when someone is being heretical. His theology is identical to the Left's political agenda, and his presentation is bumper sticker Leftist slogans.

As is typical for Leftists, the author does not write to inform or explain, he writes to serve The Agenda, the overthrow of the system. It has nothing to do with any form of Christianity, because it is a political agenda, not a faith agenda.

And, as far as a "theological response," there isn't one.

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

Easing Comer’s Fears on Penal Substitution - by Derek Rishmawy

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wants us to accept the Reformist/Calvinist view of Jesus' sacrificial death, but doesn't give us a single biblical reason to do so. In fact, thought he provides a long quote from Calvin, he only manages to quote a single tangential Bible verse.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Jesus' death was sacrificial, not substitutionary, for He spilled His blood to wash us clean:

He. 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

1Jn. 1:7 ...and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 

Why? The OT sacrifices were typological, representative of the greater work of Christ. So in substance there are direct parallels between a sacrificed lamb and the sacrificed Lamb of God:

• The animal wasn't punished. Jesus wasn't punished.
• The animal didn't substitute. Jesus didn't substitute.
• No one was wrathful toward the animal. No one was wrathful toward Jesus.
• There was no need to punish the sacrificed animal, the blood was enough. There was no need to punish Jesus, His blood is enough.

We discuss PSA in more detail here.

Why is this important? Because when Jesus offered Himself He totally pleased the Father. His spilled blood washed away our sins. He was not forsaken, punished, or abandoned. 

We must not dishonor God by misrepresenting Him.

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

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. 

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