Christian, Look To and Learn From Older Saints - by Graham Heslo

Found here. A very good article. 

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

What this article addresses is a fundamental deficit in our churches, the pressing need in for true discipleship. That is, older, godly Christians one-on-one with younger, inexperienced Christians. 

But what churches typically offer is a Sunday service, a mid-week service, and small groups. These are not discipleship.

The result of our failure to disciple is that the sheep remain sheep all their lives. Nothing is demanded from them except their polite attendance on Sunday, and that their tithe check clears.

This should not be.

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

Top 10 NAR* and Seeker-Driven Buzzwords - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Today Ms. Lesley is taking issue with jargon used by certain people, suggesting that this jargon is an indicator of heresy. However, all Christians use jargon. It's just that Ms. Lesley doesn't like these people for their jargon because she doesn't like their doctrines. It's really a superficial and trite reason, grounded in a pre-existent dislike.

We don't intend to defend any of these people she cites, we are only interested in evaluating Ms. Lesley's presentation. 

She doesn't explain anything. She offers no analysis. She provides no teaching. She quotes no Bible verse. She doesn't tell us anything about what's wrong with these phrases, most of which are found in the Bible in some form or another.

We must deem the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Guide to the Kings and Prophets of Israel and Judah [Chart] - by Jacob Edson

Found here. An interesting article.

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

Some years ago, a Bible Gateway-associated blogger named Craig T. Owens created a detailed chart of all of the kings and prophets of the united and divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel mentioned in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It’s remained one of our most popular posts ever since.

It’s easy to see why. When I was researching my article on chronological ordering of the Bible, navigating the timeline of these books was by far the most complicated part. (You’ll notice, if you review that post, that I decided to simplify the task: while I did put the books and prophets in chronological order, I grouped them by United Kingdom, Divided Kingdom, and Exile rather than match them up verse-for-verse.)

Owens did the work, though, breaking down the complete timeline into incredible detail. Here’s what he had to say about it:

One challenging point in history is the divided kingdoms of Israel (the 10 northern tribes) and Judah (the 2 southern tribes). What makes it challenging when reading straight through the Bible [in chronological order] is that the history is covered in 1 and 2 Kings and then again in 1 and 2 Chronicles. In the midst of these kingdoms, several prophets are sent by God. Some of these prophets only have their words recorded in Kings or Chronicles, while others have their words recorded elsewhere in the Bible (usually the book name is the prophet’s name).

In trying to keep all of these people and messages clear in my mind, I have put together a list of all the kings and prophets during the period of the divided kingdom (roughly 931-586 BC).

In honor of the seventh anniversary of the completed form of Owens’ chart, I decided to republish it and break it down into a heavily expanded text format as another way to digest the information.

First, I’ll share the chart again, which packs a ton of information into a super-compact graphic. Then I’ll go through and expand on some of the information, and provide links to the relevant passages. 

Note that all dates are approximate and contested due to the lack of a consistent calendar during this time (as throughout the ancient world).

First, the chart itself:

 

Got all that? Now, let’s dig in.

The United Kingdom, ca. 1050-930 BC

This was the “golden age” of the Israelite’s presence in the holy land throughout the Old Testament. It began with Saul establishing his kingdom after being anointed by the prophet Samuel, progressed through his army captain David’s ascension to the throne (also with Samuel’s blessing), and then through David’s son Solomon’s inheritance and consolidation of the kingdom.

Saul (r. 1050-1010) Prophet: Samuel

 
Scripture: 1 Samuel 8-31, 1 Chronicles 9-10
Summary: Marked by early divine favor and public support, Saul later fell into offering pagan sacrifices and failure to uphold God’s commands, leading God to turn his favor away from Saul’s line and toward Saul’s captain, David.

David (r. 1010-970) Prophets: Samuel and Nathan

 
Scripture: 1 Sam 16-31, 2 Sam 1-24, 1 Kings 1-2, 1 Chron 11-29
Associated works: David is listed as the author of 73 of the Psalms, and probably wrote more.
Summary: Religiously devout and militarily successful, David enjoyed God’s favor throughout most of his life (with the clear exception of his actions toward Bathsheba and Uriah). His conquests established Israel’s empire as a unified power across the region. It was David’s wish to build God’s temple, but God denied him on account of the blood he had spilled.

Solomon (r. 970-930) Prophet: Nathan

 
Scripture: 1 Kings 1-11, 2 Chron 1-9
Associated works: Solomon is credited with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song bearing his name, as well as 2 (and possibly more) of the Psalms.
Summary: Famously wise and devoted — it was he who built the temple in Jerusalem, among many other great buildings — Solomon nevertheless besmirched his name through marriages to pagan women and sacrifices to their deities. Because of this, at the end of his reign, God saw fit to divide the kingdom.

 
The Divided Kingdom, ca. 931-586 BC

Before Solomon’s death, his servant Jeroboam rebelled. Though the rebellion itself was a failure, Jeroboam returned after Solomon’s death, when Solomon’s son Rehoboam reigned, and laid claim to the northern kingdom of Israel. The smaller southern kingdom of Judah (which included Jerusalem) remained under Rehoboam. So began the period of the divided kingdom.
Kingdom of Judah (Southern Kingdom)

Rehoboam (r. 931-913) Claim: Son of Solomon

 
Prophet: Shemaiah
Scripture: 1 Kings 12 & 14, 2 Chron 10-12
Notable for: Dividing the kingdom
Evil or good? Evil (he “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”)

Abijah (r. 913-911) Claim: Son of Rehoboam

Prophet: Shemaiah
Scripture: 1 Kings 15, 2 Chron 13
Notable for: War with Jeroboam I
Evil or good? Evil (he “committed all the sins that his father did before him”)

Asa (r. 911-870) Claim: Son of Abijah

 
Prophet: Shemaiah and Hanani
Scripture: 1 Kings 15, 2 Chron 14-16
Notable for: Being a good and devout king
Evil or good? Good (he “did what was right in the sight of the Lord”)

Jehoshaphat (r. 870-848) Claim: Son of Asa

 
Prophet: Micaiah
Scripture: 1 Kings 22, 2 Chron 17-20
Notable for: Making peace with Israel
Evil or good? Good

Jehoram (r. 848-841) Claim: Son of Jehoshaphat

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 8, 2 Chron 21
Notable for: Marries the daughter of Ahab of Israel, bringing their idolatry to Judah and drawing plague upon them
Evil or good? Evil

Ahaziah (r. 841)

 
Claim: Son of Jehoram
Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 8-9, 2 Chron 22
Notable for: Idolatry, and ruling less than a year
Evil or good? Evil

Athaliah (r. 841-835) Claim: Mother of Ahaziah

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 11, 2 Chron 22-23
Notable for: Being the only woman to rule; also, attempting to kill all her grandchildren
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoash/Joash (r. 835-796) Claim: Son of Ahaziah (grandson of Athaliah)
Prophet: Joel(?) [Note: Joel is notoriously difficult to place, and could be nearly any time before or after Exile.]
Scripture: 2 Kings 11-12, 2 Chron 23-24
Notable for: A long reign beginning at age 7; returned worship to the temple and defeated the Aramaeans but did not depart from idolatry; murdered by his servants
Evil or good? Mixed

Amaziah (r. 796-767) Claim: Son of Joash

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 14, 2 Chron 25
Notable for: Reigned long but suffered humiliating defeat after provoking Israel to war; later a victim of a conspiracy for the throne
Evil or good? Mixed

Uzziah (aka Azariah) (r. 767-748) Claim: Son of Amaziah

Prophet: Isaiah
Scripture: 2 Kings 15, 2 Chron 26
Notable for: Very long reign hampered by leprosy
Evil or good? Pretty good

Jotham (r. 748-732) Claim: Son of Azariah

Prophet: Isaiah, Micah
Scripture: 2 Kings 15, 2 Chron 27
Notable for: Not much; he was a good king but failed to stop idolatry
Evil or good? Good

Ahaz (r. 732-716) Claim: Son of Jotham

Prophet: Isaiah, Micah
Scripture: 2 Kings 16, 2 Chron 28, Isaiah 7
Notable for: Pagan practices, including child sacrifice; becoming vassal state to Assyria
Evil or good? Super evil

Hezekiah (r. 716-687) Claim: Son of Ahaz

Prophet: Isaiah, Micah
Scripture: 2 Kings 18-20, 2 Chron 29-32, Isaiah 36-39
Notable for: First king of Judah to “remove the high places” and stop idolatry; rebelled against Assyria and regained independence
Evil or good? Very good (“the Lord was with him; wherever he went, he prospered”)

Manasseh (r.687-642) Claim: Son of Hezekiah

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 21, 2 Chron 33
Notable for: Very long reign that brought idolatry back to Judah, including child sacrifice; shed “much innocent blood.” But he repented late in life after God rescued him from imprisonment in Babylon and tried to stop the idolatry.
Evil or good? Very evil (he “misled them to do more evil than the nations had done that the Lord destroyed before the people of Israel”), but he ended on a good note

Amon (r.642-640) Claim: Son of Manasseh 

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 21, 2 Chron 33
Notable for: Returned to his father’s earlier idolatry; killed by his servants
Evil or good? Evil

Josiah (r. 640-608) Claim: Son of Amon

Prophet: Huldah, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah
Scripture: 2 Kings 22-23, 2 Chron 34-35
Notable for: Ending idolatry and bringing back the Law; died in battle against Egypt; last king before exile
Evil or good? Very good (cf. 2 Kings 23:24)

Jehoahaz (r. 608) Claim: Son of Josiah

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 23, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Reigned three months before he was supplanted and captured by Pharaoh Neco of Egypt
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoiakim (r. 608-597) Claim: Son of Josiah, brother of Jehoahaz

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 23-24, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Rebelled (very unsuccessfully) against King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
Evil or good? Mostly evil

Jehoiachin (r. 597) Claim: Son of Jehoiakim

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 24-25, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Reigned for three months before surrendering to King Nebuchadnezzar
Evil or good? Evil

Zedekiah (r. 597-586) Claim: Son of Josiah (Jehoiachin’s uncle)

Prophet: Jeremiah, Lamentations
Scripture: 2 Kings 24-25, 2 Chron 36
Notable for: Rebelled against Babylon, leading to the sack and destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s temple
Evil or good? Evil

BABYLONIAN EXILE (586-450)

Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom)

Jeroboam I (r. 931-910) Claim: Solomon’s servant

 
Prophet: Ahijah
Scripture: 1 Kings 12-14, 2 Chron 10
Notable for: Seceding from Judah and dividing the kingdom; worshiping golden calves
Evil or good? Evil (he “there was no one who followed the house of David except the tribe of Judah alone”; i.e., not Israel)

Nadab (r. 910-909) Claim: Son of Jeroboam

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 15
Notable for: Not much; killed by countryman during siege of Gibbethon
Evil or good? Evil (he “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”)

Baasha (r. 909-886) Claim: Usurper

Prophet: Jehu
Scripture: 1 Kings 15-16
Notable for: Assassinating Nadab, destroying the house of Jeroboam
Evil or good? Evil

Elah (r. 886-885) Claim: Son of Baasha

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 16
Notable for: Drinking too much and getting murdered by his servant
Evil or good? Evil

Zimri (r. 885) Claim: Elah’s servant (“commander of half his chariots”)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 16
Notable for: Shortest reign in the book (seven days); burnt himself alive
Evil or good? Evil

Omri (r. 885-874) Claim: Commander of the army

Prophet: None
Scripture: 1 Kings 16
Notable for: Seized power after crisis of succession and moved capital to Samaria
Evil or good? Evil (he “did more evil than all who were before him”)

Ahab (r. 874-853) Claim: Son of Omri

Prophet: Elijah, Obadiah(?) [traditional; others believe this to be a different Obadiah than the Minor Prophet]
Scripture: 1 Kings 16-22, 2 Chron 18
Notable for: Marrying Jezebel, worshiping Baal, and getting into conflict with numerous prophets
Evil or good? Very evil (“did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him”)

Ahaziah (r. 853-852) Claim: Son of Ahab

Prophet: Elijah
Scripture: 1 Kings 22, 2 Kings 1
Notable for: Not much; continued in his father’s way
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoram/Joram (r. 852-841) Claim: Son of Ahab (Ahaziah’s brother)

Prophet: Elisha
Scripture: 2 Kings 1,9
Notable for: Removed the pillar to Baal that his father had made; war with various neighbors
Evil or good? Slightly less evil

Jehu (r. 841-814) Claim: Military commander in Joram’s army; anointed by Elisha

 
Prophet: Elisha
Scripture: 2 Kings 9-10
Notable for: Slaughtered Joram, Jezebel, all of Ahab’s descendants, and all priests and worshipers of Baal; smashed Baal’s temple; but kept the golden calves
Evil or good? Neutral

Jehoahaz (r. 814-798) Claim: Son of Jehu

Prophet: Elisha
Scripture: 2 Kings 13
Notable for: Humiliating defeat in battle against Aram
Evil or good? Evil

Jehoash (r. 798-782) Claim: Son of Jehoahaz

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 13-14
Notable for: Recovering land from Aram
Evil or good? Evil

Jeroboam II (r. 782-753) Claim: Son of Jehoash

Prophet: Jonah, Amos, Hosea
Scripture: 2 Kings 14
Notable for: Long rule; restored Israel’s borders
Evil or good? Evil

Zechariah (r. 753-752) Claim: Son of Jeroboam II

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Killed by Shallum, ending Jehu’s dynasty
Evil or good? Evil

Shallum (r. 752) Claim: None (usurper)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Killed by Menahem, who sacked the region of Tiphsah
Evil or good? Evil

Menahem (r. 752-742) Claim: None (usurper)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Taxed the wealthy of Israel to successfully pay off Assyrian invaders
Evil or good? Evil

Pekahiah (r. 742-740) Claim: Son of Menahem

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Killed by his captain
Evil or good? Evil

Pekah (r. 752-733) Claim: Pekahiah’s army captain

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 15
Notable for: Lost much of his territory to King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria
Evil or good? Evil

Hoshea (r. 732-722) Claim: None (usurper)

Prophet: None
Scripture: 2 Kings 17
Notable for: Entered vassalage to Assyria, but double-crossed King Shalmaneser and so was imprisoned, leading to the capture of Israel and the Babylonian exile
Evil or good? Evil

BABYLONIAN EXILE (722-450)

Prophets of the Exile

Several prophets wrote from exile in Babylon:Nahum (fl. 615 BC)
Ezekiel (d. 570 BC)
Daniel (ca. 500s BC)

 
Conclusion: Sorting Through the Kings and Prophets

I hope this guide and chart help you to sort through the bewildering array of very similar names between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the books of 1 and 2 Kings — and help you to better understand the history of God’s chosen people as recorded in Scripture. Now, next time someone asks you who your favorite king of Judah was, you’ll have an answer ready.

The Mailbag: Communion Questions - by Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

Ms. Lesley didn't write this article to explain the Bible, she's here to explain her tradition and church practice. Her objective is to further parse what women are allowed to do in a church service. This is a frequent practice of Ms. Lesley, to micro-analyze gender roles to make sure women keep their place, all based on 

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

The problem is, the NT does not contain a solemn communion ritual. There is no biblical indication that communion can only happen in a church building on Sunday. Rather, communion was the church gathering for a meal and fellowship. 

Whenever they got together to eat, they were to remember the Blood [1Co. 11:25] and the Body [1Co. 11:24], and especially, to not dishonor its members [1Co. 11:22]. This was the regular fellowship meal, not a solemn, solitary ceremony with a little plastic cup of juice and a cracker.

Partaking of a meal together speaks to being one body. The sharing of bread is symbolic of togetherness, unity, and a singular identity. Eating together means we belong together as the family.

Communion is the interaction of the body of Christ one with another in honor when it gathers together to eat. To dishonor the body (the church) is to dishonor Christ. However, the Corinthian church was despising the Body (that is, certain members of the church, and by extension, Jesus' sacrifice) by neglecting some, eating all the food, and by getting drunk.

If we don't recognize the Body we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves. If we eat and exclude, diminish, or dishonor our brothers and sisters, we tear down the Body. It isn't about considering the state of our own souls in relation to unconfessed sin, it is instead about our regard for both Jesus' sacrifice and our care and honor for the Body.

It seems clear that communion is more accurately represented by a church potluck than by the little cracker and splash of grape juice during a solemn church service. Communion speaks of a much higher purpose for the church than is currently practiced, a togetherness and unity of vision and purpose that far exceeds the ritual. 

Why is this important? Because if communion is only a church ritual, then who "administers" it becomes an issue, and also where it happens is important. So if communion can only be done by a pastor in a church service, that gives Ms. Lesley the opportunity to bring in her ideas about what women can and can't do. 

And this is the crux of the question. Ms. Lesley wants to add another sub-doctrine to 1 Timothy 2:12. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Should We Forgive Apart from Repentance? What Jesus Expects of the Wronged - by Matt Ferguson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author examines a relatively simply proposition, but expends over 3400 words to do so. This is not counting the 26 footnotes, which themselves comprise an additional 1400+ words. 

He seems to think it is possible, even necessary to "lovingly" withhold forgiveness unless the perpetrator repents. Aside from the logistical problems that come from keeping track of who has repented and subsequently who has been forgiven and who has not, the other issue here is that withholding forgiveness seems to be self-oriented. This is personal, maintaining an offense, the guarding of one's territory; this is an attitude that is almost always damaging and unhealthy. 

The author's idea is based on God forgiving sinners only when they repent. Thus the power of salvation lies in the hands of the sinner who simply needs to refuse to repent and that renders God unwilling to save and helpless to forgive.

This creates additional problems for Calvinists, whose doctrine teaches that salvation lies 100% in the hands of God, and the sinner does not in any way participate in the salvation transaction. But if salvation hinges on repentance, then repentance must be an action of human will. That is a work. 

For the Calvinist, then, our forgiveness cannot be modeled after God's forgiveness because God does the entirety of what is necessary to save, while conversely we require a work, repentance, in order to forgive. 

Calvinists like John MacArthur do not require repentance to forgive: 

John MacArthur: "There are times when forgiveness should be unconditional and unilateral, and there are other times when forgiveness must be withheld until the offender repents. The biblical principles governing these different kinds of forgiveness are clear."

But even if the author is not a Calvinist, his idea that our forgiveness is modeled after God's is still faulty, because God's forgiveness comes to bear on the souls of men, while our forgiveness comes to bear on the flesh.

The last thing we would like to note is the author rarely quotes Scripture, and the Scripture he does quote is interpreted through his doctrinal lens. We must therefore deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

John 3:16 in context - by Mike Ratliff

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

Mr. Ratliff is here to teach his Calvinism, not the Bible. That's what Calvinists do. Over and over. They will go to great lengths to insert their Calvinism at every opportunity. 

In the below article Mr. Ratliff doesn't want to explain John 3:16, he wants to explain Limited Atonement, one of the five "doctrines of grace" known as TULIP:

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

Limited Atonement is the idea that Jesus' work on the cross is effective only for the Elect, those who were chosen by God to be saved. Which creates a problem for Calvinists like Mr. Ratliff whenever the Bible speaks of "the world." Verses like the subject verse, John 3:16, contradict Limited Atonement, so they must be reinterpreted, negated, or explained away. 

That is Mr. Ratliff's objective for today.

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

Justification: Union by Imputation - by Michael Schultz

 Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

For the record:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

Beyond that, she makes two undocumented and false assertions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Conservatives Are Disgusting Frauds - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

The reader would do well to understand this.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We welcome these Socialists to our side.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We explain the sacrificial death of Jesus in detail here.

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

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

Found here.

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

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

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

The author also does not mention this very important detail:

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

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

Also, Revelation 9:1:

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

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

Last one: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

 A Leftist FB friend posted this bit of idiocy:

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

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

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

Weight lifter Avi Silverberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus spilled His blood - why?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.
----------------

Making Sense of Praying With Faith - by Peter Witkowski

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Atonement Through our Lord Jesus Christ - by Mike Ratliff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government of NAR Apostles and Prophets - by Don Pirozok

Found here. A very good article.

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

While the author focuses on the NAR, the problem of church leadership goes well beyond so-called apostles. Churches of every flavor have these same problems, and church leaders in non-NAR churches are falling like flies. 

The problem isn't NAR apostles so much as it is a Church that has left its biblical foundation. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that makes apostles church leaders. Or pastors, for that matter. These five offices are gifts to the church, charged with the duty to raise up the saints to maturity of faith (Ephesians 4:11-15). That duty may imply some sort of leadership, but it's not required. However, it is certainly some sort of local ministry, because an apostle or prophet or evangelist cannot build up the church unless he is present in the church.

So the problems outlined by the author are spread throughout Christendom, not just the NAR. Many churches and denominations are operating without accountability, fidelity to Scripture, and/or with toxic or unbiblical leadership.

This is how churches and denominations fail, compromise, or fade into irrelevance.  

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

The Word of God is not "it" - 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.
----------------

How can I know God’s will? - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Kneale appears in our blog from time to time, and his teaching is invariably absent the Bible. Today he writes almost 1500 words, 400 of them a quote from a Confession, but only six from an unreferenced and misused Bible verse. 

On one hand, the author tells us that we can know and do God's will by studying Bible, but on the other tells us that God directs everything we do. This of course means that our choices aren't choices because they're predestined.  Which can only lead us to the conclusion that our choices don't matter because they are not choices.

He doesn't tell us where we find this information in the Bible, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Predestination and the remnant

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

Understanding the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - by Dave Jenkins

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is focused on refuting the Pentecostal doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the second blessing. We agree with him on this point, but he misses that being filled with the Spirit is the actual second blessing.

In a sense it's a matter of semantics. Pentecostals use the wrong descriptor for the second blessing, but non-Pentecostals use the wrong blessing for the right descriptor. 

Though the author biblically documents many of his assertions, the key conclusion he offers, that every Christian has the Holy Spirit and thus should not seek a second blessing, is not documented.

We have commented on some of the other writings of this author, and frankly, the below explanation is much better than others we have previously examined.

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

Renee Good’s Killing Has Unleashed MAGA’s Misogyny - by Jeet Heer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is astonishing on one hand, and predictable on the other. Astonishing is its raw, brain-dead bias, and predictable in its fidelity to The Narrative. 

As soon as Ms. Good was shot by law enforcement the Talking Points Generator got to work to craft the Leftist Narrative. The Left always wants to get a jump on the way an issue is viewed by quickly crafting their version of it. That version will be disseminated throughout the media landscape as quickly and thoroughly as possible. This serves to negate any competing characterization of the incident. Even when new information comes out later, the Narrative is preserved as "everybody knows this is what happened."

So the author is all set up to mock, accuse, and attack any statement or opinion that violates The Narrative, because The Narrative quickly becomes "common knowledge," and dissent from it is extremist, misogynistic, racist, et cetra ad nauseam.

This is the nature of Leftist agitprop. It's purpose is not to inform, provide facts, or add to understanding. No, it's purpose is to promulgate The Narrative.

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

Are Raised Hands in Worship Just Showing Off? - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a somewhat perplexing article. Dr. Piper is asked about a particular behavior and answers accurately and thoroughly, but he accepts the question's premise without examination. The presumption is that raising hands in worship is somehow controversial and ought to be examined.

There are church traditions where the musical worship is staid and unexpressive, and in fact any physical demonstration at all by the congregants is frowned upon as irreverent. It very nearly rises to the status of inviolable doctrine, which means if a person dared raise his hands in worship it would be scandalous, maybe even heretical.

But the basis of Dr. Piper's answer is public vs. private righteousness, and whether or not the worshiper is seeking the praise of men. He doesn't address that people might be offended, or the Matthew 18 process of how such offense is dealt with, or even any biblical exposition regarding the raising of hands. In fact, he quotes zero verses about raising hands.

Ezr. 9:5-6 Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God 6 and prayed...

Ps. 28:2 Hear my cry for mercy as I call to you for help, as I lift up my hands towards your Most Holy Place.

Ps. 63:4 I will praise you as long as I live, and in your name I will lift up my hands. 

Ps. 119:48 I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees. 

Ps. 141:2 May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.

Ultimately, the raising of hands is a thoroughly biblical practice that has been stigmatized by church tradition.

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

How Do I Know If I'm Called to Serve as a Pastor? - by J.V. Fesko

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------

We have commented on J.V. Fesko's writing several times in this blog, most recently here. Too often, we have found him to be superficial and unnuanced. He seems to prefer regurgitating his doctrine while avoiding quoting the Bible.

But we're confused today. The below excerpt, pulled from a Scriptureless explanation, purports to tell potential pastors if they should take a job as a pastor. The reason we're confused is the author is cessationist (which is the idea that God no longer provides new revelation), yet he seems to believe that God will speak to the potential pastor as to whether or not he is called to the pastorate. 

This extra-biblical revelation is something the author needs to explain. 

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

The Sacraments and the Means of Grace - By Dave Jenkins

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

We have commented some of the author's articles here, here, and here. We have found him to be superficial and even dishonest when explaining his version of Christianity. 

In today's article the author attempts to explain his doctrine, "the means of grace." This is a somewhat odd phrase not found in the Bible. He offers this definition: "...the ways God communicates His grace to His people." So it seems God's grace is expressed through certain avenues, "...especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer..."

The author will repeat this idea of "the means of grace" over and over, connecting it to baptism, communion, and on occasion, sermons. This repetition gets to be a grind after while, especially since they are bare assertions, rarely documented with the Bible.

The first task a serious Bible study would want to do is undertake is to define "grace," which the author does not do. Yet he uses the term a dozen times. The Greek word for "grace" is charis:

preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

5485 /xáris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kaná ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.

God wants to be near us. He leans toward us without regard for our status. Grace seems to be God's primary motivation regarding His creation. We ask the reader to insert this definition each time the word "grace" appears, and you will soon discover that the author's usage of the word borders on ridiculous.

Regarding the Bible, the author does manage to quote a couple of Scriptures, but neither of them document his central thesis. He also cites four Bible references, but none of them proves what he wants to prove.

In essence, the author is regurgitating the doctrines of his church tradition. He uses many words but explains nothing. He's not teaching the Bible, he teaching his doctrines.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Wielding the sword of the Lord correctly - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author writes over 1000 words based on a misconception that Hebrews 4:12 is referring to the Bible. It's not. The “word” is the Greek word logos, preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.  

Logos is not the Bible, Logos is the source of the Bible. John tells us the Logos was made flesh (Jn. 1:1, 14). Logos is the articulated words of God, particularly represented by Jesus, the Word of God. 

If the writer of Hebrews wanted to refer to the Bible, he would have used the Greek word graphé, which is the written word. 

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

5 Ways Covenant Theology Applies to Everyday Life - by Sarah Ivill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

If someone wants an explanation of what covenant theology is, he won't find it in this article. If he wants to know how covenant theology *uniquely* applies to everyday life, he came to the wrong place. And, if a reader comes to this article with no knowledge of what a covenant is, the article will make no sense.

The author is writing with the expectation that her readers have prior understanding of the topic, yet she is not writing to deepen this understanding. Her explanations are bare and base. She is simply regurgitating a long procession of factoids.

The author names three covenants in her article:

• covenant of works
• covenant of grace
• covenant of redemption

She doesn't tell us what these are, because she assumes we already know.

Thankfully, the author does quote a couple of Scriptures, something we have discovered is rather rare among these Bible teachers. However, none of the Scriptures she quotes come to bear on the topic.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

On the Nature and Extent of the Atonement -- A Look at Paul's Doctrine of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 - Kim Riddlebarger

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author of today's article intends to explain the Calvinistic doctrine of "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that the scope of Christ's sacrificial death extends only to those God chose to be saved (the Elect.) 

Limited Atonement is one of of the five "doctrines of grace" represented by the acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

We are sorry to write about Calvinism again, but these largely useless doctrines are pursued with obsessive diligence by Calvinists. They are always teaching them. In fact, they will never teach the Bible unless they can explain some aspect of Calvinism. We call these doctrines useless because they simply have no application. No change to any privilege or obligation we have as Christians is affected by Calvinism.

And, the author writes almost 1450 words, yet no Bible verses are quoted. None. Zero. It continues to astonish us how these so-called Bible teachers can go on and on about what the Bible means but never quote it.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Tara Leigh Cobble, The Bible Recap, & D-Group - by Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------------

Ms. Lesley has appeared in our blog dozens of times, mostly for micro-dissecting 1 Timothy 2:11. When she is not examining every little detail about what women can and cannot do regarding church, she is one of the Doctrinal Police, continually scouting the spiritual horizon for heretics.

We at first thought she was a harmless, though mistaken, Bible teacher. However, we have come to the conclusion that she is not harmless. She is either unable or unwilling to honestly teach the Bible, preferring to interpret it via her doctrine, rather than obtain her doctrine from it.

Today she is evaluating the podcasts of someone named Tara Leigh Cobble, looking for instances of her not toeing the proper doctrinal line. She apparently found a problem, in Ms. Cobble's 8th episode.

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

John Calvin and the Doctrine of Irresistible Grace - by Keith Mathison

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

With a zealotry bordering on obsession Calvinists teach Calvinism. They will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. Calvinism is their faith, not the Bible. What the Bible can be made to say about Calvinism is the goal.

Such is the case with today's article. We are yet again visiting Calvinism, reluctantly. We apologize. However, it is necessary because of the grievous errors committed by the author. He is here to tell us about one of Calvin's doctrines, Irresistible Grace, part of the Acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

These largely useless doctrines are continually pushed by Calvinists, along with incessant fawning praise of Calvin himself. We say "useless" because no matter which side you take in the doctrinal debate it makes absolutely no difference to any privilege or obligation we possess as Christians. No matter your preference, we are still called to faith, obedience, worship, holiness, and generosity. 

TULIP doesn't change any of this.

This author has been examined several times in our blog, and invariably explains Calvinism and Reformed Doctrine. In the space of a few paragraphs he will touch on every single petal of TULIP, couched with innocuous language which would cause the casual reader to think good doctrine is being explained.

Total words: 1493

Number of words from the Bible quoted: 14

Number of words from theologians: 786

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

A Pastor Is an Elder Is a Bishop - by Ben Robin

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

The author makes an attempt to explain church leadership, and uses the Bible to justify his church's tradition regarding the pastor position. Because of this he assumes that elder means pastor, and the on staff paid pastor is the head of the local church.

However, the traditional church leadership model of a singular chief leader is not biblical. This is what the author advocates, and this is Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Hey Churches: Make Sure You Have Christmas Songs For All Year Round - by Steve McAlpine

Found here. our comments in bold.

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

We think the author's heart is in the right place. He understands that tradition does not equal biblical. He loves hymns and Christmas Carols for their theological depth, but he also understands the need for actual worship: 

What about adoration and worship, you ask? Well, here’s a thought: the deeper we dive into the wonders of the historical gospel, planned by God in eternity, and fulfilled in the coming of Jesus and the globalising gift of the Holy Spirit, the deeper our adoration and worship.

It is clear here that he thinks deeper understanding of biblical truths enhances worship, but this is a matter to be proved. His hope in worship is for the " biblical depth, theological astuteness, and gospel longing" that Christmas carols have. So he's torn between the desire to adore and the desire to understand, and wants to combine the two. 

That generally does not work, mostly because reciting doctrine is not worship.

Nevertheless, on the whole we agree with the author, particularly that too many supposed "worship songs" are superficial fluff that secular radio would have no problem playing. We have examined many contemporary worship songs in our "Bad Worship Songs" series, and have found only a handful that we could recommend.

On the minus side, the author offers no Bible quotes or verse references.
--------------------------------