Understanding Revelation: Who Are the 144,000? - by Benjamin L. Gladd

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The speculation about the book of Revelation has been ongoing for decades. Hal Lindsey was influential for us. We were among those who took Hal Lindsey's books as very nearly gospel. The Late Great Planet Earth had us scanning the headlines for the latest prophetic event proving the rapture was imminent and that the anti-christ was alive right now. 

At the time we thought it was just what Christians believed. We didn't know that there were other streams of thought. But despite its popularity, this end times scenario never really sat well with us. After studying the various proof texts for years and speculating on who the anti-christ might be, we began changing our views. 

This began when we started actually reading the proof texts in context. The convoluted time frame derived from cherry-picked verses, the speculation about how it all connected together, the contradictions, the theories, it all began to grate on us.

We have arrived at a different view these days, dare we say a more biblical one. It's simple and makes sense. Our view is that the rapture happens on the last day. All believers will live through a time of increasing trouble, culminating on the return of the Lord coming on the clouds. He will meet us in the air, and then continue on to earth to execute judgment. We discuss the rapture in detail here. We discuss the Last Days here. We discuss the 144,000 in detail here.

So for this article the author wants to tell us who the 144,000 are. This is a somewhat short article at just over 1000 words. The author barely quotes Scripture, just a couple of irrelevant snippets and a portion of one relevant verse. Yet he quotes John MacArthur, Buist Fanning, and G.K. Beale. He doesn't bother to even quote the subject verses. How does one teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

So let's quote them. Here's the first mention of the 144,000:

Re. 7:1-8 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea:

3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Re. 7:5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
Re. 7:6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
Re. 7:7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
Re. 7:8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

And the second:

Re. 14:1-5 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. 3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No-one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 

Re. 14:4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

With the actual verses before us, let's consider the author's presentation.

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

Picking Your Successor? - by J.V. Fesko

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

All of these described pitfalls are a product of the unbiblical CEO pastor leadership model. The pastor is the boss, the manager, the H.R. person, the window cleaner, and the snow shoveler. For too many churches, he's the guy who gets paid to do things so that the congregants don't have to. Everyone else will show up on Sundays, listen attentively to his sermon, write their tithe check, and go home. That's all that's expected of them, and that's exactly what they expect of church.

However, biblical church leadership is a team of spiritually mature men: 

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...

It is the duty of this church leadership team of elders to train their congregants, not only for ministry, but indeed as their replacements. 

It is leadership malpractice to be a singular pastor over a church and not work toward maturing the flock and not equipping them for eventual leadership.

So the author wrestles with the problem singular leadership creates. The CEO pastor, happily perched on his pedestal, seems to have no motivation to train and raise up people into maturity of faith and ministry, in violation of 

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

Lastly, there isn't a single Bible verse quoted or even mentioned. Not one word. We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Personal Holiness, Christlikeness and the Doctrine of Imputation - by Mike Ratliff

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

We quoted only an excerpt, the part of Mr. Ratliff's article that was actually about the title. In this article he quotes Scripture at length but does not provide a single Scripture about imputation. This is distressing to us, since it is a substantial doctrinal claim that this imputation occurred. 

The doctrine descends from a single misinterpreted verse. Romans 4:6: 

Ro. 4:3-6 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works...

We quoted from the KJV because it to our knowledge is the only translation that uses the word "impute." This word, as well as the words "counted" and "reckoned," are the very same Greek word (to take into account, to make account of), used throughout Romans chapter four. It really is the key word, the lynchpin upon which the entire doctrine of imputed righteousness is built. 

In this passage Paul was in the middle of his argument regarding Abraham's faith. According to Paul, Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness [verse 3], as contrasted with a man who works and it is counted to him that he is owed his wages [verse 4]. 

Therefore, the man who works is owed his wages, and the man with faith is credited with righteousness as a gift [verse 5]. Is the man who works imputed with his wages? No, his wage is credited to him because he earned it. Is the man of faith imputed righteousness? No, righteousness is credited to him as a gift.

And like any gift from God, righteousness it is given for free and belongs to the recipient, just as the worker's wage is paid for his work and belongs to him. This is important, because we would not say, for example, that God "imputed" the gift of faith (First Corinthians 12:9), or teaching (Romans 12:7) to us, or that the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:14) or eternal life (Romans 6:23) were imputed to us, would we? No, we actually possess these things as a gift.

Of course we already know that we cannot obtain righteousness by works:

Ro. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 

 

Ro. 9:30-31 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 

The use of the word "obtained" is telling. The Greek word is katalambanó, to lay hold of so as to make one's own, to obtain, attain to... We seize righteousness and own it by faith. Certainly Paul would not use such language if righteousness was merely imputed.

We think Scripture plainly teaches that actual, real righteousness by faith is immediately ours at salvation because of the completely efficacious blood.

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

Misinterpreting Romans 10:17 - Faith comes by hearing

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

Can My Silence Cost Souls? - Interview with John Piper

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

The short answer for Calvinists is no, our silence will not cost souls because God has already irrevocably chosen The Elect.

Either the Calvinists are really pushing predestination right now or maybe they never stopped focusing on it. It certainly seems to be their favorite doctrine. We aren't quite sure why, since it's completely irrelevant to Christian living. How we got to be Christians no longer matters. 

So Dr. Piper contributes to the Calvinist narrative by attempting to explain how predestination doesn't conflict with evangelism.

He fails.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Is a Liturgy, and Should We Have One? - by Jonathan M. Threlfall

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

This article is huge at over 2800 words, and happily the author quotes a fair amount of Scripture. However, none of it speaks to his thesis that we need the liturgy. Starkly, it's the only thing not documented by Scripture even though it's the topic.

In fact, the author is unable to make any meaningful distinction between liturgical and non-liturgical churches. All of his principles and good advice applies to either.

And yes, it is good advice, especially the admonition that worship must be the adoration of God. We like that.

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

At The Cross - original song using Suno

A couple of weeks ago I posted my best original songs, for the purpose of enlisting the help of some friends in order to pick out the best of the best.

The first recommendation was At The Cross, which I wrote in July 2013. (Audio link)

I hope you enjoy it and share it.

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

Worship in the church - programming or true worship - Faceborg conversation

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

Friend:

I’ve been hearing much about “worship participation” recently and how much of a consumer mindset has begun to pervade Christian communities.

The insight is that what happens on stages on Sunday mornings is beginning to be more and more of a concert performance rather than an invitation to participation.

This is a conversation we should have, but it extends outward past mere participation.

What do you think the difference is between participation and partnership?

Can’t wait to hear your insights below!

Potter’s hands shaping a clay vessel on a wheel Dinesh D’Souza’s Case Against Calvinism, Answered - by Anthony Faggiano

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has appeared in our blog twice before, and neither time did he acquit himself well. The second link was about predestination, which is his principal theme today as well.

But what is the actual reason the author wrote? D'Souza is guilty of the cardinal sin: He disagrees with Calvinism. Calvinists will defend to the death their doctrines. In fact, that's all Calvinists talk about, their Calvinism. They will never, ever, discuss the Bible apart from making sure these doctrines are inserted. 

Calvinism is stark in its surprising non-utility. There is no Christian obligation or privilege that changes as a result of Calvinism. The need for salvation, holiness, obedience, worship, generosity... none of it changes because of Calvinism. The doctrines are totally irrelevant to Christian living.

He writes over 3500 words, even after we redacted an irrelevant introduction. Only about 300 are words quoted from the Bible. Most of them are Scripture snippets and not full verses, and one verse (John 6:44) is quoted three times.

As much as we don't want to, it is inescapable that we will need to follow the author into the weeds. We apologize for this. 

The author tries hard to justify his Calvinistic doctrine but fails spectacularly. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
------------------------

Ryder Cross, the latest country western rising star - is he real?

Most of the debate surrounding A.I. centers on people claiming A.I.'s work to supplement or even replace their own work. This of course is problem, particularly if such things are used as a basis to judge a person's performance, merit, or competence. But there's another, perhaps less discussed aspect, and that is the use of A.I. to create music and performers without anyone supplying any original work. A song completely made up by computers into a real-sounding band. The state of the art makes this possible, and it's truly astounding technology.

But it's troubling.

Ryder Cross has benefitted from this technology as the latest rising star in country music, with a Christian emphasis. First showing up sometime in March, he's heavily promoted on Youtube, Instagram, Apple music, Spotify, and Faceborg. He has the quintessential cowboy look and a great sound. Judging by the numbers, he achieved overnight success.

But he's A.I. And his songs are A.I. and I can prove it. 

Who’s Raking it in as the National Debt Explodes? - By Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Three years ago Dr. Reich wrote this: 

So if you’re worried about the federal debt — and there are some good reasons not to be..."

He is not writing to inform, explain, or clarify. Facts are of little relevance to Dr. Reich. No, he intends to bolster The Narrative, which is the Party line, the factoids and tidbits disseminated by Central Command so that leftist talking heads and agitat"ors can regurgitate coordinated talking points. 

So keep in mind that Dr. Reich has an agenda.

This PhD is either woefully maleducated, or a liar. Or both. 

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

Can We Get Over John Piper Already? - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" doesn't like Piper, obviously. But he's on both sides of the issue based solely on who he likes and who he doesn't like. For example, celebrity pastors are both good and bad (good if they're "apostle-like" and bad if they hang out with the wrong people). It's a moving target.

We should say that we are not fans of Piper, because we have examined several of his teachings, and we think his Calvinism is false. 

Lastly, "Publisher" does not write to explain or even edify. It's nothing more than a long, sour whine to no one's benefit.

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

Is new prophecy done? If it is, what about that verse in Acts? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It's only a couple of weeks ago we looked at Ms. Prata's shortcomings. Well, she's back.

This is simply Bad Bible Teaching. There is no other way to describe it. Ms. Prata creates doctrines based on supposition and assumption, denies the plain words of Scripture, and invents an entire fantasy scenario in an attempt to find a workaround for Joel's prophecy, quoted by Peter.

This is dismal. We have had reason to question Ms. Prata's Bible competence in the past, but we no longer need to do so. The matter is now proven.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Answering a discernment objection… - by Michelle Lesley

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

Michelle Lesley gets pretty nasty here. Her hostile responses to this man's statement seems to indicate that she doesn't like to be disagreed with. She disproportionately mocks, denigrates, and disrespects the man for no other reason than he finds a particular Bible teacher to be of benefit.  

Arrogant, condescending, and boorish. Not great qualities for a self-professed Bible teacher to possess.

Now, we do not intend to defend Tara Leigh Cobble. We've never heard her speak. We are here to examine Ms. Lesley's presentation. 

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

Bad Worship Songs - Midst - The Belonging Co. (Andrew Holt)

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, Midst.

Video link.
---------------------------------

Speaking of Tongues… - by Amy Spreeman

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

We have spent a lot of time searching for a coherent biblical explanation for the cessation of the "miraculous" spiritual gifts. We have yet to find one.

Today we shall examine Ms. Spreeman's attempt to refute contemporary tongues. This is relatively short at 690 words, which means she ends up explaining precious little. She quotes precisely two Scriptures, neither of which come to bear on her effort to refute contemporary tongues. The balance of her presentation will be made up of various claims and assertions, using pejorative phrases to make her case.

The author will be focused on private prayer language. She will pretty much avoid explaining general tongues. And she doesn't even understand what charismatics believe.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Restful Finality of Pentecost - By Melody Muniz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Over 1800 words, but only 33 of them are words quoted from the Bible. But none of these Bible quotes were employed to document the author's assertions. In addition, there are many undocumented assertions, stated as if they were unvarnished truths. 

In reality, the author wanders around searching for a point. She seems to want to refute Pentecostalism, spending a great deal of time on it, but this is only a rabbit trail. We are guessing, but we think she wants to tell us that receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation is enough, and more of Him is not possible. Which makes Pentecostals heretics. 

Or not Calvin/Reformed or something.

We do not intend to defend Pentecostals. Nor do we intend to mock or denigrate the author. We are here to examine her deficient writing.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Let’s Stop Imaging Jesus - by Aaron Roberts

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

There are some Christians who believe that any visual representation of Jesus is idolatry and is therefore forbidden. The author is one such person. One would thing that in 1650 words (including footnotes) a presumed competent rhetorician could make a convincing appeal, but his case is surprisingly vapid. 

The relevant Scripture he quotes is

Ex. 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God... (NIV)

But the author writes:

...we shall not make an image of the LORD our God...

The two are not the same.

Let's take a closer look at the verses. There are two parts. 

1. We are forbidden to make an image depicting creation:

• anything in heaven
• anything on earth
• anything in the waters

2. We cannot 

• bow down to it
• worship it

Hmm. 

How might this apply to a movie depicting Jesus, or a children's book illustrating Jesus’s life? Because this is what the author says is being forbidden. 

However, we can clearly see that God isn't even mentioned. It's about forbidding images of anything in creation. 

Any image that is made to look like creation is forbidden. And of course God isn't created. 

Strike one.

It's possible the author is focused on the word "heaven" since God is heaven. In this case an image of Jesus would be an image of something from heaven. But the Hebrew word for heaven variously means the sky, the abode of spiritual beings like powers and principalities, or the highest place where the Glory dwells.

Context is the key. In the quoted passage we see heaven, earth, and seas mentioned together. Clearly this use of the word "heaven" is about the things of creation found in the natural sky with its creatures and stars. It's not about God's dwelling place.

Strike two.  

One might think this forbids any image period. But an image of creation is only part of the command. An image is not an idol, but an idol is an image. In order for an image to be an idol ("a manufactured, carved image set up for religious veneration") it needs to be worshiped. It's not a matter of simply making or possessing an image. So unless the author worships his wife's picture he's fine to have it. 

Strike three.

Bottom line: We are forbidden from fashioning something that looks like some aspect of creation and then bow down and worship it. Two things are required: Make an image as an idol, and worship the idol. Grandma's picture of praying Jesus hanging on the kitchen wall is not an idol unless it was created to be an idol and is worshiped.

We are going to redact a large introductory portion that has very little to do with the topic. We will pick it up here:

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

Heresy of the Day #24: Generational Curses - by Publisher

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

Disntr appears in our blog with alarming frequency. Disntr represents itself as a Christian watchdog. We would call the organization one of the Doctrinal Police, or perhaps, heresy hunters. 

Now, what Disntr does might be a valuable service provided to the Christian community, but such a ministry must be dispassionate, doctrinally accurate, and correctly representing the subject they are examining. Disntr regularly fails these standards.

We don't know Kathryn Krick and have never heard her speak. She may indeed be a false teacher, so we do not intend to defend her. But neither are we advocates for the "generational curses" doctrine as represented by Disntr. We're not sure Krick is, either, because the author never quotes her.

Krick's beliefs, and our beliefs, are not the purpose of this post. We are here to evaluate the unnamed "Publisher's" presentation. And "Publisher" misuses Scripture. Further, he doesn't explain anything, preferring to make undocumented assertions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Pastoral Time Guilt - By Joe Keller

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The modern pastorship is unbiblical. There, we said it. There is no Bible verse that tells us the pastor presides over the local church. The expectations for a CEO pastor is the main reason he fails. 

But the author doesn't address that. He's more intent on telling pastors to not worry about not getting everything done. Time is in God's hands. Just don't waste it. 

Though the author quotes some Bible verses, he never teaches on proper church leadership. He simply accepts that status quo and looks for ways to work around it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

From snow cone stands to hay fields: Montana stories show why Social Security is earned, not given - Tim Summers Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author lays the schmaltz on thick. It practically drips from his word processor.

He tells a tale of the typical hardworking citizen who works his fingers to the bone, he's a pillar of the community, a saintly figure, he never did anyone wrong. And because he paid into Social Security all his life, he's entitled to his Social Security check. Indeed, we can't imagine anyone more deserving of a government handout, solely by virtue of having hundreds of thousands of dollars extracted from his paycheck whether he wanted it or not. 

This is how the author frames it. Such a noble soul deserves this money. It's his birthright. He sacrificed and is due his reward.

But in reality the author as a representative of the AARP is trying to manipulate us. He's cozying up to his constituency, the ones who pay their dues to this organization. They keep the money flowing, which empowers the AARP to access the halls of power in Washington D.C.. 

That's what's at stake here, government money. But not for seniors, for the AARP.

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

I used A.I. on my original songs

These songs are really songs I have written. My melody, my lyrics, my chords. But the thing about writing songs has been that you need a band to play them and a recording studio to produce them. 

Not any more. Recently a friend introduced me to a website called Suno, which is an A.I. tool used to create music. I uploaded rough audio versions of my songs and Suno created a virtual band and an arrangement of each song.

These are entirely an A.I. band. That's right, nothing you will hear in the below links is real, except for the original material that underpins them.

So, this post is for the purpose of evaluating the songs. I asked four faith-filled friends, all of them excellent musicians, worship leaders, and/or songwriters, to listen to these songs and pick the best ones.

My request for them is to keep in mind the following:

• Consider the congregation. These songs are for the purpose of our church's worship. A good song is not a good song if it doesn't speak to our church.

• Consider the music. Are the melodies good? Are the chords interesting? What about the tempos? Are the songs singable?

• Consider our band. Suno arrangements can sometimes be too much, like a lot of lead guitar solos, vocal gymnastics, or intricate arrangements. Try to look past the arrangements and discern the song itself.

• Consider the doctrinal and lyrical clarity. Does the song make sense? Is it off base or heretical?

• Consider the Holy Spirit. 

I picked what I think are my twenty best songs. I divided them up by tempo. But there's no need to select songs from every category. Frankly, there's no need to select any songs at all. You can select as many or as few as you like.

Many thanks to Chelsea, Jerry, Elijah, and Megan.

Testing the “God Told Me” Claim; Part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold. Our examination of part one is here.

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

We ask the reader to forgive us. As we proceeded through our analysis we grew increasingly frustrated at all the undocumented claims, faulty logic, bad exegesis, and irrelevant factoids. We don't wish to insult Ms. Prata, but this is a terrible presentation. She attempts to refute what she thinks is false teaching and botches it terribly. 

Ms. Prata is just not a very good teacher. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Testing the “God Told Me” Claim; Part 1 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is reliably cessationist. But it isn't a biblical or rational position, it's reactionary. She doesn't like certain doctrines but is unable to intellectually articulate, from the Bible, her doctrines. 

A cessationist believes that God no longer speaks, among other things. But apparently there is some level of revelation from God that is acceptable, though Ms. Prata draws the line arbitrarily. So the Holy Spirit pricks the conscience, but doesn't inform us about the decisions we face. He warns us about sin, but not about danger around a street corner. He informs us about the contents of the Bible, but not about discerning someone's need.

None of this parsing is backed up by Scripture. She's inventing the whole scenario.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Does God Punish Us for Our Parents’ Sin? - by Aaron Garriott

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

The author doesn't really answer the question, attributing the troubles of subsequent generations to "indirect" punishment. So in some manner, one might conclude that God does punish children for their father's sin.

The author doesn't like this answer, except when punishment comes from Adam's sin. He's ok with us being "directly" punished for someone else's sin if that someone is Adam.

In addition, the author's biblical documentation disappears at the key moment when it's time to answer the question. After liberally quoting the Bible at the beginning, we look in vain for any Bible verse in the article that bolsters the author's case.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Undeserved favor

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

This meme is false. Let's explain.

The mailbag: potpourri (Women sharing the gospel) - Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley has a penchant for analyzing what Christian women can and cannot do. She has created an endless series of micro-doctrines regarding women's roles in the church, all based on a faulty interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12: 

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 

But she will never quote this or any Bible verse. Because of this we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss the issues of women and leadership here.

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

Chosen by Grace – Why Predestination Should Give You Confidence, Not Fear - by Alistair Chalmers

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

The author is a Calvinist, and as is typical for Calvinists he does not intend to explain the Bible, he's wanting to explain Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach some aspect of Calvinism.

This essay uses about 1500+ words, comprised mostly of bare assertions. Assertions about Calvinism. Predestination, to be specific. A doctrine that cannot give anyone confidence, as we will explain below.

Predestination is one of the so-called "doctrines of grace," roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

The reader will likely notice that the author directly or indirectly references almost all of these five doctrines. Again, that is what Calvinists do, talk endlessly about Calvinism.

Though the author quotes a few Scriptures, they are standard Calvinist go-to verses. Because the author misrepresents these verses, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Trump stories that turned out to be hoaxes - by John C. Wright

Found here. https://americandebunk.com/

In addition to the Russian Collusion Hoax, and the Wu Han Wet Market Origin Hoax, please do not forget these. Years passed. To date, not one newsman, social media oligarch, pundit, nor politician has printed correction, retraction, nor apology.

The Bloodbath Hoax
The Find Votes Hoax
The Fine People Hoax
The Drinking Bleach Hoax
The Dictator from Day One Hoax
The J6 Insurrection Hoax
The Trump Overfed Koi Fish Hoax
The Trump Mocked A Disabled Person Hoax
The Border Patrol Agents Whipped Migrants Hoax
The Threat to Democracy Hoax
The January 6 Protesters Killed Police Hoax
The Presidential Immunity Hoax
The Muslim Ban Hoax
The Suckers and Losers Hoax
The Grabbed Steering Wheel Hoax
The Hunter’s Laptop is Russian Misinformation Hoax

Crowds without Conversion - by Ethan Jago

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Crowds don't equal revival. We agree. This article is built on those four words, with John chapter 6 providing Scriptural cover for the author. But John chapter six isn't about revival or the possibility of crowds not meaning revival.

It takes a long time for the author to get to his solution, which he equates with evaluating a church. That is, he wants all the elements of a church expressed in a revival. 

But ultimately the author is skeptical. His skepticism is based on semantics, tradition, and preconceptions. We can't call it revival because we don't know if anyone is being revived. We can't call it revival because revival must look the a certain way. We can't call it revival because revivals are like churches. It can't be revival because the Gospel wasn't preached.

However, it seems to us that revival is whatever God wants it to be. It looks however God wants it to look. God can use any sermon, any setting, and any group of people to bring revival. And every church and every supposed revival is a mix of Holy Spirit and flesh. That does not determine whether not God uses them.

Revival is chayah:

3. quicken, revive, refresh:

a. restore to life, the dead 1 Samuel 2:6; Deuteronomy 32:39; Hosea 6:2; the dying Psalm 71:20.

b. cause to grow, grain Hosea 14:8.

c. restore, a ruined city 1 Chronicles 11:8, stones destroyed by fire Nehemiah 3:34.

d. revive, the people by himself with fulness of life in his favor Psalm 80:19; Psalm 85:7; Psalm 119:25,37,40,50,88,93,107,149,154,156,159; Psalm 143:11; Ecclesiastes 7:12.

Some OT verses that speak of revival:

Ps. 119:37 Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things, And revive me in Your way.

Is. 57:15 For this is what the high and lofty One says — he who lives for ever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.

What the NT has to say:

Ac. 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 3:19-21 ESV Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

Ro. 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Ephesians 5:14 ESV For anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Surely the Church, this nation, and the world needs revival. Revival in a rekindling of flagging faith, revival via new salvations, and revival of the preaching of the Gospel. We need revival in every facet of the faith, revival that invades godless structures, cold, dead churches, and revival in evil strongholds for the sake of the Kingdom. 

It's God's purpose and desire in these Last Days: 

Ac. 2:17-18 In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Does the author want this? Then he might want to abandon his skepticism. It isn't useful. In fact, the author ought to be praising God for the possibility that it might be revival. And he might want to check out what actual witnesses have written about Asbury. Nearly every criticism the author makes gets negated. 

Crowds don't mean revival, but revival means crowds. If maybe it's not revival, we yet rejoice over a taste of a greater thing to come.

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

Bad worship songs: Worthy (Elevation/Brown, Furtick)

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, Worthy. 

Video found here.

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

You have to know when to stop evangelizing - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is Reformed and Calvinist, which means she believes God predestined those whom He will save. These are known as The Elect, and their destiny is set and cannot be changed. which means her recommendation that at some point evangelism should cease is very puzzling. 

We say this because a justifiable criticism of the doctrine of predestination is that since God has already chosen, evangelism is rendered meaningless. Nothing anyone does will change God's choice. Calvinists would respond that though God has chosen The Elect, He has also ordained the manner of their salvation and therefore has commanded us to evangelize. 

But Ms. Prata flips the coin over and tacitly accepts the fact that in certain cases evangelism made no difference. Yet if these people are part of The Elect they will get saved. If not, they won't. Which begs the question, what difference did it make to share the Gospel then decide to stop, versus never bothering to share the Gospel at all? 

It made no difference.

Now, we happen to believe that evangelism is not only necessary, but effective. Salvation is completely a work of God, we do not save ourselves. Yet we do not believe God predestines all people. We believe the revelation of God's holiness comes to a person and they respond with faith. The act of faith is not a work, despite the claims of Calvinists.

So this makes evangelism real and crucial, and not an empty exercise. 

Lastly, we note that the verses Ms. Prata uses to bolster her case are all taken out of context. Every verse she cites is regarding a community, not an individual. Each of them are examples of the Gospel being rejected by Jews, which means these verses speak to the idea of the Gospel shifting from the Jews to the nations: 

Ro. 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

 She therefore misuses these verses, and as a result we must deem her article Bad Bible teaching. 

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

The Pastor’s Responsibility in Discerning Worship - by David de Bruyn

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

The author wants to teach his tradition, not the Bible. He likes the old hymns and the traditional worship service. He does quote a couple of relevant Scriptures, but explains them in terms of his preferences, not for what they actually teach.

His greatest fear is that people might worship emotionally. He cites no Bible verse regarding this supposed danger, but he's absolutely certain it is dangerous. And, his remedy is to obligate the overworked pastor to keep the musicians in line.

What is the real purpose of this article? Well, actually, to admonish pastors to keep modern worship music out of their churches. This music is upsetting, it sounds worldly, and it doesn't have enough theology in it.

Because the author does not draw his conclusions from the Bible, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

False Teacher of the Day #61: Isaiah Saldivar - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

1362 words, zero from the bible. Zero from documented sources. Zero quotes of Saldivar's supposed false teaching. There are many undocumented claims and inferences and implied causes and effects. But no actual discussion of the issues, and no explanation of the truth contrary to Saldivar's teaching.

This is nothing more than a long, unattributed, unverifiable screed, full of loose accusations and summary conclusions. There are no facts stated at all.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching. Really bad.

We should note that we are not here to defend Saldivar. We are only interested in evaluating the unnamed "publisher's" unfocused rant.

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

Gifts for All Time? The Purpose and Cessation of Revelatory Gifts - by Todd M. Rester

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We began our quest for the biblical case for cessationism in 2013. As of yet we have not found anyone who is able to clearly explain this doctrinal stance. Our criteria for proponents of cessationism is simple. The explanation must

1. be from the Bible (quote the verses that speak to the point being made)
2. Not appeal to contemporary expressions of charismata (what a church happens to believe is not the biblical case)
3. Not appeal to silence (i.e., what the Bible does not say)
4. Not appeal to events or practices of history (i.e., the historical absence or presence of something, or the statements of post-biblical writers)

The article below is another faulty attempt to explain cessationism. The author is guilty of inventing terminology, making undocumented claims, and misleading us about Bible verses. His key premise, that the close of the "apostolic" age means the close of revelation, is repeatedly asserted but never discussed.

But worse, he quotes a mere three Scriptures (one is a short snippet), only one of which comes to bear on his argument.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Ordinary and Enduring Gifts of the Spirit -by William Barcley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Let's quote the pertinent verses so that it's all together: 

Ro. 12:6-8 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

It is interesting that the author chose to explain this passage and not 1 Corinthians chapters 12 - 14. He probably made this choice because 1 Corinthians is substantially more problematic to his cessationist doctrine. But even so, the author will have to find a way to explain away the gift of prophecy.

It will not be a good explanation. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Who Was Timothy? - by William Barcley

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

The author does a good job in describing Paul's relationship to Timothy. He ably explains Timothy's role as Paul's associate and helper (we redacted most of this, however), but somehow ignores his own observations when it comes to pastors. It is here where he goes off track by thinking Timothy was a pastor. He was not.

The author is simply teaching his tradition that pastors are the CEO heads of local churches, with everyone else subordinate to him.

First and Second Timothy and Titus have been characterized as "pastoral epistles." The assumption is that Paul wrote these letters to teach these men how to pastor their churches. However, there is nothing in the Bible that even suggests that these men were pastors. "Pastor" and "shepherd" are not found in these letters. 

From this initial errant assumption descends other errors, which eventually leads to a complete misapplication of these letters. These assumptions  

• are used to justify the unbiblical leadership structure that a singular pastor presides over the congregation
• unduly expands the scope of Paul's personal instructions to apply universally
• derive unbiblical ideas about how church services should be conducted

We would therefore assert that these letters are not "pastoral" letters, which means Paul was not giving "pastoral" direction. These men were not sent to preside over these churches, but rather to correct them and install leadership.

Regarding Timothy, Paul's clear purpose in writing to him was to first, encourage him to stay true to the faith; second, to provide guidance on the conduct of Christians; third, to instruct him on how to handle situations in this church; and fourth, to install elders to lead this church.

He wasn't sent to be a pastor, he was sent to fix this church.

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

How Can We Be Ready to Meet the Lord? - By Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Our various experiences with this author's writing are generally positive. We would rate him as a competent Bible teacher. He quotes Scripture, explains it adequately, and doesn't inject his preconceptions into his explanations. 

This heartens us, considering the numerous self-styled Bible teachers we've examined in our blog, who couldn't exegete themselves out of a paper bag.

Today's article contains a few noteworthy flaws, which we will discuss below. 

Regarding the author's title, in our opinion, there is nothing we can do to be ready to meet the Lord.

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

Bad Worship Songs: What a God, what a God - by SEU 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, What a God.

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

Who Was Stephen? - by Danny Myers

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

We know the author is a Calvinist/Reformist, so of course we shall be on the lookout for errant teaching. However, in this case it's not what is taught, but actually, what is not taught. The author seems to provide a comprehensive explanation of who Stephen was and what he did, but he studiously avoids mentioning this significant factor:

Ac. 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Why would he not mention such a important thing?

Even worse, though he writes nearly 1100 words, only eleven are from the Bible. How can someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

He does quote the lyrics from a song (We wouldn't call it a hymn, though. Helen Lemmel wrote it in 1922.)

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

God’s Plan for Your Prayers - by John Piper

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

Dr. Piper will use the word "sovereign" and its variants 18 times but will never define it. In fact, it is quite clear that he does not use the actual definition. Let's explain what sovereignty is. Acts 4:24 reads, 

Act 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them..."

The Greek word for "sovereign" is despotés, a word used ten times in the NT: (despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints..." 

Mostly used in terms of a monarchy, sovereignty describe a position of highest authority and absolute rulership. A king has unquestioned authority, with even the law itself being subject to him. His commands are law, his desires are carried out without question.

Sovereignty is a position, not an activity. Sovereignty doesn't describe actions, because the king as sovereign determines his own actions as he chooses. Further, his subjects operate according to his rulership, but he does not go to every field and tell the plower how to do his plowing. He does not show up to explain to the baker how to make bread. He does not personally go to the seamstress to see if she's sewing correctly.

The king is the ultimate authority, but he has no need to control every single thing in his kingdom, because he delegates his authority. He has agents to do his bidding, and they operate with authority under the king's authority. We see this in Gabriel's words: 

I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. Lk. 1:19

The centurion amazed Jesus when he placed himself in subjection to Him: 

For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, "Go," and he goes; and that one, "Come," and he comes. I say to my servant, "Do this," and he does it. Lk. 7:8 

This chain of authority descends down to the lowliest subject in his kingdom. Even the poorest sap has a modicum of authority as he lives out his life in the kingdom. That is why the king has no need to dictate every action of every soul in his kingdom. His authority descends down to the lowest place.

It is crucial we understand that sovereignty doesn't speak to actions. Sovereignty doesn't require action or forbid action, because the king determines the expressions of his sovereignty as it pleases him. He is not subject to any required action. He is not forbidden from any action. If he was required to to act, he would not be sovereign. If he was required to stand there and make sure the baker made every single loaf of bread correctly, he would be at the mercy of what he was required to do.

Thus sovereignty is a position, not an action. The actions of a sovereign are a matter apart from his position.

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

The God Who Saves: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Anthony Faggiano

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

As is typical with Calvinists, the author is here to explain Calvinism, not the Bible. That's what these Calvinists do. They never will explain the Bible unless they can explain Calvinism.

Almost 1200 words, and almost 700 of them are quotes and summaries from agreeable theologians and statements of faith. About 100 words are actual Scripture quotes, though most are only snippets of verses. Only a few verses got quoted in their entirety. Astoundingly, only one is an actual predestination Scripture, which the author merely quotes with only perfunctory discussion.

We are at loss to explain this presentation, it's almost totally devoid of any substantial instruction. It's nothing more than a series of undocumented claims regurgitated from others who themselves make the same claims. Every single quote from a theologian is a Scriptureless bare assertion. Every one is simply a restatement of the author's bare assertion. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Who Should Serve the Elements of the Lord’s Supper? Who may offer and who may withhold the bread and the wine? - by O. Palmer Robertson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Hot on the heals of our recent post regarding who can receive communion comes this article regarding who can administer it.

And once again we find an author who does not teach the Bible, he teaches his tradition. Worse, the author only manages to quote one verse and snippets of four others in a 2050 + word essay. Incredible. How does one explain doctrines without quoting the Bible?

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Are you SURE you want “the first century church”? - By Elizabeth Prata

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

This is the way political Leftists argue. "Oh, so you want to go back to the 1950s? You must want women repressed and separate drinking fountains for blacks." "Oh, so you want government to obey the Constitution? You mean the document written by white European slave-owners?"

Those who want to regain the passion and power of the early church are obviously not including the faults of the early church. This is simply nonsense. To insist that to have such a desire means we must take the bad with the good is to argue dishonestly and divert from the matter at hand.

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

Who Should Be Admitted to the Lord’s Supper? 4 Views - by Davy Ellison

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

The author considers communion only in terms of his tradition, that it is a somber, introspective church ceremony. So the debate for him is who is eligible to partake of the ritual.

This completely misses the teaching of the passage. The early church was actually gathering together to eat a meal, a "commun"-ity practice:

Acts 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

The Lord’s Supper was a potluck, not a ceremony. It was likely a joyous event, with lots of laughing. But the problem was, certain people were eating all the food and getting drunk while others were left hungry. This dishonored the Body of Christ, that is, the community of believers: 

1 Cor. 11:22 ...do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

The self-examination Paul commanded was to consider one's attitude toward the brothers: 

1 Cor. 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

This thought continues into chapter 12:

1 Cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.

One might say that Paul’s discussion about the Lord’s Supper continues all the way to chapter 14, because it is all regarding how the Body ought to conduct itself when it gathers together.

Clearly we are not dealing with a ritual here. Given this, it almost seems nonsensical to discuss categories of participation in a community meal. In fact, to exclude anyone would be ironic, since that's what Paul was correcting. 

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

Pastor’s Job Description: Four Essential Responsibilities of a Shepherd - by Joshua Chatman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wants to teach his doctrine and tradition, not the Bible. He writes a little over 900 words, only six of which are words quoted from the Bible. 

For the author, the pastor is the CEO leader of a church, with everyone else below him. Whenever he references verses about church leadership, they're reinterpreted to conform to this preconception.  

But the Bible is quite clear, despite centuries of unbiblical church leadership, that a plurality of elders lead the church:

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

1 Pe. 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...

The author will reference these and other Scriptures in defense of his view of pastors, but he will not quote them. No wonder, since they contradict his doctrine. 

Now, we should note that we have no idea who this fellow is. He might be a great guy and an effective church leader. Who knows? Nevertheless, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Revival: In America We Trust? -by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley doesn't like the idea of a revival so far-reaching that it transforms the very fabric of society. Why? Because there's nothing worse than to be called a "Christian Nationalist." She thinks that the belief amounts to idolizing the country. 

For her, real revival excludes this possibility. The line she draws is Arbitrary, however, because she doesn't make her case from the Bible. In fact, it is entirely missing.

How can someone teach doctrine without the Bible?

At least she believes in revival in some form. Nevertheless, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching. 

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

No, the blood of Jesus did not buy forgiveness of sins from God (Matthew 26:28) - By Jeremy Myers

Found here. We have come to understand that the death of Jesus for our sins was a sacrifice, not a transaction. The author ably explains this concept. A very good article.

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

The End of Independent Agencies - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich is worried about the president gaining too much power, something he never worried about with Democratic presidents. He does his best to tilt the argument into a dangerous situation, appealing to a Constitution he hates, in opposition to a Supreme court he hates, to put down a president he hates.

The Left is only worried about power when they don't have it.

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

7 Reasons God Takes Pleasure in Election - by: John Piper

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

What an odd title.

We've commented on Dr. Piper's explanations several times before, and we have yet to find a truly good teaching. Too often, they have even been sub-par, which surprises us given his reputation.

As is his habit, Dr. Piper is going to once again explain his Calvinism. That's what Calvinists always do. They will never explain the Bible unless they can explain Calvinism. Today's article is about the Calvinistic doctrine of Election. 

This is mostly a rehash of other Calvinist teachings we have  examined in our blog. We consider these doctrines to be largely useless to the Christian life. But, there are some novel claims, so we will comment on them.

Since Dr. Piper doesn't clearly explain election, We shall. Election is one of the five "petals" of TULIP, collectively known as the "doctrines of grace:"

Total Depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace 

Perseverance of the saints

The idea is, God has already chosen those people He will save, long ago [U]. He doesn't just have foreknowledge of who will get saved, He deliberately preselected them. Which of course means that He also chose those He would send to hell. Which means your destiny was set before you drew your first breath.

Because the Elect are chosen without their participation in any way [because they are powerless to do so, T], they cannot resist their salvation [I] and cannot lose their salvation [P]. A derivative of this is that the atonement of Christ is limited only to the Elect, because only their sins are forgiven [L].

We hope Dr. Piper will explain how his seven things are uniquely applicable to the the doctrine of Election. Alas, he will not.

In addition, we need to note that Dr. Piper writes 1800 words, and 260 of them are quotes from other teachers and theologians. This is more than the number of words of Scripture quoted. And of those Scriptures, only a couple of them even speak to the topic of election.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Phoebe Hoax - by Denny Burk

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

The author quotes the subject Scripture (Romans 16:1-2) and one other (1 Timothy 2:12)  in 1900 words. He wastes over 400 words quoting various "egalitarians" (a term he never defines, though he uses it fourteen times). He's attempting to bolster his doctrine against women church leaders, and uses these "egalitarians" as the opportunity.

Let's quote the verses:

Ro. 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

In verses 1-15 Paul commended a number of people to the church in Rome, beginning with Phoebe. She gets the most extensive treatment of anyone. Clearly Paul held her in high regard, so high in fact that his instruction included the directive that they should give her anything she wanted. 

Since the author discusses the meaning of a couple of the Greek words, we shall expand his efforts in order to capture the magnitude of Paul's commendation.

The Greek word for "commend" is sunistémi, which means to stand in union with. Paul was not giving a tepid recommendation, He was standing together firmly with Phoebe.

"Sister" is adelphé, a part of the family, a woman believer. Paul included her as a precious part of the community of believers.

"Deaconess," a word the author generically defined, is diákonos (diá, "thoroughly" and konis, "dust") – properly, "thoroughly raise up dust by moving in a hurry, and so to minister." The author does his best to separate Phoebe from church leadership, but this is not about authority, it's about how hard Phoebe worked on behalf of the Church. She was rather remarkable in this, according to Paul. 

The idea that we must decide whether or not Phoebe was a church leader is completely irrelevant. She was a servant, like Paul described himself: 

1Co. 3:5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

Further, she was described specifically as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, she was not simply a generic servant or a helper like all the others in Paul's list. She was associated with a specific church as a deaconess, and recognized for this work.

"Receive" is prosdechomai, expectant waiting where a person is ready and willing to receive... So because of this remarkable woman, Paul instructed the Roman church to be completely open to her coming.

"Worthy" is axiós. Paul's thought here is to tell the Roman church the manner in which Phoebe should be received, to "mirror the honor Christ bestows on all His people." Phoebe clearly worked very hard for the cause of Christ within her church and also as an itinerant servant. She was not some nameless worker, but a person worthy of note.

So from these words we see that Phoebe was a special woman to both Paul and the Church, a woman of position in a local church who worked very hard serving the saints all over the region. Having a position is not the same as being in authority. She had a high position, but that does not speak to church leadership. In fact, being a deacon by title still does not place a person in leadership. A deacon is not an elder.

Why is the author trying so hard to put Phoebe in her place?  He microanalyses these verses because he wants to make sure we don't think too highly of Phoebe. The reason? If Phoebe is in any sense a leader, this would violate the author's doctrines. Mistaken doctrines, that is. 

The author thinks Phoebe cannot be a deacon in the church because of the second Scripture he quotes:

I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12)

We discuss this verse here. Suffice to say, it is not a verse about church leadership structure.

Our last observation is regarding the author's statement: 

Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that male headship was something that was observed by all the apostles and all the churches (1 Cor. 11:16). Are we really to believe based on some specious historical background that Paul intended for Phoebe to do in Rome the very thing he prohibits women from doing in every other church? 

The author misrepresents this unquoted passage. Paul was not talking about church government. If he was, that would mean ALL women must submit to ALL men, which of course is nonsense. No, this submission is a wife to her husband in the context of the gathering of the saints. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs - Names (Cook, Ingram, 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, Names.
--------------------

The Danger of NAR Church Leven (sic) - by Don Pirozok

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

We have commented on the author's writing before and have not been impressed.

1665 words, but not a single word quoted from any of the author's adversaries. Not even a quote from a source he agrees with. Every single assertion and accusation the author makes is undocumented. He makes claim after claim, dire warning after dire warning. The NAR may indeed be false, dangerous, and heretical like he says, but that is the case he must prove, not just make empty claims.

We are not here to defend the NAR, we intend to evaluate the author's presentation. And that presentation is embarrassing. Beyond Bad Bible Teaching, this is just bad.

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

Five Points in My Pain How God’s Sovereignty Comforts Me - by Joni Eareckson Tada

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We suspect we might get accused of beating up on a helpless disabled person. We will take that risk, because it's not about Ms. Tada's disability, it's about her doctrine. She has presented her doctrine publicly in the below article, and as such has invited scrutiny.

Ms. Tada writes about her theology, a very specific kind of theology known as Calvinism. As a Calvinist Ms. Tada does what every Calvinist does: Teach Calvinism. Calvinists will never teach the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. 

Their theology revolves around the "doctrines of grace," also known as TULIP. Ms. Tada appeals to TULIP as a comfort to her in her disability. We are happy for her, but we require Ms. Tada to explain how TULIP specifically and uniquely provides this comfort.

We believe that TULIP is irrelevant to the daily Christian walk. By virtue of our salvation, Total Depravity no longer matters. Unconditional Election no longer matters. Limited Atonement no longer matters. Irresistible Grace no longer matters. Perseverance of the Saints no longer matters.

These all reflect on our past, not our current situation. Not our future. None of them come to bear as a benefit to our holiness, generosity, worship, or evangelism.

TULIP doesn't matter.

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

Discipleship Does Not Equal Shepherding: A Crucial Distinction in the Female Pastor Debate - By Jonathon Woodyard

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author writes over 2000 words, for the sole purpose of bolstering his tradition. He wants to keep pastors at the top of the leadership pyramid, with everyone else as underlings at the pastor's beckon call.

The mistake he makes is to assume that the Bible's overseers, pastors, shepherds, teachers are the same thing as his tradition's overseer/pastor/shepherd/teacher.

They are not.

The author quotes the snippets of three Bible verses, a mere 20 words. That's it. How can one teach the Bible while barely quoting it? We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What It Means That Christ is Praying for You Today - by Dave Harvey

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

It is clear that the author is a Calvinist/Reformist, because although he provides some good, biblical information, it is infected with the traditional understandings that derive from this doctrinal stream. 

We have discussed these misleading, and sometimes false doctrines many times in our blog.

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

Glory Only in the Cross - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff makes another appearance in our blog. He is a Reformed/Calvinist, and as is typical for those of this persuasion, he is entirely convinced of his doctrinal superiority. Many Calvinists have an overconfidence bordering on arrogance.

Also typical for the Calvinist is a singular, almost obsessive focus on the particular doctrines of Calvinism. They will never talk about the Bible unless they can teach Calvinism. This always makes us pause because this kind of dogmatism can be cultic. 

Today we can only manage to examine an excerpt of a long, unfocused ramble that is supposed to be about the cross. Mr. Ratliff will devote only about a half of one paragraph to the actual topic, but again, since he's a Calvinist he must insert his Calvinism. 

Note that Mr. Ratliff will make numerous undocumented claims in this one paragraph, some of which are not found in the Bible, some that are true, and others which are completely false.

Because Mr. Ratliff cites no Bible verses for any of these assertions, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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