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.

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