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.

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