The New Birth and Conversion—What Comes First? - by Conrad Mbewe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is going to discuss a portion of the Reformed/Calvinist Ordo Salutis [order of salvation], which asserts that one must be born again before one can be saved. We covered this recently, but because of some unique claims we shall dive in again. 

So that the reader understands, the Ordo places "regeneration" before faith [conversion]: 

But there is no Scripture that tells us this, despite the author's various appeals to the Bible. In fact, when read in context, his proof texts demonstrate the exact opposite.

A quick survey of the Bible yielded a number of Scriptures that seem to presume salvation without the supposed prerequisite regeneration:

Ro. 6:7 ...because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

We see here that the unregenerate man is put to death in the new birth, which means he is forgiven (freed from sin). He does not experience rebirth in order to be saved.

1Jn. 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here we discover that eternal life is equated with salvation. It is clear the new birth is the beginning of eternal life, which of course must presume a concurrent salvation. That is, saved is born again, and born again is saved. They are the same thing.

But more to the point, what difference does it make? If we are born again then saved, or saved then born again, what does it matter? Why is it important? 

---------------------- 

The Divine Blueprint: Exploring the Five Points of Calvinism - By Anthony

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author does his best to explain the unexplainable, the Calvinistic TULIP. Calvinists love to explain Calvinism. It's what they do. They rarely explain the Bible except when there's Calvinism to be found. This of course means that Calvinists never explain the Bible, they only want to explain Calvinism. 

This is what the author does. He quotes Calvin, Calvinistic theologians, and a Calvinistic statement of faith. There are seven of these instances. But in the course of his explanation the author is only able to quote a single Bible passage and two or three verse snippets. That's it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Pray in a Calvinist World? Prayer & Providence in Calvin’s Institutes - By Mason Craig

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

After reading this article multiple times, we were unable to ascertain if the author answered the question contained in the title. 

But he will spend a lot of time discussing "providence," using the term nearly 40 times, and never does he define it. So we will step in. "Providence" is idea that God is working out His will via the regular features of creation and plain old ordinary processes of life, as distinguished from a "supernatural" signs and wonders sort of thing. 

The distinction is artificial, however, since both are God working out His purposes. For Calvinists the distinction is necessary since they do not believe God works supernaturally in Christians anymore. Thus providence was invented to differentiate the working out of God's purpose sans miracles.

The author also uses the word "means" more than a dozen times, also without defining it. "Means" simply is the avenues God might use to implement His will.

Further, his presentation is very nearly a tautology. "God uses means to accomplish His plans" essentially means, "God does stuff, and He uses stuff to do stuff."

And, when he finally does give us hints about his terminology, we find that they are basic ideas stated with complexity.

Lastly, the author rarely uses Scripture to document his assertions, but profusely quotes Calvin.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Risk of Tolerating False Prophets in the Church - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata once again engages in sloppy, error-filled Bible exposition. She has a preconception about false prophets and women teachers, and wants to force this template upon her topic. In this case, it's the issue the church in Thyatira had with Jezebel. Ms. Prata's agenda is forced upon the text.  

Let's explain. The seven letters in Revelation were written in very specific contexts using imagery and language that is particular to the church being addressed. Some theologians have theorized that these letters represent seven evolutions of the Church over the course of history, but we don't think so. The details of each letter are very specific and are at odds with such a theory.

For example, the letter to Thyatira is the only letter that calls out a person by name for sin. But Jesus was not judging Jezebel so much as He was correcting the Thyatirian church for tolerating her false teaching and immorality. All that Jesus required was that she repent (2:21), but she didn't. And for those who committed adultery with her (or figuratively, deviated from the faith by following her strange teaching), they also were given a way out by repenting.

Then Jesus addressed those who rejected Jezebel's false teaching (which involved secret meanings and esoteric knowledge [2:24]). They were commanded to persevere, and if they do they will be given authority (2:26) and the morning star (2:28).

So this was not a false church, it was a church that tolerated false teaching. It only needed to repent to be restored to a great promise. Ms. Prata wants it to be about false prophecy and women in leadership, but it's not. She wants it to be about doctrine, but it's not. 

She wants it to be about a church that ends up condemned, so that she can extend it to present day churches she regards as condemned.

Lastly, Ms. Prata manages to quote only a couple of snippets from the subject passage, plus another unrelated verse at the end. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

Here's the passage:

Re. 2:18-29 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 

24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations — 27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’ — [Psalm 2:9] just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

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

Irresistible Grace - by Joel E. Smit

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is the second appearance of this author in our blog. His previous article did not fare well under analysis, so we have hope that he will acquit himself better today.

Unlike the previous article, today the author barely quotes Scripture, which means most all of his assertions are undocumented. We want to know where in the Bible these ideas are found. However, the author has no intention of teaching the Bible, he's teaching Calvinism. 

In particular, "irresistible grace." That is the topic of the article, yet the author cannot bring himself to quote a single verse that contains the concept. If the Bible teaches it, we want to know where.

Oh, but he can quote a Statement of Faith as well as a couple of theologians. And a hymn. Just not the Bible.

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

What Promise Did Jesus Give Before His Ascension? - Ligonier Editorial

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We enjoyed this presentation. It was informative, biblical, properly documented, and well written.

Until the last paragraph.

The unnamed author, having done such a fine job up to now, inexplicably veers off course and opens a theological can of worms, even prefacing this last paragraph with "of course," as if it was self evident these things were true. But these final two sentences contain several undocumented claims and inscrutable statements: 

Of course, the Holy Spirit had been with the covenant community before the new covenant day of Pentecost, for He regenerated old covenant members and gave them the gift of faith. He had to do so because the only way that anyone believes in the one true God under any covenant is by being born again by the Spirit (see John 3:3). 

We have questions. 

• What is a "covenant community?"
• What does it mean that the Holy Spirit had been with the covenant community?
• How could there be a "covenant community" if the new covenant had yet to arrive?
• Who are "old covenant members?"
• How could "old covenant members" be regenerated before Pentecost?
• How could "old covenant members" be born again?
• Is there a difference between being regenerated and being born again?

We don't find the phrases "covenant community," "old covenant members," or the word "regenerated" in the NT. So the author needs to explain his terminology, and then tell us how terms like "covenant" comes to bear on the topic.

The Bible doesn't tell us that anyone was regenerated or born again before Pentecost. It is a claim of substantial import that salvation by faith and rebirth was a reality before the poured out Holy Spirit (Ac. 2:17), one that needs to be biblically documented. 

If being born again was possible before Pentecost, then Pentecost becomes irrelevant. We would therefore suggest that it wasn't possible to become born again prior to Pentecost. It requires the indwelling Holy Spirit to be born again, and He had not come yet:

 

Jn. 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Lastly, the author quotes absolutely zero Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss prophecy in some detail here and here.

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

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

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

We discuss PSA in more detail here.

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

We must not dishonor God by misrepresenting Him.

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

Examining Dream Claims in Christianity - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is rare that we find Ms. Prata profusely quoting Scripture. Too often she quotes none at all. But the problem with the below article is that she doesn't get a single explanation or application of the quoted Scriptures correct. It's that bad.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Covenant Theology for Kids: A Beginner’s Guide - Meredith Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have noticed that covenant theology is a topic coming up more frequently in recent times. The same sorts of people who advocate for Calvinism are also on-board for this brand of theology. We critiqued one explanation here, and another here and found both to be lacking.

We should note that we have not sought out explanations of covenant theology or made any deep dives into it. We simply comment when given an opportunity. So we really don't have an axe to grind.

Today's article recites standard Christian doctrine, but claims it as covenant theology. It appears, therefore, that covenant theology simply rebrands biblical concepts with new titles and then represents itself as unique.

One of the links the author provides leads us to an article that mentions an alternative understanding, dispensationalism. We don't know why we should prefer one over the other, or if there are more alternatives than these two. On the whole, the issue seems like an intellectual exercise with no practical benefit. Covenant theology doesn't change any obligation or privilege we have as Christians, and as such is of little benefit.

Lastly, in her title the author proports to offer us "a beginners guide" to teach covenant theology to kids. As such we would expect to find a basic explanation of the origin of, and reasons specific to covenant theology, how it better explains Scripture, and what particular benefit there is in knowing it.

She does none of this. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Saccharine Lyrics: A Response to Kendall Lankford - by Nathan Wright ("How Deep the Father's Love for Us")

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We did a thorough examination of "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" here. The lyric in question is 

How great the pain of searing loss

The Father turns His face away

Reformed doctrine teaches that the Son was imputed with our sins, the Father punished the Son in our place, and that punishment satisfied the Father's wrath. This is known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the supposed reason the Father turned His face away, that He was unable to look upon the totality of sin imputed to Jesus.

None of this is found in the Bible. We consider it to be a false and pernicious doctrine. Jesus was not imputed with our sin. Rather, He carried and lifted our sin to the cross like He was taking out the garbage. The Father did not punish Jesus. Rather, Jesus died and spilled His blood to wash us clean. The blood was enough. Nothing more was needed, especially not the punishment of Jesus. 

We discuss this in detail here and here.

But more to the point. Mr. Wright will go on and on about Mr. Lankford's word choices, writing style, and lack of understanding. Since this is a technique frequently used by political Leftists, we are disappointed that a supposed Christian would descend to such tactics. However, since the bar is now set low, we shall at times also engage him on his terms and similarly deal with his logical shortcomings.

Happily, Mr. Wright will eventually get to the doctrinal issues, only to gloss over them. His defense is basically just a restatement of what he believes. 

We must consider the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Reformed Soteriology Matters - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have commented on some of the author's other articles, and without exception we have also found them to be obtuse and uninformative. 

There are times when the author is completely inscrutable. He uses terminology he doesn't explain, refers to the theology of others but doesn't explain, and quite simply, doesn't actually explain anything. Nothing. 

Plus, he quotes but a single Scripture, one that doesn't explain his presentation. On that basis we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

He does provide a quote from the Canons of Dordt. So that the reader understands, Centuries ago, Reformed/Calvinistic theologians gathered together in something called the Synod of Dordt to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. The Canons of Dordt were the defenses of Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine and the refutations of Arminius. In addition, Arminius was declared a heretic.

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

Do You Need a Fresh Word from the Lord? - by Barbara Harper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We often comment on the writings of supposed teachers who engage in Bad Bible Teaching, but today's article is one of the worst. Because the author believes that God does not speak to His people anymore except via the Bible, she filters everything she writes through this preconception. Therefore, almost every Bible verse she cites is incorrectly interpreted.

Careful Bible students would want to set aside their preconceptions and discover what the Bible is actually saying. Since the author does not do that, we will provide that service for her.

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

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? part two - by Michelle Lesley

Part one is found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

We continue our slog through this supposed explanation of what the NAR is. Ms. Lesley does manage to quote a few Scriptures in this half of her presentation, but add little light to the matter. She goes on and on about the NAR, leveling charge after accusation, never documenting a single one.

To add insult to injury, Ms. Lesley is unable (or unwilling) to teach what she considers to be the correct Biblical view. 

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

What is the New Apostolic Reformation? part one - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Part one of two.

The NAR is Ms. Lesley's boogie man. They are evil, heretical, and deceptive. She's deathly afraid that people will be drawn in unawares. So she's here to warn us of the dangers about what they believe, but she is unable quote a single primary source.

And in part one of this long article she only manages to quote a single Bible verse and snippets of three others. That's it.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching. 

We should mention, we are not here to defend the NAR, but rather to examine Ms. Lesley's flawed presentation. 

--‐--‐------‐---

Answering the Opposition- Responses to the Most Frequently Raised Discernment Objections - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley, like many "discernment" types, is extremely sensitive when it comes to criticism [even mild] leveled at her. She happily blasts away at supposed false teachers, but when it comes to being on the receiving end, well, she gets pretty defensive.

We first note that Ms. Lesley never defines "discernment." She never shows us from the Bible where it describes what she is doing. In actual fact, there is no such thing as a discernment ministry beyond the four walls of the church she attends, and it's probably not her.

Second, Ms. Lesley commits several obvious doctrinal errors. Yet she considers herself a teacher. This is troubling.

Third, she will refer to the supposed false teacher as "twisted sister." This semi-disrespectful moniker means that she is describing a Christian person who has some things wrong. False teachers, however, are probably not Christians, and also lead publicly lascivious lifestyles.

Lastly, she quotes the Bible only when convenient. There are several instances (we have noted them as "Strikes") where she botches the contents of these unquoted Scriptures.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - JOHN A. BATTLE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a typical cessationist presentation regarding tongues, but there are a couple of twists we had not heard before.

This is a long article, almost 4000 words, so we request the reader bear with us.

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

Five Prayers Every Pastor Should Pray for His Church - by Tim Counts

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

We are completely puzzled by this presentation. First, the author is a pastor, and apparently everything revolves around him in his church. He is the instigator of prayer as if there was no prayer ministry in his church. He is the leader of evangelism, apparently because no one else is available. He as pastor seems to have no need for, or cannot obtain, anyone in his church to serve, minister, or lead. 

He mentions his associate pastor, but we wonder what this man does. He also mentions leaders in item #3, but apparently they don't lead anything. What has led this man to believe he is the CEO of his church, and why is there no one else qualified to lead within his church?

Second, he is giving advice to other pastors, and the problem is that pastors aren't praying enough. Again, why not teach the congregation to pray? 

Third, the prayer advice he gives actually has nothing particular to do with pastorship, it's actually advice that belongs to every Christian.

Though the author does quote some relevant Scriptures, he teaches as if pastors are unique and special. Now perhaps he set out to advise pastors without realizing that it isn't actually advice for pastors. More likely, he has a skewed view of pastorship, one that makes him the top dog, and everyone else are underlings.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (…Jesus died for YOU?) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here.

Ms. Lesley grapples with a problem created by her Calvinistic doctrine. She believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Calvinists believe Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that Ms. Lesley thinks she cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because she doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect. However, if one is not a Calvinist then it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around. When confronted with Bible verses that contradict their doctrines, Calvinists must invent explanations. However, we choose to read the Bible for its plain meaning:

Ro. 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 

(Plain meaning: He didn't die just for the elect, He died for the ungodly. )

2Co. 5:14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all...

(Plain meaning: Jesus died for all, not just the elect.)

Jn. 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

(Plain meaning: He took away the sin of the world, not just the sin of the elect.) 

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 

(Plain meaning: His one act of righteousness brings life for all men, not just for the elect.) 

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(Plain meaning: God's intent is to have mercy on all men.) 

1Ti. 2:3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

(Plain meaning: He is given as a ransom for all men, not just for the elect.) 

1Ti. 4:9-10 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

(Plain meaning: He is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.)

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

What Does a Pastor Do? - by Joel Smit

Found here.

This author repeats the talking points of the traditional church view, that the pastor is the presiding head of the local church. This is not found in the Bible.

Paul used used the term "pastor" [poimén] only once, in Ephesians 4:11. Besides this verse and the references to the literal shepherds who witnessed the company of angels [Luke 2:8], the term is never used in the NT regarding a man. 

Another related word, poimainó, is used in 1 Peter 5:2, among other places: 

1Pe. 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Peter wrote these words to the elders. The elders are supposed to be the shepherds and overseers, not a pastor. There is nothing in the NT that indicates anyone was named to be a pastor, or that pastors lead churches, or what their duties are. 

In addition, though the author quotes several Bible verses, he either misrepresents them or the verses he cites do not bolster his case. In fact, he lies to us.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.)

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