Recommend a Church - by Michelle Lesley If you’re searching for a new church

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Those who have "discernment ministries' (actually, these are not actual ministries, they are mostly a single individual with a blog and a sour disposition) have a tendency to find heresy under every rock. They have severe and exacting standards, and anyone that violates a single jot or tittle from their micro doctrines is cast into the outer darkness. We have deemed these folks the doctrinal police.

Ms. Lesley has been bestowed this honor more than once in our blog, so much so that we have awarded her her own tag.

Today we are posting Ms. Lesley's standards for being able to recommend a church. Astonishingly, there are 14 requirements, some of which exclude entire denominations. Remember, these are the criteria for her to be able to recommend a local church. 

Ms. Lesley doesn't quote a single word of Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Comments exchanged with Mike Ratliff about three days and three nights

Found here. Our commentary on Mr. Ratliff's article found here. It originally appeared here.

Our comments in bold.
------------------------

Mr. Ratliff is one of those Bible commentators who is absolutely convinced of his correctness, to the point that he bristles at disagreement. He posted an article which he claimed as solved the age-old problem that Jesus was not in the grave for three days and three nights.  

He did this by claiming that being in the grave is different from being in "the heart of the earth." That phrase actually meant that He was in the hands of the Jewish and Roman leaders. This novel and abiblical theory, like the traditional church understanding, did not align with his acknowledgement that a Jewish day starts at sunset and continues until the next sunset. 

Using this criteria I pointed out to him in a comment that his theory fails (I'm quoting him in italics):

5 Reasons Why ‘Casting Down Principalities and Powers’ Is a Doctrine of Demons - by Don Pirozok

Found here.
--------------------

The irony here is that the author is correct, and we agree with his position. His reason #3 is the only really relevant and biblical reason for Christians to not mess around with rulers, authorities, or powers. The rest of it is is speculation, non-biblical reasons, or even, false teaching. So even though we agree with the author's position, we cannot abide with ignorance or even lying.

Further, though the author has a lot to say about powers and principalities, he will never deal with the casting out of demons. This seems like an important omission.

Though he quotes Scripture and eventually supplies the correct Scriptural reason regarding his topic, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

When God Answers the “Wrong” Prayer - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have had much to complain about in our blog when it comes to Ms. Lesley, so much so that we awarded her a label. For example, she obsesses over 1 Timothy 2:11 and what a woman is allowed to do and not do. She's developed a substantial list of do's and don'ts from this Scripture, almost all of which is based on a false idea.

This is what characterizes a lot of her teaching, false ideas. 

But today, we celebrate her for a comprehensive and accurate teaching about prayer. With one small caveat (which we will note below), we are pleased to be able to acknowledge that Ms. Lesley is capable of truly excellent work.

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

Dominionism, Kingdom Now: NAR’s Heretical Eschatology - by Marsha West

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a very frustrating article. It is a litany of charges, assertions, insinuations, and assumptions about a nebulous group of people who supposedly are intent on taking over the world. She warns us about a great danger of these Christians infiltrating various facets of society with the goal of Christianizing these institutions. But what that danger is, she doesn't say.

She does manage to provide a couple of quotes from supposed NAR people, but those quotes contain nothing nefarious, and don't speak to the subject of eschatology. We long for some sort of documentation that the NAR wants to take over the world. We would like at least some quotes from supposed NAR leaders that articulate these principles. 

Only about 400 words belong to the author, so it's really no wonder she doesn't document any of her claims. And there are no Bible verses quoted. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

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

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Echoes of Jezebel: Modern Warnings from Ancient Judgments - By Elizabeth Prata

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

It's been a couple of months since we last published a critique of an Elizabeth Prata article. We do not wish to dishonor her, but sadly, we cannot recommend her as a competent Bible teacher.

In today's article she attempts to apply Ezekiel's condemnation of false prophets to contemporary women and contemporary prophecy. It's clear that she's operating from the unstated premise that there are no prophets today. It would be helpful if she actually told us this, but we are consigned to guess it.

In particular, she is against women prophets. She writes: 

God rarely bestowed prophetic ability on women. 

This is what is sticking in her craw, women prophesying. She wants OT prophecy to be the domain of men only, then extend that to our day. So because only a handful of women prophesied in the OT, this would mean women prophesying today is unbiblical. This is the conclusion she wants us to draw.

But more to the point, what does the NT say about women prophesying? This is something Ms. Prata didn't bother to address. 

Ac. 2:17 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.

Seems pretty clear. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost means God's servants, men and women, will prophesy in these "last days." We are still in the "last days," so women should still be prophesying.

1Co. 11:5, 16 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved... 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.

Women were praying and prophesying in the Corinthian church, but they failed to cover their heads. Paul corrected this, telling them that this is the only practice of the Church. Does Ms. Prata's church embrace Paul's position? 

Sometimes when we read Ms. Prata's teaching we are mystified at the level of misinformation (or perhaps deception) at work here. We must therefore deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Christians Must Not Share the Stage with False Teachers - by Dave Jenkins

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

It's not that we disagree with the author. It's possible that sharing the stage with a false teacher gives the false teacher credibility. It's also possible that a pastor who does so might end up compromised himself. 

But the author's treatment of the topic is superficial. We have these issues:

• What, precisely, is a false teacher? Is it someone who simply has a different opinion about certain doctrines? The Bible tells us a false teacher is an egregious, public sinner, adulterous and manipulative (2 Peter 2:1-22). We should therefore be careful to accuse someone of being a false teacher.

• Related to that is the idea that perfect, pure doctrine is a marker of a true church or a genuine Christian. But this is not God's standard, it's man's. 

• How might a pastor "share a stage" with a false teacher? Does it mean inviting a false teacher as a guest preacher? Does it mean attending a non-profit fundraiser where other pastors might be in attendance? Does it mean standing up on stage at the same time and being asked to affirm a false teacher? 

• Really, a typical local church is in little danger of doing this. Most local churches keep to themselves, even to the degree that it violates the call to Christian unity. A lot of pastors are territorial. They don't want other churches "stealing" their sheep. They are so concerned about differing opinions and different practices that they isolate themselves out of fear.

• Lastly, one might wonder how a church's pastor, solid in doctrine and mature in faith, leading a discerning, stable church, could end up enticed and compromised by a false teacher and wander off into error. We just don't believe this is very common. We do know that pastors fall with alarming frequency, but these are mostly moral failures where the pastor was unaccountable to anyone. Doctrinal compromise in this scenario is not terribly common.

We should also take note of the author's Scriptural documentation. Very little of it has to do with sharing the stage with false teachers. 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

15 Ways to Discern False Teaching - by Kevin DeYoung

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

We have examined several of the author's previous articles, and have found them to be less than persuasive. In today's article he sort of supplies us with a framework for discerning false teaching, but really it's more like how to recognize teaching you disagree with. 

Sadly, as is typical for him, he quotes no Scripture here. At all. 

We shall explain what the author neglects, using Scripture to do so. Discernment is a spiritual gift, a supernatural empowerment:

1Co. 12:10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues...

Discernment requires the Holy Spirit: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Discernment can be honed into maturity:

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Discernment happens in the gathering of the saints for their edification and evaluation: 

1Co. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Discernment bears spiritual fruit: 

Ph. 1:9-10 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ... 

Ultimately, discernment is fundamentally recognizing the Holy Spirit: 

1Jn. 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

 

The author never mentions the Holy Spirit. And, he doesn't seem to be aware of the biblical case for discernment, or perhaps, it doesn't matter to him.

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

The Cancer of Effeminate Worship in the Modern Church - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We certainly agree with the unnamed author "Publisher" that there are things to complain about regarding the contemporary church, but this article is nothing more than effeminate whining. Publisher quotes no Scripture, offers no teaching, explains no concept. He doesn't edify, exhort, or elucidate any gospel principle.

Yes it is true that some contemporary Christian music is superficial, vague, or doctrinally incorrect. This is not a new phenomenon in the Church, which has been plagued by bad teaching and bad worship for millennia.

But this isn't the real problem that Publisher has. His problem is that contemporary worship violates his taste and tradition. "It's not like my church," he mutters under his breath. His church tradition, itself the fresh and new style from the time of the Reformation, which overturned the existing tradition of that day, has become the entrenched ritual of today. Bottom line, he doesn't like contemporary worship music doing the very thing his tradition did 500 years ago.

Now, it remains to be seen if this contemporary reformation will bear good fruit. The author is convinced it not only doesn't bear good fruit, but that it is of the devil.

We shall see.

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

Despite Failure After Failure, Bethel’s Bill Johnson Continues to Sell Faux Healing - by Publisher

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

The unnamed author has nothing to say of value here. He offers no encouragement, enlightenment, or even an explanation of some Bible principle. 

This is a little over 1500 words, with about 600 of them wasted on an irrelevant tangent. And not a single Scripture quoted.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Mailbag: “I Speak Jesus,” Charity Gayle, and How to Vet Christian Music - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley takes great offense at this song because it focuses on the speaking the name of Jesus. She errantly assumes that the songwriters ("NAR," don' cha know) are using Jesus' name as a magical incantation of sorts.

It is clear Ms. Lesley has never considered the Name of Jesus as Scripture presents it. Because of her doctrinal biases it's not a teaching she's acquainted with, though the Bible talks about the Name of Jesus and its importance and preeminence repeatedly. She reacts to a Scriptural idea that is new to her by plugging her ears and screaming "heresy!" 

Ms. Lesley asks some questions she thinks cannot be satisfactorily answered. We shall do so.

• What do you mean by that?

To "speak Jesus" is when those who are "in Christ" [Gal. 3:26] appeal to and use His name and authority, particularly in prayer.

• Where, in context and rightly handled, does the Bible teach us to do that?

Ac. 3:16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.

Ac. 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Col. 3:17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

 

1Co. 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another...

 

Ac. 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

 

Ja. 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

 

Ep. 5:20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Ac. 16:18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned round and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

Ph. 2:9-10 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth...

Ac. 4:30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 

 

Rom. 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [Joel 2:32]

• What is that supposed to accomplish, or what will the result of that be so I can watch for it?

See above Scriptures for examples.

The name of Jesus is powerful when used by those who belong to him, and dangerous to those who do not [Acts 19:11-19].

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

UPDATE – Research: New Apostolic Reformation - by Marsha West

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

We've had some exposure to the "NAR," so we're familiar with many of their doctrines, practices, and ideas. So as we read the below article we thought the author was discussing some other group. Very little of what's written here aligns with our experience.

It seems the author simply lumps together all charismatics, pentecostals, and continuationists into the "NAR." This is lazy, because a great many charismatics don't believe in modern-day apostles, the majority of continuationists are not dominionists, and most pentecostals don't go to "NAR" connected churches.

In fact, the moniker "NAR" is nearly useless, except to use a a bludgeon against those with whom the author disagrees. This is not to suggest that various charismatic churches are blameless, for they make mistakes, teach error, and engage in excesses just like any other church. 

Including conservative, cessationist churches.

Further, the author only manages to quote three partial Scriptures. We must label this Bad Bible Teaching.

Lastly, we don't intend to defend the "NAR," we are here to examine the author's presentation.

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