Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Showing posts with label ratliff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ratliff. Show all posts

Thursday, August 14, 2025

The Orthodox Christian view of sin - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff will tell us that either you believe in Original Sin or you believe in no sin at all. But there's more than two alternatives. 
-------

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Christian faith and hope - by Mike Ratliff

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

We have finally pulled the trigger and awarded Mr. Ratliff with his own tag. This unfortunately is not a compliment.

Mr. Ratliff spends a lot of words explaining "hope," mostly by quoting Martin Luther and then restating those quotes. He does provide us with some Scriptures, but none of them really demonstrate what he is explaining.

It seems like Mr. Ratliff is simply riffing. For example, he claims that "faith is bound to our intellect," but hope is in our wills. How does he know this? He never says. He makes many assertions like these but simply pulls them from Luther and/or his own imagination.

The Greek word for "faith" is pistis, which means:

From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

This suggests that faith is the act of believing, whether the initial "persuasion" to belief, or the continuing cultivation and growth of it. Certainly we know that faith, in particular, saving faith, is a gift (Ephesians 2:8). Yet we also find that faith is a "quantity" of sorts, which can be little (Mt. 6:30), great (Mt. 8:10), increased (Lk. 17:5), or fallen away from (Hebrews 10:38).

Hope is closely related to faith. The Greek word is el-pece':

Word Origin: [from a primary elpo "to anticipate, usually with pleasure"]

1. expectation
2. (abstractly or concretely) confidence

expectation of what is sure (certain); hope.

Mr. Ratliff tells us that hope is like wanting his college football team to win, but faith is like knowing his team will win. We see from the above definitions that this is incorrect, that hope is actually the certainty while faith is the belief.

We find little value in Mr. Ratliff's explanation, because it is nothing more than Luther's opinion regurgitated.
------------------

Friday, June 13, 2025

Friendship With the World is Enmity with God - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author attempts to explain James 4:4, but doesn't get around to it until the second to the last paragraph. After hundreds of words devoted to tangents, he supplies us but a single line of explanation:

It is doing whatever it takes to imitate worldly ways of thinking and worldly activities. 

He goes on to provide a very appropriate remedy, thankfully, but does not explain how the remedy works out practically. This is really what he should have written about.
----------------------

Friday, June 6, 2025

Is there Injustice on God’s Part? - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author didn't write this article to teach about the Bible, he wrote it to teach about his Calvinism. He thinks it is critical to understand the Calvinistic doctrine of election, but he doesn't tell us why it is important. But in actual fact, it isn't important. Whether we are saved by His sovereign choice or if we are saved because we responded to His invitation, it doesn't make any difference at all in our lives or Christian walk. 

But the bottom line is that election is a doctrine that makes the mistake of including ourselves in the election of the first generation of Christians. We will explain this below.
---------------------------

Monday, June 2, 2025

For by grace you have been saved through faith - by Mike Ratliff

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

We think Mr. Ratliff misunderstands Jesus' teaching on the narrow door (gate). His misunderstanding is a common thing among Christians, likely arising from Reformed doctrine/Calvinism. The belief is connected to the that there won't be many saved, based partly on the idea that there will be a last days apostasy with a lot of phony Christians who are not true followers. The narrow door/gate fits right in with this idea. 

We think it is wrong, however. What happens with interpreting these passages is one of the main reasons we embarked on our Doctrinal Rethink. We began to see that too often the Bible translators don't translate words correctly, or they carry preconceptions, which leads us to false doctrines and false teaching.

Here's the first passage:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mt. 7:13-14 (NIV)

First, we always must consider the context and the audience. Jesus was speaking to His fellow Jews. We should resist the urge to insert ourselves into the narrative. This is not about us.

"Narrow" (the narrow gate) in verse 13 is stenos, which the NIV translators correctly render. But "narrow" (narrow the road) in the next verse is a different Greek wordthlibó, to press, afflict... I make narrow (strictly: by pressure); I press upon, (b) I persecute, press hard. To translate both words as "narrow" implies Jesus was repeating his thought but He wasn't. The word thlibó carries a completely different thought. 

Notice the present-ness of this. We believe Jesus was speaking of what was happening right at that moment. Literally, of those who were listening to him, not many were finding the way of life He was telling them about. Few are those...  "Are" is eiemi, the present tense. Again, we need to clearly understand the target of Jesus' comments. Few of His fellow Jews are traveling through the narrow gate because it is difficult, and in fact, being a Jew isn't good enough.

Some translations convey the meaning better:

ESV For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

NKJV Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

NLT: "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

CSB: "How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it."

The crux of our thesis is that Jesus is particularly talking about a hard journey. And, the two words translated “narrow” in verse by the NIV are two different Greek words.

We think the NIV translators engage in an egregious mistranslation of the word, which changes the whole meaning.

The second passage sort of expands the idea:

Lk. 13:23-23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, `Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, `I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, `We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, `I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ 

28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.” NIV

This opens with someone specifically asking about salvation: Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?

We can say with certainty that this question was not about gentiles. Jews considered the salvation of God to be for Israel only. So the question is a Jewish question. "Jesus, you have been preaching a new way, and we don't understand. Please explain. Are you really saying only a few of us going to be saved?"

The questioner was probably catching on to the idea that this gospel Jesus was preaching meant that not every Jew was going to be saved. This would be a startling revelation to the typical Jew, who would consider himself to be part of the chosen nation as a son of Abraham.

Jesus answered him, that the door is narrow, and many will try and fail to enter. Who are these that fail to enter? Jesus tells them directly: We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets. He was talking to and about Jews. They would consider themselves brothers, but they are the ones Jesus never knew.

Jesus' countrymen will be told that He did not know them.

John references this reality:

Jn. 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

"His own" are the Jews. They did not recognize Him or receive Him. Paul explained why:

Ro. 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

At this very time Jesus was speaking there were not many Jews who accepting His message, they were not entering in the narrow door. It's narrow because only a few of God's chosen people were entering this "new and living way" (He. 10:20). 

Jesus was speaking to specifically to Israel. That's the obvious context. He was speaking to His listeners, and His listeners were Jewish. So how would they understand it? They would recognize that He was speaking to their current situation. Thus He essentially was saying, "Here I am, and not many of you are taking me up on what I offer."

He goes on to explain that from every corner of the earth the "last" (that is, the gentiles) will take their places at the feast, and the Jews (the "first") will be the last.

Jesus speaks something that must have surprised His hearers: The most righteous-seeming Jews they knew of would not enter the Kingdom.
Mt. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So this was a teaching specifically aimed at the Jews, who would largely reject Him and have their house left to them desolate (Mt. 23:38).

Jesus was speaking to His contemporaries, He is addressing His audience; they are the ones who only a few were choosing the difficult road. The "few" are those Jews who received the Gospel, while the rest will be shut out. Therefore, we would say that Matt. 7:13-14 and Lk. 13:23-3 teach different aspects of the same idea - - and it has nothing to do with just a few being saved. 

Jesus' heart was first for His people, the Jews, and they were rejecting Him. This is how we should understand these passages. 
-----------------------

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus - by Mike Ratliff

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

This is a truly perplexing presentation. Even with the plain text in front of him Mr. Ratliff keeps to his narrative. He correctly notes what a particular verse is explaining, then inexplicably tacks on in his Reformed/Calvinist doctrines as if we should blindly accept them. 

There is a veneer of scholarship here, but don't be fooled. Mr. Ratliff is teaching his doctrine, not the Bible.
--------------------------

Monday, April 14, 2025

Repent or Perish - by Mike Ratliff

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

This is a perfect example of the confused thinking required to embrace Calvinism. We have discussed many aspects of Calvinism in our blog, and find the doctrines of Calvin to be false and even pernicious, because they misrepresent God, misrepresent the gospel, and ultimately, make no difference in our obligations or privileges as Christians.

Calvinism forces people into false binary choices (predestined vs. freewill, eternal security vs. losing one's salvation, etc.). However, God is not a binary being. He is sovereign, but that does not mean he must control everything. He is grace-filled, but that does not mean He must dole out grace according to a formula. He saves us by His grace, but that does not mean grace is limited to the saved.

What if God is indeed totally sovereign, and yet in His sovereignty He simply chooses not to always intervene in His creation? Doesn't God get to decide His own sovereignty?

This is the problem endemic to Calvinists specifically, and theology generally: The need to figure out everything and systematize it according to logic and reason. But God is far beyond our logic. We should resist the idea that rational thought is the methodology we should use to figure Him out: 
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.

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

Friday, March 21, 2025

The Doctrine Of Justification By Faith - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author get a great deal correct here, but makes a couple of key errors, largely because of his reformist/Calvinist viewpoint.
-----------------------

Friday, January 24, 2025

Mercy - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author cannot see past his doctrines, even when he manages to properly define the word "mercy." 

Many Christians are locked into the unbiblical idea that God sits up in heaven, holds his nose, and says, "Ok, I'll save you even though you don't deserve it." And then after we're saved, people like the author insist that God then tells us, "Yes I saved you, but you most certainly don't deserve my blessings." 

Neither idea is found in the pages of the Bible. Check it yourself, dear reader.
----------------------------

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Chosen - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff engages in a good bit of contorting to bolster his Calvinistic false doctrine, the predestination of the Elect. He looks at the syntax, tenses, and grammar of two passages. However, he misses the forest for the trees. All of his analysis of the Greek words might be true and accurate, but he misses the context for all this. These two passages are not about our predestination. 
-------------------

Friday, October 11, 2024

Christ’s Blood and the Atonement - by Mike Ratliff

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

Mr. Ratliff has made several appearances in our blog, with increasing frequency. It's almost to the point where we're tempted to create his very own tag, but we will delay this decision for a while.

Today's article has him opening with a passage from Ephesians chapter one, which he doesn't discuss or even mention again. 

What he really wants to talk about is Penal Atonement, the Reformist doctrine that the Father punished Jesus for our sin. Amazingly, he asserts that not believing this doctrine means one is fleshly and not orthodox. That is the essence of his case, the bare assertion.

So we will respond with our own bare assertions. The doctrine is vile first because first, the Bible does not teach it; second, because there's no reason for the Father to punish the Son for our sins if His blood is sufficient; and third, Jesus did not substitute Himself for us.

We discuss this in detail herehere, and here.

Later in his article Mr. Ratliff alternately gets atonement right and wrong, depending on whether he is appealing to Scripture or his doctrine. It's a shame he is unable to see this, probably due to his Reformist/Calvinistic predisposition.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.
---------------------------

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Chosen Before the Foundation of the World - By Mike Ratliff - comments exchanged

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

This frustrating and unenlightening conversation with Mr. Ratliff reveals a few things.
  • He smokescreens behind elaborate explanations and an irrelevant story
  • He appeals to his credentials
  • He essentially denies that the quoted verses mean what they say, because of his superior (and secret) knowledge of the Greek
On top of all this, he makes assertions and assumptions that ultimately do not answer the questions posed to him.
--------------------------

Friday, August 16, 2024

All in Christ are so according to the Sovereign Grace of God - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author wrestles with the supposed tension between God's total sovereignty and man's free will. He is unable to cite any relevant Bible verse about this, however.

The central mistake Calvinists like the author make is their errant view of sovereignty. To them, sovereignty means control. They mistake God possessing the highest position and power with the requirement to use them. But there is no need or obligation for God to use His power and position just because He possesses them.

This is key: Calvinism requires God to use His sovereignty. So in their view, if God is not using His sovereignty then He is not sovereign, and other parties (like man) are impinging on God's sovereignty when they exercise their free will.

Thus from a faulty assumption descends faulty understanding. And this confusion is certainly recognizable in the author's presentation.
------------------------

Thursday, July 11, 2024

The gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author has what he thinks is insight regarding a familiar passage. It takes him awhile to get to that discussion, with a few odd theological pitstops on the way.
--------------------

Friday, January 26, 2024

The Doctrine of Original Sin and the Wrath of God - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author promises but does not deliver a discussion about original sin and the wrath of God. In fact, aside from the very first sentence, he does not mention these at all.

We would infer from his presentation that he thinks that those who don't believe in original sin don't believe in sin at all. It is from this false dichotomy that the author goes on and on about things no true Christian would disagree with. 

But none of it is about the the subject.

We discuss original sin here.)
------------------

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

What did Jesus mean when He said, “It is Finished!”? - by Mike Ratliff

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

The author seems to have a bone to pick with certain unidentified heretics, but he doesn't go down that road. Instead he spouts some unexplained Calvinistic jargon (the elect, perseverance, imputation) and eventually veers into his stated topic, the finished work of Christ. 

The purpose of the other stuff is a mystery.
-----------------------