Only for a Time - by NICK BATZIG

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------

My quest for a biblical argument on the cessation of the supernatural gifts continues. Mr. Batzig tries and fails. I should mention that this is not a defense of Matt Chandler. I know very little of him, and in fact heard him preach for the first time in the linked video.
-------------------

I was interested to see that the cessationism/continuitionism issue is surfacing again--due to Matt Chandler's recent sermon, "A Supernatural Community and a Personal Word." Matt's introductory argument is as follows: Many Christians do not experience the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (i.e. tongues, prophecy, knowledge, healings, etc.); therefore, they have wrongly concluded that the extraordinary gifts have ceased and that everything in the book of Acts is merely history. Without wanting to analyze and critique Matt's arguments here in any sort of detailed way, I do want to make a few important observations about the fallacy of that argument in particular, based on the biblical rationale for cessationism.

First, it is unfair and uncharitable for someone to insist that brothers and sisters in Christ have adopted a cessationist understanding of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit simply because they have not experienced them in their lives. (The author begins by putting a twist on Chandler's presentation. Chandler simply offers it as a possibility, and not that it's every cessationist's sole reason.)

In fact, all the cessationists I personally know are convinced by the teaching of Scripture that tongues, prophecy and mediated extraordinary healings have ceased. (First, "all the cessationists I personally know" is a subset of all cessationists, which is a subset of all Christians. Thus the author's personal experience is not representative of all cessationists or all Christians.

Second, the author's statement is an evasion. The author's rejoinder is not relevant to Chandler's statement.

Third, the author is himself "unfair and uncharitable" by implying that his side has done the studying of Scripture, while the likes of Chandler has not.) 

WHY DIDN’T PAUL SHARE HIS ‘TRIP TO HEAVEN’ STORY? - by MIKE LEAKE

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

This article contains almost no accurate information. It's astonishing to us that this supposed Bible teacher can wander so far away from what is actually taught in the Bible. And he represents himself as a truth teller who is explaining the real meaning of these things.)
---------------

I suppose you could quibble with my title a bit, because Paul did technically share his story about being caught up into the third heaven. But it took him fourteen years and he only told it when he was “acting the fool” in order to rattle the Corinthians back into a Christ focus. So why? (Indeed, why? We will discover that the author doesn't actually know.)

Consider the situation that Paul faced. At Corinth a group of false teachers were winning the affections of the Corinthians, and they were doing it through bragging about ecstatic experiences and visions and such. (The author provides no scriptural references for this assertion, because there isn't one. There is no verse in either Corinthians one or two that says such a thing.

There were false teachers, but they weren't bragging about their ecstatic experiences, they were preaching another Jesus. 2Co. 11:4:

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

The author is not off to a good start. Hopefully he will improve.) 

It was important for their faith that they adhere to Paul’s gospel (the biblical gospel) instead of this false gospel being pimped by the prosperity goons. (Another undocumented claim. In fact, there is no mention of prosperity in either letter to the Corinthians.)

And Paul had a story which could trump everyone of their stories. So what does he do? He tells his story (2 Corinthians 12:1-10) (But... Paul had been already boasting about his many afflictions. starting at 2Co. 11:22. His story about the third heaven isn't a particular focus. It is merely part of a long explanation to show that he is not inferior to the "super apostles" [2 Cor. 11:5]) 

but prefaces his story by saying, “there is nothing to be gained by it”. And then he shares it as if the thing didn’t even happen to him.

To Paul “visions and revelations” were not beneficial for either establishing or edifying the local church. (Yet another undocumented claim. Rather, Paul went to great lengths to explain the benefits of the operation of the supernatural in 1 Cor. 14.

But more to the point, Paul isn't even discussing the supernatural. He isn't talking about edifying the local church. Paul is setting forth his credentials as an apostle.)

He had this amazing story about going to heaven and being in the very presence of God, and he did not share it.  I suppose he could have shared it in a few local church contexts. (Sigh. The author makes an assertion then immediately backtracks.)

But this is the only place where Paul speaks of his visions and revelations and this trip to heaven. (Note the use of the plural, which is found in the text at 2 Cor. 12:1. The author is trying to minimize Paul's supernatural experiences as not only rare, but unimportant.)

This is certainly the first time that the Corinthians had heard the story. I’ll be as generous as I can here. Though it’s possible that this heavenly trip had zero impact on his ministry, we have to at least say that it had a minimal impact on his ministry. (A totally unjustified conclusion. Paul told us he was boasting! He was reluctant to boast, of course, but did so for a very important reason. He was answering their criticism that he wasn't an apostle!

2Co. 12:11-12 I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles”, even though I am nothing. 12 The things that mark an apostle — signs, wonders and miracles — were done among you with great perseverance. 

What Paul was talking about had nothing at all to do with the author's stated premise.)

The Dangers of Emotionalism - by kelly Smith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We don't think the author is clear on what is the difference between "emotionalism" and "emotion." Emotionalism is the tendency to display emotion freely or to rely on or place too much value on emotion. Emotion is a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes...

We are all emotional. Emotion is a natural expression of our psyches. We would suggest that suppressing emotion, including in the corporate worship setting, is not healthy, and in fact against God's specific scriptural commands.

Ps. 68:3 But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God; may they be happy and joyful. 4 Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds — his name is the LORD — and rejoice before him.

Ps. 71:23 My lips will shout for joy when I sing praise to you — I, whom you have redeemed.

There are many other examples. It appears the author's disdain for emotional expression is based on cultural preference, not the Bible.
------------------

Why Study Eschatology? - by Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Years ago we were ardent students of end-times speculation. Hal Lindsey was all the rage, and he had us Scripture-jumping through Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, and of course, Revelation. 

It seemed to make sense. The 70 weeks, the rapture, the tribulation; Hal and people like him had it all lined out. We used to talk about current events as if every piece of news was tied in to Bible prophecy. We would wonder if the Pope was the ant-christ. We devoured the "Left Behind" series of books.

But we never sat down with our open Bibles and read the actual Scriptures in their context. We relied on "experts" to tell us what these disparate Scriptures meant and how they fit together. 

The twists and turns of premillenial dispensationalism ultimately became too convoluted for us. We eventually came to two conclusions:

1. What these end-times preachers were saying made no sense, and
2. There is little benefit or edification in knowing these things

Frankly, we don't know whether the correct position is pre-trib or post-trib. We don't know if preterism is correct. We don't know if the thousand year reign is to come, has already happened, or if we are in it right now. And, we don't really care. 

We don't care because it makes no difference in the way we live our Christian lives. It changes no scriptural obligation we have. It influences no crucial doctrine. It does not impact the need to share the Gospel, live a holy life, minister to the hurting, or worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth.

It doesn't change our identity as a saint; justified and righteous because of the blood of Jesus. It doesn't change our obligation to fellowship, give, sing, pray, or study the Word. In other words, eschatology is very nearly irrelevant to our day-to-day lives as Christians.

But here we have a person who is convinced that studying eschatology is a crucial endeavor. Let's see if Ms. Prata makes a persuasive case. She has been less than rigorous in her logic in the past.

Happily she will actually quote a number of Scriptures. This is a marked change from her usual practice.

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

Equality according to the Bible

There is movement in the contemporary Church which is seeming to align itself with racialism, gay rights, and feminism, and their peculiar views regarding what constitutes equality. There is increasing evidence that churches and denominations are accepting leftist cultural viewpoints and rejecting traditional Bible doctrines because those doctrines are "hateful" and "oppressive."

Cries of "check your privilege" and "all whites are racist" and "men are oppressors of women" and "why are you against two people loving each other" are beginning to be expressed in churches previously committed to biblical teaching. The echos of the shouting of radicals in the street have made there way to church elder boards and denominational leaders. Contemporary culture is gaining a greater foothold in congregations and faith organizations.

In political terms, the root of many of these kinds of statements is a stated or tacit assumption that our culture is flawed and evil and needs to be modified, supplanted, or overthrown. The rhetoric is different, the methods are varied, but the goal is the same as it has always been: Socialist revolution.

Christianity has always been a target for those who wish to throw off any and all restraint in the name of freedom. Christianity speaks of a holy God who looks at the hearts of men. All men are sinful, all men need a savior, and all men fall completely short of the righteous standards of God. These sort of things grate on the darkened mind.

And those who carry the message of righteousness, repentance, and forgiveness from sin in Christ Jesus become targets. The bearers of the Good News are the enemy, a constant reminder of the iniquity of those who are not saved. Thus it becomes easy and necessary for those who dwell in darkness to cast their opponents as being against equality, or unloving, or judgmental, which in turn justifies any sort of sanction.

The Church from its earliest days has always been prone to compromise. But it seems worse now. Contemporary culture is viewed, if not a model for church ministry and doctrine, at least something to be accommodated. Truth is either malleable or reinterpretable as culture changes. Over the course of time compromised positions become inerrant doctrine. At some point the church or denomination becomes indistinguishable from the culture that surrounds it.

A famous person once said, "if you and me always agree, then one of us is unnecessary." Indeed, if the Church looks exactly like the world, the church is redundant. And that's why many mainline denominations are experiencing declines in attendance while others are dying out completely. They simply don't have anything to offer that is different from the culture.

10 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT QUENCHING THE HOLY SPIRIT - By: Sam Storms

Found here. Some very good material.
-------------------------

Were it not for the fact that no less than the Apostle Paul himself commanded us not to quench the Spirit, who among us would ever have suggested that this is even within the realm of possibility? To suggest that the omnipotent Spirit of God, the third person of the Godhead, could ever be quenched and thus limited or hindered or in some manner restricted in what he might do in our lives and in the life of the local church is to tread on thin theological ice.

Yet in 1 Thessalonians 5 we are told that the Spirit has, in some sense, granted to the Christian the power and authority either to restrict or release what he does in the life of the local church. What are we to do with this? Certainly the Holy Spirit can accomplish all that he wills to accomplish. But it is no less true that in certain instances, especially when it comes to spiritual gifts, he will rarely, if ever, force himself upon us against our will or judgment.

To use Paul’s metaphor or analogy, the Spirit is like a fire whose flame we must be careful not to quench or extinguish. He is not literally or metaphysically a fire, but what he does in us and through us, says Paul, is analogous to the effect fire has on dry wood or hay or dead grass. The Holy Spirit wants to intensify the heat of his presence among us, to inflame our hearts and fill us with the warmth of his indwelling power. And Paul’s exhortation is a warning to all of us lest we be part of the contemporary bucket brigade that stands ready to douse his activity with the water of legalism and fear and extra-biblical rules and a flawed theology that without biblical warrant claims that his gifts have ceased and been withdrawn.

Sadly, there are people who, as soon as they feel the slightest tinge of warmth from the Spirit’s supernatural work, quickly grab their theological, confessional, and denominational fire hose and douse his flame! So let’s turn our attention to some ten ways this is done.

Not Tired of Winning Yet XLVII (the illogic of the Left) - by John C. Wright

Found here. I love this guy's writing.
-----------------------

I have heard Democrat talking heads solemnly repeating the talking point that Donald Trump, by trying to get NATO to strengthen its military spending, and trying to get Germany to stop giving money to Russia, is acting as a Russian agent, because maneuvering to impoverish Russia and cordon it about with a strong military is obviously in Russia’s best interest.

The phrase used was that Donald Trump is destroying the international architecture of the postwar world, or something to that effect. Meanwhile, when I listen to what world leaders actually say, the exact opposite is happening. Teresa May, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s government of the United Kingdom, just announced her support for Trump’s meetings with Russia, with North Korea, and said the UK and the US were pursuing a wide-ranging free trade agreement.

Meanwhile, with their typical calm and even-toned understatement, the Dems have announced that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh means the end of the Republic, if not the end of all life on earth, as well as the destruction of ten thousand advanced civilizations throughout the Orion Arm of the galaxy.

Some of my conservative friends have expressed mild disappointment with this pick, since they would have preferred Ted Cruz or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI instead, someone who might have more clearly been ready and willing to overturn Roe v Wade. Both good choices, but I am willing to speculate on the logic behind Trump’s pick.

Now, my belief is not that Donald Trump is a genius who plays four-dimensional chess, nor a blundering fool whom kindly fate has merely by accident delivered to him one victory after another. I believe he is a businessman who thinks in the straightforward way of a businessman, and therefore the point of his moves is and will always remain invisible and incomprehensible to pundits and politicians who think in the elliptical way their professions require.

Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

The Dignity of Being a Sinner - by Eric Davis

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

This is the "I'm a sinner saved by grace" taken to the next step. Somehow we are supposed to believe that there is dignity in being labeled a sinner. Apparently we're supposed to grovel before God because of how evil we are, and celebrate the dignity of being this way. 

But there is no dignity in being a sinner, contrary to the author's assertion. 

It seems to be a stubbornly prevalent idea that we are lowly worms, not even deserving to be in the presence of God. Where does this idea come from? Well, one of Job's "friends," continually administering bad advice to Job. But these men are not to be trusted as purveyors of godly truth. Here's the passage, Job 25:1-5:

Then Bildad the Shuhite replied: 2 “Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven. 3 Can his forces be numbered? Upon whom does his light not rise? 4 How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? 5 If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, 6 how much less man, who is but a maggot — a son of man, who is only a worm!”

So, what is the truth about our status as Christians? Are we really dirty sinners? Is what Jeremiah says true about us as Christians? Je. 17:9:

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 

"Beyond cure." What does this mean? Is the condition of man's heart really beyond God's abilities? Of course not! We read in Ezekiel, 

I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. Ez. 11:19 

God has indeed done this thing. Ezekiel's word has come to pass. Something new has happened in our hearts. Ro. 5:5: 

And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

God did something about our hearts of stone. When we believed, we became new. 2Co. 5:17:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

This is the status of those who have believed and received salvation. That's us. That's the new creation. We are no longer who we were. We are now simultaneously righteous and also in the process of transformation. He. 10:14:

...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.

We should not regard ourselves as dirty sinners anymore. Yes, we still sin. That is why John says, 

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1Jn. 1:8

This is true. We are not without sin. But we must regard ourselves according to the truth of the Gospel. So yes, we sin; and, we are not sinners. Both are true.

Otherwise, how could John tell us, 

No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 1Jn. 3:9 

Persisting in sin, that is, continuing to sin as though we were not saved, calls into question our status as new creations. New creations do not continue in their sin. It's a crucial distinction.
------------------

Confirmation Bias: Why You Are Protecting Your False Beliefs - by Steven Kozar

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------

This article is found at the bottom of many Pirate Christian posts. It is a pre-emptive dismissal of any and all responses anyone might make in refutation of the author's perspective. That is, to disagree with the author is to engage in "confirmation bias." 
-----------------------

The Pastor Is the Primary Worship Leader.- Geoffrey R. Kirkland

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

The author makes a statement about pastors that is completely lacking in biblical support, probably because he accepts the traditional role of pastors as the leader of the church. However the traditional role is not the same as the biblical role. We dicuss the roots of this understanding here.

Today's Church is built on a faulty model, a pyramidal hierarchy. The Bible teaches a different model, a team of leadership. 

1Pe. 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...

1Ti. 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.

There is only a single mention of a pastor, in Ep. 4:11-13: 

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fu'lness of Christ.

The leadership of the church should be a team, each ministering in the role and according to the grace the Holy Spirit has apportioned. 

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

The ad hominem fallacy is a sin - Edward Feser

Found here. A very good article.
----------------------

An argumentum ad hominem (or “argument to the man”) is the fallacy committed when, instead of addressing the merits of an argument someone presents you with, you attack the person himself – his motives, some purported character defect, or the like. This disreputable tactic has, of course, always been common in public controversies, but resort to the fallacy seems these days nearly to have eclipsed rational public discourse. A large segment of the country has made it a matter of policy never to engage its political opponents at the level of reason, but only ever to demonize them and shout them down. Even in the Church, recent years have seen the ad hominem routinely deployed against even the most respectful and scholarly critics of Pope Francis’s doctrinally problematic statements concerning divorce and remarriage, capital punishment, and other matters.

This is not a mere foible in those prone to it, or merely a regrettable aesthetic defect in a polity. It is sinful, sometimes gravely so.

What the ad hominem fallacy is (and is not)

To see why, it is important first to understand what an ad hominemfallacy is – and what it is not. As all logicians know, and as I explained at length in a post several years ago, merely calling someone a name, or calling attention to his character defects, is not an ad hominemfallacy and it is not necessarily morally objectionable. Sometimes a person merits a nasty description, and sometimes what is at issue is precisely his moral character. There is no ad hominem fallacy in judging someone to be dishonest, or feckless, or incompetent, or simply a scumbag, and then going on to say so. Those may just be the facts, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with calling attention to such facts.

An ad hominem fallacy is committed when what is at issue is not a person or his character, but rather the truth or falsity of something he said or the cogency of some argument he gave, and instead of addressing that, you attack him or his character. If I call Charles Manson a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, I have not committed an ad hominem fallacy, but simply stated the facts. If Charles Manson gives me an argument purporting to show (for example) that Amoris Laetitia is hard to reconcile with Christ’s teaching on marriage or that immigration laws need to be enforced, and in response to that argument all I do is call him a murderous, sadistic, and lying scumbag, then I have committed an ad hominem fallacy.

What? No Way! - Part 2 (Women speaking in church) - by The Pepper Ginder

Found here. Some very good information here about the role of women in the church. While I may not entirely agree, I appreciate the author's approach.
-----------------------

It's usually much easier to knock something down than to build it up. In my last post I laid out the reasons why I strongly disagree with Kris Vallotton's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I don't want to be guilty of just tearing Kris's argument apart without presenting my own interpretation. Let's start with my translation, not just of the two "silence" verses, but the larger section of which they're part.

For you can all prophesy, one at a time, so that everybody can learn and be encouraged. The spirits of prophets are under the control of the prophets. For God doesn't bring confusion, but peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in church, for they aren't permitted to speak, but they should be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to ask something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it's disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.

Has the word of God only come from you? Are you the only ones to receive it? If anyone thinks he's a prophet or spiritual, he should recognize that what I'm writing is the Lord's command. If anyone ignores this, he will be ignored.

So, brothers, eagerly desire to prophesy, and don't stop anyone from speaking in tongues, but let everything be done properly and in good order. (1 Corinthians 14:31-40)

I think the most important key to understanding these verses is to see what Paul's primary concern is in chapter 14. Let's follow the argument of the chapter. Paul spends the first 25 verses talking about messages in tongues versus prophecies. His point is that if people give messages in tongues but no interpretation is given, it won't help people in the church. Even though he thinks there is definitely a place for praying in tongues without an interpretation, he doesn't think that place is in church. One thing that seems pretty clear from this is that there must have been times in the church at Corinth when people were giving messages in tongues without any interpretation being provided. As you can imagine, this was causing confusion, especially to anyone present who wasn't a believer. Paul wants this confusion to stop.

Paul continues this line of reasoning by laying down some ground rules for Spirit-inspired messages in church.

No more than two or three messages in tongues should be given, and none at all should be given unless there is someone present with the gift of interpreting tongues.

Prophecies should be limited to two or three as well, with people considering carefully what is said.

If one prophet is speaking, and someone else receives a prophetic message, the first speaker should stop talking and sit down.

What picture does this give you of the Corinthian church? I picture a place where there were many messages in tongues, with the congregation having no clue what was being said. I picture lots of prophecies, with times when more than one person was speaking at once. In general, it sounds to me as though the Corinthians were very excited about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul is not at all trying to discourage them, but he wants the people to use their gifts in a way that will do the most to build other people up. He wants order.

Hillsongs' "So WIll I" and evolution

"So Will I" is all over Christian radio, and we think deservedly so to a large degree. It is a beautiful expression of the Creator, well written and excellently performed.

Except for verse 2. Some people are in a lather over the word "evolving." Here it is:

All nature and science
Follow the sound of Your voice

And as You speak

A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath

Evolving in pursuit of what You said

If it all reveals Your nature so will I

Let's let Joel Houston, worship leader for Hillsongs NYC, explain via his tweets:

What is the gift of discernment & how it is supposed to work in the church? Part 2 - Elizabeth Prata

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

In part 1 of this two-part series, yesterday I’d written about what discernment is, and that there is discernment as a skill that all Christians are to train themselves in (Hebrews 5:14), and discernment as a gift of the Spirit given to some. (1 Corinthians 12:10). (Let's quote the passage. 1Co. 12:7-11:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

The author is a cessationist, yet appeals to a passage in support of her gift, which also contains gifts she doesn't believe in. Notice that Paul begins this with "Now to each one..." That is, each person has some sort of spiritual gift, and that all these mentioned are in operation in someone in the Body. So how is it the author can find scriptural support for her gift of discernment, but dismiss the balance of the passage?)

We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe - R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

The five points of Calvinism, TULIP, are as follows:

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

Calvinists are so committed to John Calvin's doctrine that they very nearly place it on the level of the Scriptures themselves. Which means to diverge from it even slightly is rank heresy. 

They are particularly proud of the sovereignty of God, that is, that God chose the elect, and those people are pre-ordained to be saved. Because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. No, our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace.  Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.

What strikes us about Calvinism is how much it doesn't matter. Yes, Calvinism doesn't matter. Practically speaking, none of the points have any bearing on our day-to-day faith. 

Why? Imagine that TULIP had never proposed as a doctrine. Nothing of them were ever offered to you for consideration. You were unaware of these principles. So, would TULIP change the fact that you need salvation? Would it change your standing before God? If you are saved, would it change the way you lead your life? No. Would you still share your faith, pray for the sick, and be generous with your time and your money? Yes.

None of these principles, even if true, would matter in the least. You would still be lost and in need of a Savior, you would still be called to lead a holy life, you would still be obligated to help the widow and the orphan, you would still be required to study the Word and live a life pleasing to God. TULIP is nothing more than arcane doctrinal hairsplitting, an intellectual exercise used to determine Us vs. Them.

What Is Discernment? - Sinclair Ferguson

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

On the whole a pretty good article, but glaringly incomplete. The author completely omits an explanation of the biblical gits of discernment, which is given by the Holy Spirit specifically to service the Body. 1Co. 12:7-10: 

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits...

The word "distinguish" is διάκρισις, Definition: distinguishing; hence: deciding, passing sentence on; the act of judgment, discernment.

The Holy Spirit is the source of all discernment. 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. 

Here the Greek word is ἀνακρίνω Definition: I examine, inquire into, investigate, question.

We are commanded to test spirits as well. 1Jn. 4:1: 

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The word here is δοκιμάζω Definition: I put to the test, prove, examine; I distinguish by testing, approve after testing...

This is a far cry from the so called "discernment" ministries, which simply lambaste people they disagree with. Discernment in reality is the primary activity of those who are gifted with discernment, and it operates in the local Body to ensure correct teaching, the detection of spiritual forces of darkness that might be at work in the gathering, and for things like exhortation and deliverance.

But in the NT, we just don't see any examples of people going around evaluating and criticizing other churches and ministries. We do see discernment at work as Paul goes around to those churches he is apostle over. We see discernment at work in evangelism (Simon the Sorcerer is a good example), and we see discernment at work in the church to test prophetic words.

Lastly, the author will assert that "judgmentalism" is bad, but judgment is ok. He does not tell us the difference. 

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

Clarity Not Charity - by Tim Bates (The song "Reckless Love")

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

The song under scrutiny is "Reckless Love," by Cory Asbury. The lyrics read:

What Really Happened on the Cross? Part 1 Sacrifice and Propitiation - by MIKE RICCARDI

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------
We've previously commented on the atonement here, here, and especially, here. 

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

The atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross stands at the very epicenter of Christianity. It is no exaggeration to say that the cross-work of Christ is the heart of the gospel. When the apostle Paul summarized the gospel he preached, he encapsulated it by speaking of the atonement: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). The cross is the content of the gospel itself, for “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). The gospel message by which we are saved is “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18). The eighteenth-century slave-ship captain turned Puritan preacher, John Newton, captured it well when he said, “I advise you by all means to keep close to the atonement. The doctrine of the cross is the sun in the system of truth.”

One way to “keep close” to the atonement is to ensure we understand precisely what happened on the cross. We’re likely familiar with the events of the crucifixion, but the significance of those events is so boundless that it will be the theme of the saints’ praise for eternity (Rev 4–5). Despite this, there has been, historically, and there is, today, great confusion concerning this central and essential doctrine of the Christian faith. We must therefore ask of the text of Scripture, “What really happened on the cross? What is it that Jesus has accomplished in His work of atonement? What is the biblical significance of what our Savior has done on our behalf?”

The cross is not a ransom payment to Satan; the chief captive of hell is in no position to demand ransom payments from God. The cross is not an illustration of God’s general moral government of the world. Still less is the cross God’s declaration of the value and worth of humanity, except as it testifies to the depth of our sinfulness. Neither is the cross merely a cosmic victory of good over evil or a good example for Christians to imitate. Most fundamentally, the cross is a work of penal substitution—the Lord Jesus suffering the penalty for the sins of His people as a substitute for them. In His great love, the Father appointed the Son to stand in our place, to bear our sin, to carry our guilt, to receive our punishment, and thereby to satisfy the righteous wrath of God against us. (We do not agree Jesus was punished. God never punished Him. 

There is a great difference between "bear our sin" and "receive our punishment." Jesus indeed carried our sin, as one might take out the garbage. Col. 2:13-14: 

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,  God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

"Took it away" is the Greek word αἴρω which is I raise, lift up, take away, remove. Jesus literally carried  our sins like a bundle on His shoulders to the cross. There is absolutely no hint that God punished Jesus in any way. God was never mad at Jesus.)

Judge Everything - by John MacArthur

Found here. 

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

I am so pleased to be able to offer a John MacArthur article without commentary. Ordinarily I find so many whoppers that I am pressed to respond. But not here.
-------------------------

False teachers flourish where there is no scrutiny. That’s why so many of them set up camp in environments where there is little to no biblical discernment—where God’s Word is nothing more than a supplement to personal experience, anecdote, and embellishment.

Why do the heavy lifting of careful Bible study when one can simply “let go” and be drawn into the gravitational pull of a religious guru? Our short attention span and quick-fix culture is easily preyed upon by charismatic sideshows, feel-good philosophy, and the television hucksters of modern pseudo-Christianity.

But we are derelict in our Christian duty if we allow that to happen to us and our churches. When the apostle Paul says to “examine everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), he is calling on all Christians to practice careful biblical discernment in all realms of life.

That may surprise some Christians who see discernment as uniquely a pastoral responsibility. It is certainly true that pastors and elders have an even greater duty to be discerning than the average layperson. Most of the calls to discernment in the New Testament are issued to church leaders (1 Timothy 4:6-7, 13, 16; Titus 1:9). Every elder is required to be skilled in teaching truth and able to refute unsound doctrine.