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.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Answering a discernment objection… - by Michelle Lesley

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

Michelle Lesley gets pretty nasty here. Her hostile responses to this man's statement seems to indicate that she doesn't like to be disagreed with. She disproportionately mocks, denigrates, and disrespects the man for no other reason than he finds a particular Bible teacher to be of benefit.  

Arrogant, condescending, and boorish. Not great qualities for a self-professed Bible teacher to possess.

Now, we do not intend to defend Tara Leigh Cobble. We've never heard her speak. We are here to examine Ms. Lesley's presentation. 

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

Twin Truths - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Again and again we confronted with biblical illiteracy. Ms. Lesley gets bent of shape for being called a heretic, and goes wild with an incorrect definition of heresy.

She then gets all twisted up trying to explain Bible paradoxes, while simultaneously asserting that there is only one set of doctrinal beliefs that are true. 

In addition, she will never quote the Bible. Not once.)

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

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.

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

Deaconesses and Female Deacons -Michelle Lesley

Found here. My comments in bold.

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

As is typical for Ms. Lesley (and many of those we call the Doctrinal Police), she hardly quotes Scripture. We are continually astonished at how these teachers can write thousands of words about the Bible but can barely bring themselves to quote it.

For today's post, we think Ms. Lesley's problem is not necessarily her bad doctrine, but rather, her trust in bad translation. It seems she thinks that we should be just as confident in the translators as Scripture itself. But translators are subject to bias, cultural and political understanding, and tradition.

We do not think translators are dishonest, they are simply products of their environment and training. Generally, they do a difficult job pretty well. But not perfectly. Especially when we consider their work on 1 Timothy 3; what they tell us the Greek means borders on malpractice.

Will will demonstrate below.

Also, we note in passing the redundancy contained in Ms. Lesley's title.

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

Rock Your Role: Jill in the Pulpit (1 Timothy 2:11-12) - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley makes her case according to the traditional understanding of these passages, but she does not consult the Greek. Nor does she examine her assumptions or add anything original. She simply parrots the traditional line of thinking, assuming it is correct. She makes numerous undocumented assertions, all based on the misreading of a single verse, 1 Tim. 2:12.

In addition, she barely manages to quote Scripture. This is an unfortunate prevalent tendency among the Doctrinal Police.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Answering Reader Question: What are we to think of the “Let Us Worship” tour? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is the moral and doctrinal bankruptcy of the Doctrinal Police. Sean Feucht is leading worship gatherings, and rather than honor his courage, celebrate the worship, or give praise to God for the salvations, well, the author slams him.

And she can't even manage to fight her way out of the rhetorical paper bag. This may be one of the most inept polemics we have ever read. And we have read some sorry ones in our time.

*Update* Hundreds coming to be baptized. Satanist saved. 

------------------ 

Is There More Than One Way to Interpret Scripture? - by Michelle Lesley

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

We know what the author is trying to get at. But her imprecise use of language is troubling, especially since she represents herself as a Bible teacher.

In addition, the author manages to quote only a single Scripture. One would think that a Corrector of Doctrine might find a way to actually provide Bible verses.
--------------------

A few weeks ago, a friend asked me this question: How do I respond to those who say we can interpret scripture however we want? She had been talking with someone and they had claimed that there are many interpretations to scripture and people just interpret the Bible however they want to make it fit with their viewpoint. (Tell her friend to read them a verse, like Jn. 14:6: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Ask the person how they might interpret that. 

The problem isn't about interpreting difficult verses that could mean various things. The problem is the plain sayings of Scripture.)

While the second half of that sentence is true (people try to make the Bible say whatever they want), it is the first part of this sentence that I want to examine today: Is there more than one interpretation? (Well yes, that's very nearly self-evident. There are many interpretations of the Bible. Perhaps her question is really, "is there more than one correct interpretation?")

This is a great battle in Christendom today because almost all false Gospels rely on the answer to this question being yes. (Subject change. Now we are talking about teachers of false doctrine.)

If we desire to stick to the traditional view of the Word, we will often have to deal with people saying to us: Well, that’s your interpretation. (Subject change. Now we are talking about a scoffer.)

So let’s take a look at this so that, hopefully, we will be a little more prepared the next time someone makes a statement like this.

If you write a letter to someone, does it have one meaning? Or are there several? (Term-switching. The number of meanings is not equal to the number of interpretations.)

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.

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