And the Winner of The ‘Worst Christian of 2020’ is… by G. Seth Dunn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This may be one of the most unchristian, debased articles we have ever read by the Doctrinal Police. Can you imagine? A person sets out to rate Christians in order to determine who is the worst one.

This author does not edify. He does not offer correction. He makes no effort to offer a solution. 

Ironically, he begins by conceding that it is "pharisaical" to ask who the worst Christian is, but goes on to say he can still "fairly" ask the question, with the thinnest of justifications: The perceived damage done to the Church.

But he doesn't provide the Scriptural documentation of this. In fact, he doesn't quote a Scripture, reference a Scripture, or explain any Scriptural principle. At all. Period.

We should note that we do not intend to defend Mr. Mohler, we are simply interested in the egregious presentation of the author.

Lastly, as we have noted elsewhere, there is no biblical principle that can be invoked to call out errant Christians who are not part of the congregation. All the correction and discipline contained in the NT was local correction by those in authority in that church.

Thus the bomb-throwing from afar is not biblical and not appropriate.

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

Who is the "angel of the Lord?"

This post is not about Christmas, but since the story of Christmas is obviously front and center this time of year, we wanted to note some elements in the account Luke chapter 2. Here's the passage:

Lk. 2:8-10 And there were shepherds living out in the fields near by, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” 

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.” 16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.

The "angel of the Lord" (angelos Kyriou) appeared to the shepherds. This phrase is found frequently in Scripture, mostly in the OT. The phrase appears eight times in the Gospels, and four times in Acts.

Our preliminary thesis is the angel of the Lord, in almost every instance, is God the Word appearing. This isn't always true since The Father spoke at times as well:

Mt. 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

But we would suggest that most every other instance of God speaking is the Word of God:

Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Not only did He create all things, the Son's word continues to sustain the universe:

He. 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. 

The apostle John also tells us:

Jn. 12:41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

We would suspect that John was referring to Isaiah chapter six, where Isaiah recorded his encounter with the One seated on the throne in glory. Interestingly, Isaiah first refers to the Lord (Adonai, verse one) as the one seated on the throne, but in verse five he says his eyes have seen the LORD (Yahweh). Then in verse eight he says he heard the voice of the Lord. 

The question asked is, "Who will go for us?" This boggles the mind. Isaiah sees the pre-incarnate Word and identifies Him as both Adonai and Yahweh, and then hears (them) say "us."

***

What are the "mysteries?"

We have been pursuing our Doctrinal Rethink for some time now. In the process of engaging it 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.

Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched? How did we arrive at our doctrines?

Today we consider a topic that we have not seen discussed anywhere: The "mysteries," or, "secrets."

What does it mean about beauty not coming from outward adornment? 1 Peter 3:1-4 and Genesis 35:1-4

A friend and I were talking about her former pastor. My friend's faith foundation began in this church. She and this pastor have known each other a long time, and they continue to converse, even after she moved away. But recently they decided to do a video chat, and this pastor immediately noticed her piercing and braids.

He was horrified, and actually condemned her to hell for this. 

Standard, old-time Pentecostalism has a number of rules regarding appearance and conduct. Some might consider them severe. However, I do not necessarily take issue with rules a church might decide are proper and productive for the spiritual health of its congregants, even if I personally would not want to attend the church. Some of these rules may at times seem severe or perhaps misguided, but people come to church voluntarily, and subject themselves to the church's rules by choice.

It's one thing to have rules, but it's entirely another thing to relegate someone to hell for breaking those rules. Especially if it's someone who is no longer part of the church. Overt sin is a serious concern, but it is a matter of internal church discipline. Therefore it should be called out and dealt with according to biblical procedures. 

But nowhere in the New Testament is anyone relegated to perdition by pronouncement. That power belongs to Jesus alone. Therefore, a certain amount of circumspection should be employed when making assertions about someone's eternal state. We are not privy to the contents of the Lamb's Book of Life. 

Why the Failed Fascist Coup of 1933 Could Succeed in 2021 - By Harvey Wasserman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

To anyone with a brain, this article reads as ridiculous and vapid. The autho goes on and on about Hitler=Trump, tosses a few fables on the table as if they were unvarnished truth, and arrives at a conclusion that is at once preposterous and infantile.

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

Smedley Butler won't be around next year to save us.

The former Marine Corps general was offered a ton of money in 1933 to murder newly-elected president Franklin Roosevelt and stage a fascist coup. (There is no evidence it was fascist, no evidence it was real, and no evidence that any of the players named were actually involved.

And by the way. Butler was a Republican and ran in support of prohibition.

This is a textbook example of leftist revisionism and purposeful ignorance of relevant facts. Having started in this way, we can rightly suspect the author's other pronouncements will be similarly tainted.)

Dr. Michael Brown - Furthering the Church's Victim Mentality - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Reverend Wade is back, again making pronouncements without evidence and baseless assertions of every kind. 

The Reverend's article is indistinguishable from something one might find on the Huffington Post, Vox, or the Rachel Maddow Show. It is a political screed, perfectly Leftist in every detail.

And because the Reverend is a Leftist, his presentation is exactly like a leftist, in that he purports to provide a factual analysis but is actually parroting an endless stream of undocumented leftist talking points.

Lastly, we note once again that the Reverend posted this article as a devotional, but there is no matter of faith being built up, no spiritual principle to edify, no biblical exposition to feed upon. Except for an introductory Scripture, not explained or applied, the Bible is completely absent.

Rev. Wade is here to discuss his politics, and that only.

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

When False Prophets Teach About False Prophets - Kris Vallotton Edition - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We've been enjoying our respite from Rev. Wade, but we are now forced to consider his latest screed. And it is a screed, a typically long one at 2215 words. But of course, that's what Rev. Wade does. He goes on and on about things without explaining anything. He doesn't quote a single Scripture aside from the introductory verse. He seems able only to toss around vague accusations and undocumented assertions.

We do not intend to defend Kris Vallotton, we only desire to examine the author's vain pronouncements.

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

Jesus and gay marriage

From time to time we find leftists pontificating on the Bible and what Jesus believed or didn't believe. One thing we are certain about is when a leftist starts explaining the Bible, they will never get it right. But why should they? They don't believe it. The reason they're explaining the Bible is not because they love the word of God, it's because they hate it. Their explanations are designed to not only cast doubt on the Bible, but especially to bolster their ideology.

They are doctrinaire leftist partisans first, and theologians second (or third. Or not at all...)

Today we examine the idea of Jesus approving of gay marriage.

The Danger To Our Democracy Is The Republican Party - By Alon Ben-Meir

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a screed in the worst sense of the word. The author offers seemingly endless lists of evils perpetrated by his political opponents, none of it explained, referenced, or defended, for example:

• aberration
• demagogue 
• thrives on hatred, division, and contempt.
• bald-faced authoritarianism
• lost its moral compass
• extreme Republican conservatism
• resorting to any sinister scheme
• catered to white supremacists
• disparaging scientific truths
• belittling political opponents 
• would-be dictator 
• determined to dismantle the fundamentals of our democracy
• morally debased elements of Republican politics
• onslaught of disinformation
• falsehood
• treachery
• ravaging our democratic way of life
• plunging us anew into ominous social and political strife
• darkest chapters in American history
• moral bankruptcy
• sacrifice the well-being of the nation 

It goes on and on and on. The author then calls for civility. Hmm.

This article is anti-intellectualism at its worst. It is leftist jingoism, blank-eyed sloganeering, a perfect expression of agitprop.

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

It's never been about if masks are justified. It's always about if mandates are justified - FB Post

• I posted:

  It's never been about if masks are justified. It's always about if mandates are justified.

• Paul 

  I understand that sentiment, and it seems like the ones who will not wear a mask, are even less likely to do so if mandated to. Meanwhile, people I know are getting sick. I've had a healthy friend die from it here in Bozeman. Every week, folks I have been on the same job as, end up with the virus. I wear a mask and avoid large gatherings not out of fear of contracting it, but as way to limit the spread of the virus and not give it to someone who may not tolerate it well. My personal freedom is not worth more to me than even one life. That sentiment is not widely shared though.

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 57m
• Me

  Then you should stop driving your car.

  
  

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 27m
  • Paul

    I keep my vehicle well maintained. I put snow tires on in the winter. I actually strive to follow the speed limit. I stop at stop signs and red stop lights. I use my turn signals. I do not drink alcohol, let alone drive under the influence. In short, I follow a set of rules to be as safe as I can on the road and limit the danger to others around me. I wear a seat belt to help ensure my safety in the event of any problems on my end or someone else's. I think all of that is a good comparison to mask wearing.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 14m
  • Me

    "My personal freedom is not worth more to me than even one life." That seems like a pretty clear standard, but the precautions you describe are not even close to sufficient to ensure it.

    You can only succeed by staying home and having no contact with anyone. Anything else has the capacity to imperil lives.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 9m
  • Paul

    Turns out I'm a selfish hypocrite. On paper I see your argument. Life is more nuanced than that. I'll continue to do what I can to limit the loss of life in all aspects of life. I won't stop all loss of life, but I will be intentional about guarding life in all its forms.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 5m
  • Me

    No, you're embracing a standard because it is noble, but it's also impossible. There is a degree of risk and danger no matter what. It's where we decide to draw the line that determines how much peril vs. personal liberty.

    And my point is, we draw that line, except when someone draws it for our own good.

    • Like
    •  · 
      Reply
    •  · 2m

What kind of condemnation is contained in "therefore there is no condemnation?"

We have been pursuing our Doctrinal Rethink for some time now. In the process of engaging it 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.

Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched? How did we arrive at our doctrines?

Here's today's verse:

Ro. 8:1-3 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...

We regularly hear people reference this verse when they're feeling discouraged or when they're laboring under guilt for failing, or for sin. It's a "remind me" verse that any condemnation they're feeling is wrong, because there is no condemnation.

But is this what Paul is discussing? 

Is the Bible Enough for Us? – Sufficiency - by Eric Davis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Happily, the author manages to quote a couple of Scriptures, but these do not speak to the issues at hand. This is astonishing, considering the topic is the sufficiency of the Bible. One would think that quoting the Bible would be an important part of explaining how the Bible is sufficient.

The author thinks "sufficiency" means "the end of revelation." He never demonstrates this.

Nor does he actually get to the central thesis of his article. He spends a lot of time discussing the "sufficiency" part, but contents himself at the end to only offer a series of undocumented bare assertions regarding the other part, "is the Bible enough for us?"

We deal extensively with "sufficiency" here, so we will try not to duplicate those arguments.

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