No debate on the rapture - Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We discuss our version of the end times here. 

This is the worst kind of behavior from the doctrinal police. Ms. Prata's certainty goes way beyond personal conviction into the arena of the cultish.

She began by writing a wordy article about pets and the rapture, eventually concluding that she doesn't know what happens with pets. She then tacks this little gem on the end of the article:

*Editor’s Note: For some reason, likely satan in order to steal future hope, the doctrine of the Rapture has become controversial. People say they don’t believe it will happen, in effect saying that Jesus plans to drag His Bride through the mud in wrath and judgment. I am not going to allow debate on the topic. I studied eschatology for ten years and have come to a settled conclusion that the order of events facing humankind is next the rapture, then the Tribulation, then Jesus returns in His Second Coming, the 1000 year kingdom on earth AKA Millennial Kingdom) then final judgment of all humankind then eternal state on a New Earth. If you do not believe in the rapture then this essay is not for you, why read it? Just go your way in peace. If you are not sure about the end of all things (eschatology doctrines) then I am happy to share from the Bible what it says on this topic. Not “I think”, not “I believe” but a conversation based on biblical fact. I’m open to that. Thank you.

We first note that Ms. Prata completely misrepresents the debate. Thoughtful people on all sides have been considering eschatology for centuries. There's more to it than rapture vs. no rapture, there's also a variety of perspective regarding the timing of the rapture, the thousand year reign, and the anti-christ. All these and more are subject to a variety of considered opinions, and most all of it is contained within the margins of orthodoxy.

But what does Ms. Prata proclaim? People who question her doctrine are likely satanic and don't believe in the rapture, which means they believe Jesus will drag His bride through the mud. 

She then brandishes her bonafides. 10 years of study has yielded an unassailable doctrine, and no debate is allowed. It's not even a matter of opinion for her, it is "biblical fact." Yes, she's open to debating ideas, but only those that are "biblical fact," that is, only if you already agree. If you don't agree, it is demonic.

The arrogance and smug self-assurance is astounding. We are truly amazed that a person can be so convinced of their superior doctrine as to dismiss any and all dissent. And this from a person who represents herself as a teacher of the word and a defender of the truth.

Hearing from Heaven: How to Know the Voice of God (Justin Peters) Sermons

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long and unedifying sermon, containing an astounding 10,650 words. It would have taken upwards of an hour and a half to speak, or longer. We have edited it to eliminate distraction. 

Mr. Peters makes some astoundingly false claims. We seriously doubt his ability as a teacher of the Bible.

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

The Biggest Deficit You’ve Never Heard Of - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

  

This man has an earned doctorate, but that doesn't mean he's smart. This may be the most preposterous thing we've ever read regarding government spending.

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

America has a deficit problem. But the country’s biggest deficit isn’t the federal budget deficit. It’s the deficit in public investment. (Two preposterous claims in the first sentence. Dr. Reich will not bother to justify these assertions.)

The public investment deficit is the gap between what we should be investing in our future — on infrastructure, education, and basic research — and the relatively little we are investing. (Dr. Reich simply makes this up. There is no "we," there is no government mandate to invest in our future, and "we" have already invested trillions of dollars on these things with nothing to show for it.)

Increasing public investment needs to be a major goal of the Biden administration.

Public investment is similar to private investment in that we invest today because of the payoff in the future. (No, it's not. The private sector spends its own money as it chooses. Government spends other peoples' money without regard for their interests or preferences. The private sector chooses investments in order to meet the needs of their customers. The government chooses its "investments" according to political clout and pandering.)

The History of Freedom Is a History of Whiteness - A conversation with Tyler Stovall - by Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins

Found here. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/tyler-stovall-interview-white-freedom/

Our comments in bold.

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

There's just so much nonsense here that it's hard to make sense of it. One has to accept the premise that an entity, America, or a concept, freedom, is racist because white people who express the concept are racist; therefore the concept of  freedom as expressed by these white people is necessarily racist. 

This presentation is cloaked in a veneer of pseudo-scholarship and nearly impenetrable rhetoric. We shall not permit the author or the book writer to redefine terms.

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

In the Name of Jesus

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?

Bethel Music – Unfruitful Works of Darkness - By JEFF MAPLES

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Jeff Maples is in his typically bombastic style. He clearly hates Bethel church and all it stands for, but takes no time to teach the Bible or edify us. He manages to quote a couple of Scriptures, but does not discuss them or tells us how they apply.

It's almost comical that the author complains about Bethels' profit motive: "There is no question that Bethel Music exists to make money..." This is the reason why we left the advertising embedded in the article.  It is a short article, less than a thousand words, but contains four advertisements. Irony, indeed.

Lastly, we should note that we are not here to defend Bethel or Jesus Culture, we intend to examine the author's presentation.
-------------------

Letter to the editor: Working Montanans need and deserve a $15 minimum wage - letter by Andy Boyd

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Andy Boyd is a local Bernie supporter and leftist activist who even now still doesn't understand economics. Mr. Boyd wants the minimum wage in Montana to be $15/hr. Why $15? He never tells us. His entire presentation is an emotional appeal.

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

Biblical Refutation of NAR Dominionism Obsession with Politics - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

Reverend Wade is upon us again with another sulfurous polemic. We have considered a number of his previous screeds in the past, and have found him to be a poor Bible exegete and an even worse logician.  

As is typical with the Reverend, he comes out axe-swinging against his theological opponent, demonstrating no nuance, no understanding his adversary's position, and no redemptive thrust that would justify calling it a "devotional."  

Having said that, we happily agree with Rev. Wade that the Gospel does not contain a mandate to exercise political power. But in all the quotes Rev Wade provides, we do not see any evidence that the NAR wants to take over the political systems of the US, despite his continual accusations. We see references to influencing politics, but not calls for theocracy. We see initiatives to be active in our institutions, but not to take them over. 

Further, we should note that we have no intention of defending Mr. Mattera, the NAR, or dominionism. We are only interested in Rev. Wade's presentation.

Lastly, it has become increasingly clear to us that Rev. Wade is particularly obsessed with the NAR and dominionism, neither of which he accurately explains.  

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

For God so loved the world

Introduction

From time to time we consider familiar ideas and familiar understandings of the Bible to see if what we believe is actually what the verse teaches. Like many people, our ordinary tendency is to casually pass by the familiar without much consideration. This familiarity has bred ambivalence, which we hope to rectify today.

Today's example is John 3:16, a verse that even the most ardent atheist can quote. It is certainly one of the most, if not the most famous verse in the Bible. 

Here's the passage:

Jn. 3:13-17 No-one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

"It is finished." What did Jesus finish?

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?

Charity Gayle and the Self-Idolatry of Modern Worship Music - By REFORMATION CHARLOTTE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Oh, my. Reformation Charlotte has completely embarrassed themselves. This is what happens when someone sets themselves up as the Arbiter of Truth. 

An unfortunate woman, Charity Gayle, came into their crosshairs, and they blast away at her in a manner completely absent "charity." Why? She performed a song that Reformation Charlotte deems to be too self-referential. While we happily concede there are many songs out there that are overly self-focused, this is not one of those.

Whether or not one considers this to be a proper worship song is not the purpose of our fisk. We are here to examine Reformation Charlotte.

Here's the complete text of the song:

V1: I was lost in shame, could not get past my blame
Until He called my name, I’m so glad He changed me

V2: Darkness held me down, (but) Jesus pulled me out
I’m no longer bound, I’m so glad He changed me

Pre: See I’m, a new creation in Christ, the old has gone, there’s new life
I live by faith, not by sight

Chorus: There is a new name written down in glory 
And it’s mine, yes it’s mine
I’ve met the author of my story 
And He’s mine, yes He’s mine

V3: Sin had left me blind, but, Jesus opened my eyes
Now I see His light, I’m so glad He changed me

V4: Now I’m walking free, I’ve got the victory
(see) It’s all over me, I’m so glad He changed me

Bridge: I am who I am because the I Am tells me who I am

So why do we claim that Reformation Charlotte should be embarrassed? Well, there's a hymn by C. Austin Miles called "A New Name in Glory," written in 1910:

1 I was once a sinner, but I came, pardon to receive from my Lord.
This was freely given, and I found, that He always kept His word.

Chorus: There's a new name Written down in glory, and it's mine, 
oh yes, it's mine!
And the white-robed Angels sing the story, "a sinner has come home."
For there's a new name written down in glory, and it's mine,
oh yes, it's mine! 
With my sins forgiven I am bound for heaven, nevermore to roam.

2 I was humbly kneeling at the cross, fearing naught but God's angry frown,
When the heavens opened and I saw that my name was written down. 

3 In the Book 'tis written, "Saved by grace." Oh, the joy that came to my soul!
Now I am forgiven, and I know by the blood I am made whole. 

Clearly Ms. Gayle is singing an adaptation loosely based on the lyrics of this hymn. Why is this important? Because Reformation Charlotte opens their screed with praise for "traditional Christian hymns," completely unaware that Ms. Gayle's song is based on a "traditional Christian hymn."

Embarrassing.

In addition, Reformation Charlotte tells us that modern worship songs are bad because they are focused on self. So let's consider the lyrics of some old hymns:

* Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. 

I once was lost, but now I'm found, was blind but now I see.

* And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing; Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in; 

That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing, He bled and died to take away my sin.

* At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light

And the burden of my heart rolled away

It was there by faith I received my sight

And now I am happy all the day

* When the roll is called up Yonder,

I'll be there

* Great is thy faithfulness, Great is thy faithfulness

Morning by morning new mercies I see

All I have needed thy hand hath provided

Great is thy faithfulness, Lord unto me

* Take my life and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
Take my moments and my days, let them flow in endless praise.
Take my hands and let them move, At the impulse of Thy love.
Take my feet and let them be, swift and beautiful for Thee.

We would suggest that it is difficult to sing about the great things God has done apart from the idea that He done great things for us. And it certainly isn't rare that songs, both new and old, are about what God has done for us.

We should also consider the Psalms:

Ps. 3:3 But you are a shield around me, O LORD; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head.

Ps. 13:6 I will sing to the LORD, for he has been good to me.

Ps. 16:5 LORD, you have assigned me my portion and my cup; you have made my lot secure.

Ps. 30:2 LORD my God, I called to you for help and you healed me.

Ps. 49:15 But God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself.

Ps. 71:14 But as for me, I shall always have hope; I will praise you more and more.

It's a good thing Reformation Charlotte doesn't have the same standard for the psalmist.

Lastly,  Ms. Gayle sings "I am who I am because the I Am tells me who I am." Reformation Charlotte takes issue: "the name 'I am' is reserved for God..." The nonsense of this should be self-evident to any person casually acquainted with the English language. 

"I am" is ἐγὼ εἰμί (egō eimi), I exist, I am. "I Am" is the specific personal identification made to Moses by Yahweh:

Ex. 3:13-15 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob — has sent me to you.’ This is my name for ever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation."

Jesus echoed this statement of eternality, which is what so offended the Pharisees:

Jn. 8:58 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (egō eimi)

The use of the word is not automatically a claim to deity. Or perhaps Paul is making a claim to deity?

Ro. 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.

Ro. 11:13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry...

1Co. 7:7 I wish that all men were as I am.

1Co. 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am...

Reformation Charlotte seems to think that every use of the phrase "I am" is a statement of eternality as opposed to a statement of personal status. This is clearly not the case, and it is puerile to think otherwise.

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

Should Christians ask for a sign?

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 those who would seek personal guidance from God. This might take the form of a "feeling," a confirming occurrence, a prophetic word, or something similar. 

Is seeking information acceptable, or does the Bible prohibit or negate extra-biblical sources of information? Is seeking information different than seeking a sign? Does God respond to those who want guidance for life decisions?