Socialist magazine founder fires staff for socialist organizing, confesses he felt ownership of what he'd made - by JOHN SEXTON

Found here. 

We have commented a number of times on Mr. Robinson's writings, and invariably found he is a superficial thinker, verbose and cocky about things he clearly doesn't understand. So it is with a certain satisfaction that we post this article, because we are convinced that deep down, socialists do not really believe their own rhetoric. They may emphatically espouse their socialism, but live like corporatists. They are theorists, but where the real world butts up against their theories, they privately acquiesce to the real world.

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

For Whom Did Christ Die? - by Daniel R. Hyde

Found here. Our comments in bold.

This author is going to attempt to explain the "L" from the calvinistic TULIP - Limited Atonement. Not only will he fail, but he will end up misrepresenting the Bible in an egregious way.

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

In the last days... We take a brief look at the last days and the Day of The Lord

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.

Want to Be an Elder? Start Eldering Now. - by BOBBY JAMIESON

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a curious article. One one hand there is a good deal of useful information here. But on the other hand the author does not discuss the role of elders in the church or even define the word. He quotes Scripture numerous times, but does not quote any Scripture at all that mentions elders. 

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

When "Socialism" destroyed our democracy... Faceborg meme

 Posted by a FB friend:

It seems to us that the vulgar summary dismissal contained in this meme is inappropriate, since it is certainly true that these programs are bankrupting us. 

First, let's define socialism. The classic definition of socialism is the state ownership of  the means of production. There is a three-faced rebuttal offered by the political Left

1. they will deny we have any aspect of socialism because of the classic definition - the government doesn't own the means of production. 
2. they will extoll the virtues of socialism by claiming that socialism is already at work, naming Social Security, the GI Bill, and fire and police departments as expressions of Socialism.
3. while asserting socialism is at work in society, they blame all the economic woes on capitalism. 

We would assert that aspects of socialism are indeed at work in our society, and are in fact the reason we have huge deficits and staggeringly huge economic wealth transfers that have solved nothing. 

Further, government no longer needs to own the means of production to push the socialistic agenda, for controlling the means of production is a defacto ownership. And, there are certain corporations who are happily doing the government's bidding: suppressing speech, censoring debate, and punishing those who don't hold to The Narrative. Thus, government doesn't need to own what it controls.

This goes well beyond the legislative control of the processes of factories and businesses, it includes taxing productivity. Not only does government lay claim to a percentage of a business's income, it does this with each worker as well. This carries an implicit assumption that government has a right to that money. So both a business and a worker's means of production is being taken from them, which as a matter of logic means their money does not belong to them. Therefore, if the result of someone's labor production does not belong to him, the government owns it and simply decides how much it wants to take.

Government has no money of its own, so it must engage in taxation to fund its operations. Those operations which allocate taxed money to beneficiaries (the poor, the retired, the sick) are redistributions, i.e. money taken from one person and given to another. And redistribution is at the heart of socialism.

Faith and the Power of God - by Jerry Bridges

Found here. 

A generally very good article about faith, with the possible exception of the ending discussion about the fish with the coin in its mouth. 

First, the commentary regarding this is completely irrelevant to the author's presentation. It has absolutely nothing to do with an element of  faith.

Second, the author's "more likely" conclusion is really a distinction without a difference. A miracle via Jesus creating a coin in the fish's mouth is no different than a series of miraculous occurrences culminating in Peter catching the fish with the coin. It's a miracle either way.

Third, the motivation for categorizing the miracle as either providence or faith is mystifying. Such a distinction does not edify the reader, explain a Bible principle, or build faith. It is nothing more than an intellectual curiosity having nothing to do with living a proper Christian life of faith.

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

Why should a Church Have a Prayer Ministry?

"The enemy does not fear prayerless Bible study, prayerless preaching, prayerless service, or prayerless Christianity." - Wesley Duewel

***

Introduction

A prayerless church is an irrelevant church. This is a severe statement, of course. But the severity of it is intended to jostle us out of complacency by placing prayer in its rightful place, using direct language. The intent of this document, therefore, is to impress upon the reader the critical nature of prayer in these last days. There are few things Christians do that are more important than prayer. Prayer is that critical. 

 A church is defined by what it values. A church is defined by what it talks about. A church is defined by what it does. A church that values prayer must be a church that prays. 

The purpose of this document is to do two things:

1. Articulate some principles for a prayer ministry
2. Fan into flame a passion for effectual prayer in our church

I believe prayer is the next thing Holy Spirit wants to add to our repertoire. 

General Principles

• It is a sign of Christian maturity to be more and more burdened to pray. 
• It is the duty of the mature Christian to pray effectually. Ja. 5:16 ...The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
• It is the fruit of Christian maturity to pray the Father's heart. Ep. 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. 
• It is the glory of the mature Christian to receive answers to prayer. 

Vision

Several important promises have been spoken over our church. God does not intend it to be a typical church where typical things happen. This church is to be a cutting-edge church. This church is to be a spiritual center in this region. This church is to be a worshiping church. This church is to facilitate the ministry of the Holy Spirit. This church is to be an agent of Spirit-led unity between churches. 

The prayer ministry lays the groundwork for these promises to become reality. Most of God's promises are conditional and can only be accessed by diligent, Spirit-led prayer. The prayer ministry is the nexus for this, and thus must attain prominence and be valued in the church. 

The gathering together for prayer is a critical operation in the church, one that is often neglected in churches. A healthy prayer ministry involves the regular gathering together of like minds to pursue the heart of the Father. This should be a growing passion in the church, to gather together to pray. It is a mark of a healthy prayer ministry and a healthy church.

Yes, people are already praying in our church. We pray in our church services. We pray in our prayer closets. Various ministries in the church pray together. The elders pray together. This is all good and necessary. But until gathering together for prayer becomes a passion led by the Spirit, we will not see the extent of what God intends for us.

Discernment isn’t easy and most times, you won’t be thanked - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata fancies herself a discernment minister, and has often wrote to describe what that means. Ignoring the self-aggrandizing nature of trumpeting one's spiritual gift, we shall consider what she believes to be discernment.

Sadly we note that Ms. Prata delivers 1872 words without a single Bible quote.

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

Dr. Michael Brown Continues to Make Unbiblical Arguments for Mixing Politics and Faith - By Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade doesn't cite a single Scripture other than his introductory references. He doesn't care to edify the reader in any way. His only purpose is to take pot-shots at the NAR.

He is a theological arsonist, bent on demonization and destruction. 

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

Cessationism - by Robert Rothwell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author doesn't quote a single Scripture. Not one. It is astonishing to us that a supposed Bible teacher does not quote any Bible verses. No wonder his errant presentation is so easy to slip by a typical believer, for if one actually opens a Bible to consult the relevant Scriptures one would find a completely different story.

We have come to intensely dislike these pretenders who have a veneer of thoughtful Bible scholarship but are in actual fact liars. They are avoid Scripture because Scripture testifies against them. That makes them false teachers.

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

Basic Training: The Bible Is Sufficient - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It has been some time since we have revisited our quest for a biblical explanation of cessationism. No one has seemed up to the task. So let's see how Ms. Lesley does in this article written about four years ago.

Remember, we require the cessationist to document his/her assertions with Scripture. Happily, Ms. Lesley will quote Scripture, but perplexingly, none of them speak to the point. 

In fact, it seems Ms. Lesley wanted to write a different article than the title indicates, for most of her presentation is taken up with attempts to debunk the idea that God speaks outside of Scripture. Precious little is about the sufficiency of Scripture or what that concept means.

For something entitled "basic training," one would expect to find some actual basics. Nope.

We discuss sufficiency in detail here.)

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

Netflix and Blasphemy - By Bob Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author never does document the claim contained in his title. 

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

The Democratic Socialists of America Can Mobilize Gen Z'ers Like Me - BY CALLA WALSH

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

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

This narcissistic young person, entirely convinced of her own moral superiority, seems to think she is the one we have been waiting for. Having nothing to offer except tired socialist slogans, lacking understanding of even the most basic political or economic concept, she prattles on for nearly 1500 words.

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

No Substitutions - by GTY Staff (Parachurch organizations)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It has been quite some time since the last time we commented on Dr. MacArthur or his organization. This is perhaps a good thing, suggesting they've been keeping their noses to the grindstone.

We also note the irony of GTY complaining about parachurch organizations while GTY itself is a parachurch organization. 

Also, in keeping with the practice of many of the Doctrinal Police, this article fails to reference, let alone quote, a single Scripture. We continually wonder how someone can teach the Bible but never quote it.

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

Why Critical Race Theory Should Be Taught In Schools - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

As is typical for this garrulous author, he employs 8184 words in pursuit of a point. We shall not attempt to comment on all of it, since the author becomes pedantic, making the same point over and over again.

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

BSD7 Equity Talking Points - July, 2021 - Bozeman School District

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

The Bozeman School district published these "talking points" in an effort to diffuse opposition to their proposed equity plan. They make it a particular point to dismiss Critical Race Theory, telling us that CRT is not being proposed. That of course does not mean things couldn't change later, especially considering how the political Left pushes their agenda unceasingly.

We wish to address one thing in particular, the cartoon drawing of how equity works, see below. This has been around a long time in different forms, but previously was used to describe sameness versus equality. In either case, the cartoon is troubling.

Notice three children, all standing on boxes. One cannot see over the fence. In the second panel the tall child no longer has a box, but the short child has two boxes. This is "equity," according to the Bozeman School district.

However, the obvious problem not explained by the school district is, who took the box from the tall child? How was it decided that the tall child should have his box taken away and given to the short child? How does this manifest in real life? Would a gifted student be denied advanced placement courses because educational resources would be diverted to special education, for example? What exactly is the resource (box) being denied the tall child and given to the short child?

The cartoon is not actually about giving slower students or disadvantaged students more attention, as indicated by the talking point. The cartoon has nothing to do with educational resources. Rather, it is wealth redistribution, which justifies the taking of a rich person's "extra" money and giving it to someone more worthy of it.

Like so much of what the Left does, this cartoon example is indicative of how little the Left thinks about what they're doing, or what the implications of their actions will be.

Or maybe they just don't care. This could be why they were shocked by the extent of the opposition.

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

Bad Worship Songs - Worthy, by Mack Brock, Chris Brown, and Steven Furtick - Elevation Music

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a good worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? We think an excellent worship song should contain as many as possible of the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is your boyfriend 

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with today's song "Worthy" (audio link.). To be clear, there are some very good parts. In fact, there are no egregiously offensive aspects at all. 

But it just doesn't measure up to its potential in terms of lyrical content. The verses seem like a series of random phrases cobbled together. On the whole there's just not enough here for us to consider it a good worship song.

Ok, Let's quote the lyrics:

Republicans Hate Voting Rights Because They Threaten White Power - By Elie Mystal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Mystal will trot out every single leftist talking point in a vain effort to make a cogent argument. In fact, she's not making an argument at all, she's bomb throwing.

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

Forced Vaccination Court Case: HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Given recent claims that the Supreme court authorized forced vaccinations in the below case, upon reading it we discover that the defendant was not forced to receive the vaccine, he was forced to pay the fine.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed, which was:

The case was then continued for the opinion of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, the exceptions, sustained the action of the trial court, and thereafter, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of $5. And the court ordered that he stand committed until the fine was paid.

There is nothing in the ruling that states the man must receive the vaccination.

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

Demas and Judas and Simon Magus looked like the real thing - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Happily, Ms. Prata manages to quote some relevant verses. We mention this because it is so rare that the Doctrinal Police quotes Scripture that its presence is stark when it appears.

Like many who are Doctrinal Police, Ms. Prata makes correct doctrine the baseline for salvation. Thus anyone who deviates from here version of correct doctrine is a wolf, a false teacher, or a heretic.

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

Letter to the editor: Feds need to protect us from junk insurance plans Billy McWilliams

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This fellow is the owner of a sex shop in Bozeman, Erotique, and former chair of the Gallatin County Democratic Party. And, he gave out free vibrators to persuade women to vote. 

This is the man who is going to lecture us on doing the right thing. Apparently he is so proud of his writing that he submitted his letter to the Billings Gazette and the Missoulian as well.

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

Though our ongoing pandemic recovery is progressing with nearly 50% of Montanans fully vaccinated, the last 16 months have exposed gaps in our health care system. ("Our" recovery. "Our" health care system. Mr. McWilliams, a far left activist, chooses his words purposefully. "Our" is never "you and me," it is always government. 

As a collectivist, Mr. McWilliams can only think in terms of groups as opposed to individuals. This means that every problem is a group problem which requires "our" [government] action to solve. 

The reader will see how this plays out.)

At the forefront are issues in our ("Our.") 

health insurance industry, especially when it came to the expansion of short-term, limited-duration insurance plans (STLDIs), also known as “junk plans.” (Are STLDIs really at the "forefront?" It is certainly an issue being trumpeted by a few far-left websites and blogs. And Mr. McWilliams is clearly trying to make an issue of them, as we have just documented. But this problem is hardly at the forefront.

A STLDI is a temporary health insurance contract, designed to provide coverage for people who are in transition between health plans, or have lost their plan due to an employment change, or want to have coverage while waiting for the next ACA enrollment date.

Some people have been buying them because the duration of the insurance has been expanded to up to 364 days, plus the option to renew two times. Thus a person can buy a STLDI that will last for up to three years.

This was made possible by the elimination of the "shared responsibility payment" [the ACA penalty for not buying approved coverage] to zero. That means a person is no longer penalized by purchasing a plan that doesn't conform to the ACA coverage requirements, or by going uninsured.

This opened up alternative ways of obtaining coverage outside the grasp of regulators. The Left calls these "junk plans," not because they are worthless, but rather because they don't comply with ACA requirements. The authoritarian Left doesn't like it when they can't control peoples' choices or the contents of contracts like insurance plans.)

Before the pandemic, the Trump administration took action that allowed STDLI junk plans to proliferate. They (The Trump administration would be an "it," not a "they.")

not only expanded the time plans could be utilized, from less than a year to three years, but encouraged the public to adopt them as an “affordable” coverage option. During the pandemic, many that lost their employer-sponsored insurance turned to these barebones plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions, covered services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or preventive services. (Ok, follow the logic. A "junk plan" doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, which means these plans are medically underwritten. Since it is unlikely a STDLI insurance company would issue a policy to a person with a serious medical condition, this means that if you qualify for a plan you don't have a pre-existing condition, or you have a condition that the STDLI insurance company would accept, or possibly exclude. So they will make you a conditional offer, excluding a particular condition. You then make your choice to buy the plan knowing this. 

This means the "problem" of not covering pre-existing conditions doesn't exist.

Further, the real problem Mr. McWilliams has is with peoples' choices. He doesn't like the fact that people are doing "unapproved" things. He doesn't think people should be able to buy the health insurance of their own choice.)

The affordability of these junk insurance plans on the front end is what makes them appealing for Americans across the country. (Of course. People will often make choices based on price vs. coverage. Mr. McWilliams want to take away this choice and force people to spend more money on coverage they don't want.)

But for the 150,000+ Montanans that suffer from a pre-existing condition, these plans can be of much lower quality than they appear and result in higher out-of-pocket costs. (Again, a person with a pre-existing condition likely would not be able to buy one of these plans. Plus we can be sure that 150,000+ Montanans are not in this position at all, where they are making this choice. Certainly no one is forcing them to buy a STDLI plan.)

Fortunately, the Biden administration has pushed for policies that help make coverage more affordable, including through the American Rescue Plan, (Interesting. After acknowledging that ACA insurance is too expensive, and decrying those who try to get around it, Mr. McWilliams finally admits that there is something else in the equation.)

which boosted subsidies for marketplace plans, lowered the cap on monthly payments, and expanded free and low-cost options to the uninsured. (So, if the ACA plans are now price-competitive with "junk" plans, where is the money coming from to make this so? What is funding the American Rescue Plan?)

I applaud Sen. Jon Tester for his role in opposing these plans, including through his co-sponsorship of the No Junk Plans Act, which would overturn the Trump-era rule. The federal government needs to work overtime to protect Montanans and Americans from these harmful plans. (Then what is the purpose of Mr. McWilliams' letter? The Democrats have majorities in both Houses plus they have the presidency. If the No Junk Plans Act is on the table, they just need to pass it. 

So, Mr. McWilliams presumes that people who buy these plans are stupid. Certainly they should not have this choice. They should be forced to buy coverage he approves of. 

He believes government should implement laws that prevent people from making unapproved decisions. He thinks there needs to be a law that forces people to buy what the government considers good insurance coverage.

And for some reason there are 150,000 Montanans who are going to buy a junk insurance plan, but actually they couldn't because they wouldn't qualify for it.)