Tim Mackie of the Bible Project Denies Literal Hell, Says It’s Something That Humans Created - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Doctrinal Police, ever vigilant to defend every jot and tittle of their doctrines, today bring their cannons to bear on Tim Mackie, whom they deem a false teacher. Now, it's certainly possible that this fellow has some bad doctrines. He may even teach some incorrect things. So we're not here to defend him so much as we desire to examine the writer of this article, who cowardly hides behind the moniker "publisher." 

Happily, "publisher" actually quotes a Scripture, an all-to-rare occurrence among these supposed Bible teachers. But he will make several claims without documenting them.

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

The nature of sound, and the spiritual realm

Every once in a while our thoughts turn deep, and we begin to consider spiritual things we otherwise have taken for granted. This often takes the form of reconsidering the doctrines we believe (which we have deemed our rethink), the whys of what we do in church, or even, the presumptions we possess regarding how things work in nature.

Sound is one of those things that recently came to our attention. This phenomenon called sound is really an astounding feature of God's creation. The process of hearing, including the auditory apparatus and the interpretive ability of the brain, is really quite amazing from a design perspective. Because of God's infinite creativity, we possess the ability to receive and derive meaning from the sounds that fill the atmosphere.

The anti-abortion myth haunting the pro-choice movement - By Andréa Becker and Dr. Daniel Grossman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The title of the article promises to explain a certain myth that haunts these abortion advocates. We've read the article several times and are unable to identify this myth, repeatedly asserted as existing, yet never articulated. 

The authors are able purveyors of agitprop. They continually trumpet the dangers to women and doctors that the "born alive act" supposedly represents, but are unwilling or unable to identify a single danger. No myths. No medical misinformation. Nothing. Astonishing.

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

Letter to the editor: Why not make it easier for Montanans to vote? - by Tom Stonecipher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The letter writer doesn't want common-sense voter ID laws. He thinks that because there isn't a present problem, there never will be. But somehow he still wants every qualified Montanan to vote, which necessarily admits there are people who are not qualified to vote. This means he favors some people not being able to vote. 

Therefore, he actually agrees with his political adversaries in principle. It's merely a matter of degree.

So we wonder what the big problem is in ensuring only legally able citizens cast a vote, since he otherwise supports the concept. He pretends (without evidence) that anti-fraud legislation will disenfranchise certain groups, but that is just a red herring. People who are motivated to vote will ensure their eligibility to vote, and people who can't be pried from their couches will not vote. 

There's not a thing wrong with that.

He can't come out and say what he really wants, because it's extremely unpopular: He wants anyone to vote. No standards. No voter rolls. No residency requirements. No legal status ascertained.

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

What Jesus Meant by “Water and the Spirit” - by John MacArthur

Found here. Though we've often taken issue with Dr. MacArthur's teaching, the below article is on the whole very good.

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

This post was first published in December, 2018. —ed.

There’s nothing we can do to earn our way into God’s kingdom. We need God to do something to us.

That truth demolishes every religious system outside of Christianity. And that is the sobering reality Jesus used to initiate His evangelistic encounter with Nicodemus—a man who had devoted his whole life to earning favor with God through his own pious efforts.

To anyone who lacked Nicodemus’s familiarity with the Old Testament, Christ’s words in John 3:5–7 would have created confusion.

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, “You must be born again.” (John 3:5–7)

In fact, many Bible students who examine this passage are confused by it. Some have suggested that when Jesus spoke of “water,” He was speaking of baptism—and some of them then interpret this to be a statement about the necessity of water baptism as a prerequisite for regeneration. But John’s baptism could not have been a means of regeneration, because it signified an already-repentant heart, which is a fruit of regeneration. Christian baptism (likewise a symbol, not a means, of regeneration) had not even been instituted yet. So the idea of baptism is utterly foreign to this passage.

Trump Isn't Our Biggest Problem: It's the Authoritarian Fascist Movement He Launched - By Thom Hartmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Narrative for the last few weeks is Trump/fascist. This is the talking point that went out from Central Command to the minions on the Left, so Mr. Hartmann dutifully pumped out yet another article. Mr. Hartmann marches in lock-step with other leftist agitprop generators to supply the day's bumper sticker slogans.

Therefore, Mr. Hartmann's purpose is not to inform, explain, or clarify. He's not intending to impart information or understanding. This is not written to contribute to the debate. No, he is simply bolstering The Narrative in service to The Agenda. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points of the day, the factoids and topics that always appear simultaneously all over the media landscape, designed as a barrage to overcome the intellect so as to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the elimination of the current system to install Marxism. 

And ironically, Mr. Hartmann is really bad at it. One would think that simply spouting random sentences pulled from various leftist websites would be relatively easy. And regurgitating a couple of leftist factoids shouldn't be much of a challenge. A superficial correlation of otherwise unrelated events is what these minions do. So, the central point of Mr. Hartmann's article is to establish that Trump started an authoritarian fascist movement. But  doesn't even discuss this. All he does is state it as if it were true and move on. Astonishing. 

We should also note that he is engaging in Mountain Man's Law. Everything he tells us about the Republicans, conservatives, and Trump, is something the Left is actually doing and in many cases have been doing for decades.

Lastly, Mr. Hartmann seems incapable of writing a paragraph that develops an idea. That's the purpose of a paragraph. His paragraphs are mostly a single sentence, which we suppose is because the average leftist cannot be counted on to pay attention. We have found this lack of intellectual depth to likely be deliberate, although in Mr. Hartmann's case it might be because of his own limits.

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

Anna: The Prophetess from Asher - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Before we begin, we shall quote the whole passage to which Dr. MacArthur will frequently refer:

Lk. 2:36-38 There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshipped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

Oddly, he never quotes more than a couple of snippets from it, and in fact, never quotes any more than a phrase from any Bible verse. It is astonishing to us that a supposed Bible teacher cannot quote the Bible.

Lastly, we wonder about the purpose of this article. It is ostensibly intended to teach about Anna, but there seems to be an underlying agenda to diminish her and every woman in the Bible, especially those who prophesied. We don't know what that agenda is, but we will be on the lookout for clues.

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

Who Were the Magi, and Why Did They Worship Jesus? (Matthew 2) - by Dan Doriani

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author never fully admits that the Magi actually did worship the baby Jesus. They bowed before Him, he says, but then he asks:

But do the magi fully comprehend Jesus’ identity?

Who can know the answer to such a question? No knows another's heart. We can only judge by the words before us: 

11 ...and they fell down and worshiped him...

The author will make a distinction between two Greek words, proskyneō (to bow or prostrate one's self in the presence of a superior, to worship) and piptō (to bow in respect). Both look the same to an observer. Are they worshiping, or just bowing in respect? 

Note that the verse we just quoted contains both words. The Magi both fell down in respect, and they prostrated themselves in humility, i.e., they worshiped.

So why does the author wonder about the Magi?  

Proskyneō is the same word Jesus uses here:

Jn. 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.

So Jesus explains true and spiritual worship, and tells us this is what the Father is looking for. If the author wants to discuss worship, why does he take us on a rhetorical journey about astrology, Herod, the gifts from the Magi, etc, but never gets around to discussing worship itself? 

Implied in the author's remarks is that a certain amount of knowledge is required to truly worship: 

If the magi do not know enough to worship in the fullest sense, they at least move in that direction...

What is this "fullest sense?" What knowledge is required? How do we know we are worshiping adequately? He never tells us.

And why did the Magi worship Jesus? This is one of the questions in the title. The author never answers the question. He instead abruptly concludes his article with a statement about how Herod was duped. 

What Is the Perseverance of the Saints? - by Danny Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author of this article wastes our time by mentioning many things but explaining few if any of them. We had hoped for an explanation of his doctrine, but he doesn't bother. It's a truly strange and unenlightening presentation.

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

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, sometimes referred to as “eternal security,” speaks to questions such as “Can I lose my salvation?” or “How do I know that I will remain a Christian to the end?” Isn’t that what Jesus says in Matthew 24:13—“The one who perseveres to the end will be saved” (BSB)? (The author never explains this Scripture.)

These are real questions that pose real challenges to many people.

When studying salvation, it is always helpful to consider the context. The doctrines summarized in the acrostic TULIP outline the condition of man, and God’s loving work and answer to man’s greatest problems. (The author mentions TULIP as if we should know what it is. He doesn't explain it or discuss it, nor does he tell us its source. Strange.

TULIP is a rough summation of certain doctrines of Calvinism:

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

It is the last one the author intends to explain. Let's see how he does.)

The story of redemption shows that man’s condition is that he is totally sinful (Total depravity. No Scriptures cited, however.)

—yet God intervened. It is important to stop and emphasize for a moment that the rest of the story of redemption unfolds from the foundation of “yet God.” In other words, we are the object of salvation, not the subject. (What does this mean? Why is this important?)

Salvation was accomplished and applied by God. What this tells us is that when we ask the questions: “Can I lose my salvation?” or, “How do I know whether or not I will remain a Christian?”, we cannot forget who the object of salvation is (man) and who the subject of salvation is (Jesus Christ). (He repeats the equation, adds to it the parties involved, but still doesn't explain.)

The word perseverance might be somewhat confusing because it could seem to communicate that God has started something, and now it is your turn: you must persevere. The biblical teaching, however, is that God has done something; God is doing something; and God will do something. The God who starts is the God who finishes. (The author offers an explanation that does not address the question. How is it that we do nothing in perseverance?)

That is what Paul says in Philippians 1:6: “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (The good work to which Paul refers is the Philippian church's partnership in the Gospel from the first day until now... [vs. 5].)

The historic Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us of this doctrinal truth when it says, “They, whom God has accepted in his Beloved [Jesus Christ, His only Son], effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally, fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (17.1). (A statement of faith is not the biblical case.)

Notice the repeated pronoun “His,” for it tells us who is the subject of salvation (This is the third time this has been mentioned, but still no explanation regarding what it means.)

is and how certain the results are. The reason that this doctrine at times creates tension and opposition is that the Bible reveals that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a Christian (Matt. 7:22). (This is the only reason for tension and opposition? What about the tension and opposition of other Scriptures that seems to say the opposite?

Why is it relevant that some people who claim to be Christian are not? Will the author explain anything?)

As difficult as that is to hear, is it not also a greater comfort to those who are in fact, followers of Christ?

As He is circled by enemies, Jesus reminds us in John 10 of the confidence and comfort we have in being united to Him in salvation. John records for us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that He knows His sheep, and they know and follow Him (John 10:1–16). Jesus provides a striking and clear statement on our security in salvation. Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). (Oh, my. The author rips this passage from its context. Jesus was actually speaking judgment against the Pharisees [Jn. 9:4-41, 10:31-34] by way of explaining His sheep.

The Pharisees had just finished their hostile interrogation of the man who Jesus healed of blindness, and he worshiped Jesus [9:38]. Jesus responded to this with a statement about those who see will become blind [vs. 39], and the Pharisees understood Jesus was speaking about them. "Are we blind too?" [vs. 40].

This is the basis for Jesus explaining the sheep. The Pharisees are blind and do not recognize the voice of the Shepherd. In fact, they did not even understand the parable [10:6], so He even explained it again [vs. 7]. But Jesus knows his sheep, and they know Him [vs. 14]. 

Jesus was speaking against the Pharisees, who cannot hear Him and refuse to be His sheep. Jesus was speaking to Jews about Jews. Therefore, the sheep are the saved Jews. How do we know this? Because Jesus said,

Jn. 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

These are the gentiles who will come to believe later. Salvation is for the Jews first, and then the gentiles [Ro. 1:16]. 

The author is misinformed.)

This is a claim worthy of consideration because Jesus is making a promise of eternal life, not simply temporal life. What hope is there apart from the promise Jesus makes? If Jesus doesn’t give eternal life, then the best perseverance we can have is a present effort in this present life. (Why? Why is this present life the only possibility we have in perseverance? Again, the author explains nothing.)

The teaching of Jesus is further explained by the Apostle Paul. The comfort that we derive from reading Romans 8 would be ruined apart from the promise of eternal perseverance. If there is a chance that Christians might not totally and finally (WCF 17.1) be saved, then we would need an adjustment to such claims. As one author suggests, Jesus would have to say: “No one will snatch them out of my hand . . . although they might snatch themselves by a failure to persevere” (see John 10:28). Or imagine Paul saying, “Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord . . . except for our own weakness”1 (see Rom. 8:38–39). (The author might wish to explore who is "us" in this passage. We think Paul is pretty clearly talking about "us" as being himself and his fellow Jews who believe. We know that Paul was writing to Jewish Christians in Rome [Ro. 2:17], and explaining in great detail the nature of the Jew and the law as compared to the gentile and grace. 

We must be careful to read in context, and not put ourselves into the narrative when we should not.)

The promise of perseverance, if not eternal, would provide a cruel and false hope of an impossible reality. (Why?)

The truth of the matter would be that we are sovereign rather than God. (Why? Why doesn't the author explain these things?)

Yet, the song that Scripture sings is that Jesus paid it all and upholds it all by the word of His power. Peter’s life gives us an example of this hope. Having put his trust in Christ, we see it waver over and over throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus. Yet in the end, we learn that Peter doesn’t persevere because he tried harder or had more passion, but rather, because he was always held tightly by His King. The one who was saved by Jesus shows that in the end, he is sustained and secured by Jesus. The one who was sifted by Satan, yet secured by his Savior, says, “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” because “the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you” (2 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 5:10). To Him be the dominion forever and ever, amen. (Sigh. There are so many missed opportunities to explain. The author could have spent some time explaining certain Scriptures that might be contrary to his doctrine [He. 6:4-6, Ph. 2:12, 1Jn. 5:16, etc.]. He could have explained any of the several points he raised, using Scripture and a logical procession of ideas. He could have even explained his theological base of understanding, i.e., Calvinism, and how it comes to bear on his thought process.

Nope.)

1 Paul D. Wolfe, “Perseverance: The Hope-Full Gospel that Encourages Abiding Faith” in Theology for Ministry: How Doctrine Affects Pastoral Life and Practice, ed.s William R. Edwards, John C.A. Ferguson, and Chad Van Dixhoorn. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2022), 307.

What My Little Project Here Is All About (a leftist explains her vision of utopia) - by Caitlin Johnstone

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

This leftist author has a vision, and it's the same vision all would-be tyrants, dictators, and authoritarians want: World domination. She is working toward her version of peace, cooperation, and spirituality, which of course means your version must be eliminated. You are deceived, believing a lie, living in an illusion. She's here to tell the truth.

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

Guest column: Let's support Montana families, not out-of-state millionaires - By Sen. Pat Flowers and Rep. Kim Abbott

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is replete with leftist bumper-sticker slogans, platitudes, and talking points. It contains no substance, facts, details or concrete information. The writers extensively employ tired worn out leftist tropes (aka agitprop) in an effort to demonize some people and favor other people based on asserted merit.

Most importantly, the Democrats are in the minority in Montana. Substantially so: 

Republicans will hold 68 seats in the House and 34 in the Senate during the 2023 session...

Democrats will occupy 32 seats in the House and 16 seats in the Senate. Therefore, their policies and agenda were rejected, big time. This means they are the ones who need to compromise. They are the ones who need to work with the Republicans. 

They are the ones who need to change.

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

Theological Song Review: Firm Foundation by The Belonging Co. Ft. Cody Carnes – 35/100 - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We've commented on some other articles written by Mr. Morrill. We've found that he seems to have an ax to grind, which colors his writing in a substantial way. He is simply looking for trouble in the "NAR" songs he reviews, and rigs his rating system to ensure they receive bad recommendations.

We recognize that everyone has their own tastes in worship music and in the way worship is conducted when the saints gather, so we have no quibble with Mr. Morrill's tastes. It's only when he attacks and impugns based on some imagined infractions that we draw the line.

Since Mr. Morrill cannot do us the courtesy of supplying the actual lyrics in question, we shall do so ourselves:

Christ is my firm foundation, The Rock on which I stand
When everything around me is shaken, I've never been more glad
That I put my faith in Jesus, 'Cause He's never let me down
He's faithful through generations, So why would He fail now?

He won't

I've still got joy in chaos, I've got peace that makes no sense
So I won't be going under, I'm not held by my own strength
'Cause I've built my life on Jesus, He's never let me down
He's faithful in every season, So why would He fail now?

He won't

He won't fail

He won't

Rain came and wind blew, But my house was built on You
I'm safe with You, I'm gonna make it through

Audio link.

In actual fact, these are pretty innocuous lyrics, which is probably why Mr. Morrill did not quote them. Not terribly profound, but not heretical or misleading in any way. And they have the virtue of being based on Scripture. 

We decided to examine a hymn that is based on the same theme, On Christ the Solid Rock, using the author's criteria. That is found at the end of our post below.

We should note that we are not here to defend the song, the songwriter, or any organization. We intend to evaluate Mr. Morrill's presentation.

Also, we examined another critique of this song here.

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

What is the Doctrine of Divine Immutability and Why Does it Matter - by Publisher

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

The word "immutability," like the doctrine, is unnecessarily arcane and pretentious. It simply means "unchanging."

We have found this pretentiousness too often in our studies of doctrine. Impassibility, soteriology, regeneration, aseity, decretive will, hypostatic union, immanence, middle knowledge... the list of obtuse theological terminology goes on and on to no one's profit.

If the reader thinks we are wrong about this, the existence of the article itself vindicates us. If conventional terminology were more typically used, this article would not need to exist. Thus the article, needed to explain the term, means the term requires explanation. 

But strangely, this is a short and unsatisfying article. The author has the opportunity to explain and document and explore the idea that God does not change, but punts with less than 500 words expended. 

Lastly, we note the author cowardly hides behind the nameless "Publisher" moniker.

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

Snowflake Apostate Christians Suffer the Persecution of Canceled Dinner Reservations - By Anthony Wade

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

Rev. Wade shows his leftist political bonafides once again. And his aversion to the Bible as well, since he neither quotes nor references any Bible verse in this entire "devotional," other than the irrelevant opening Scripture. He has nearly 1500 words (minus quoted material) to explain some biblical principle, expound upon some matter of doctrine, or uplift the reader's faith. 

He doesn't bother.

Rev. Wade is a reliably terrible writer. His presentations consist almost entirely of undocumented assertions, leaps of logic, false equivalencies, summary denials, and unintentional ironies, all written in a stream-of-consciousness impenetrable prose.

This is embarrassingly bad.

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

PREDESTINED BY GOD - by Gabriel Hughes

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Predestination is a favorite subject of Calvinists, and perhaps one of the most misunderstood.  Our primary quibble with predestination is that it can lead to kind of a fatalism, where one might easily conclude that nothing makes a difference because God will save whom He will save.

But more importantly, knowing about predestination is pretty much useless. It does not change any obligation or privilege of the Christian life. It is nothing more than an intellectual exercise with no practical application.

Further, Christians all agree that God is sovereign. But what that means (in particular, to God) is another matter. 

The author quotes a lot of Scripture, which gladdens our heart. He thoroughly documents God's sovereignty, which is helpful. Quoting Scripture is an all-to-rare occurrence among those who represent themselves as Bible teachers.

What he does not demonstrate is God's sovereignty means that God is absolutely determining everything that happens. Cannot God, being sovereign, sovereignly choose to not choose? What if God, knowing and controlling everything, nevertheless possesses the power to let things play out as they will in some fashion of His choosing?

Our problem is, we want to anthropomorphize God. Our human view of sovereignty causes us to impose upon God our definitions. We arrogantly decide what sovereignty means, when we have no idea at all the sheer greatness and power of God to decide for Himself who He is and how His will plays out in the universe.

We will take time to examine some of the proof texts offered by the author, and explain why they are not about universal predestination.

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

Myths of Doom: Can the origins of today’s right be traced to the 1990s? -By John Ganz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author takes over 2500 words to provide what is essentially a fawning book review, interwoven with an incoherent narrative comprised of half-remembered history, the haphazard lumping together of uncorrelated persons and events, unrelated factoids, and agendized smears of his political opponents. It's simply a long string of bits and pieces of phrases and talking points, as if the author did a series of random copy and pastes from leftist websites.

There is no discernable purpose, nothing of use, and nothing that even makes sense.

We are willing to bet that the reader will not be able to finish reading this screed.

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

5 Ways Covenant Theology Applies to Everyday Life - by Sarah Ivill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author promises to tell us about the usefulness of covenant theology, but we notice she did not promise to explain how covenant theology is uniquely useful. Her desire is to bolster her doctrine, yet she does not tell us how only her doctrine does these things. Read her list. Does the reader see any item that is facilitated only by covenant theology?

Astonishingly, the author will not tell us anything about covenant theology, so we cannot even evaluate her statements. She does briefly explain some doctrines, complete with Bible references, but she does not explain what is covenant theology, how it uniquely comes to bear within those doctrines, or how it's relevant.

Gotquestions provides a relatively clear explanation, and even provides some information on a competing viewpoint, dispensationalism. 

But more to the point, since we've noted that the author does not tell us anything about covenant theology, it causes us to wonder, why does she bother?

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

Strange Lyre: A Radical Departure from Historic Worship - by DAVID DE BRUYN

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author of today's article is continuing his series on what's wrong with "Pentecostal worship." Or "charismatic worship." We commented on another of those articles here. In fact, the author has been on this train of thought for over a year.

He clearly has an ax to grind, but he never really articulates what the problem is, other than the fact that "Pentecostal worship" (or "charismatic worship") is evil because it's not like the worship of the traditional church. From there he goes from inference to assertion to accusation, without documenting a single statement.  He doesn't explain anything, he just asserts and moves on.

And, in keeping with past practice, the author quotes no Scripture. Not a syllable. He writes nearly 900 words. How can one teach about worship or any other part of our faith without quoting the Bible? He simply appeals to his preference. 

This is truly bad teaching. The author ought to be ashamed.

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

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned

A "pastor" posted this on his faceborg feed:

***

Transcript:

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned:

1. That his vision for a transformed society, got twisted into an afterlife fantasy about heaven.

2. That a religion was formed to worship his name, instead of a movement to advance his message.

3. That the gospel says his death solved the problem of humankind's separation from God, instead of accepting thot his life revealed the truth that there is no separation from God.

4. That the religion bearing his name was conceived by the theories and doctrines of Paul, instead of the truth Jesus lived and demonstrated.

5, That he was said to exclusively be God in the flesh, putting his example out of reach, rather than teaching that we all share in the same spirit that empowered his character and life.

6. That the religion that claims his name, teaches that his wisdom and teachings a re the only legitimate way to know truth and God.

7. The idea that humankind stands condemned before God and deserving of Divine wrath and eternal conscious judgement, requiring the death of Jesus to fix it.

8. That people are waiting on Jesus to return to save the world and end suffering, rather than taking responsibility for saving the world and solving suffering ourselves.

9. That people think there is magical potency in uttering the name of Jesus, rather than accessing our own natural powers and capabilities to effect change.

10. That people have come to associate Jesus with church, theology, po litics and power, rather than courage, justice, humanity, beauty and love.

The first thing we want to note about this typically Leftist version of Jesus and Christianity is the raw audacity required to put one's own political and social opinions in Jesus' mouth, while simultaneously contradicting the biblical record on what Jesus is actually recorded as saying. 

Yes, we have an actual reference for what Jesus said, although most leftists would not accept it as valid: The Bible. But while the Bible is an indisputably trustworthy source of things Jesus said, it's also clearly superior to the references cited by the author, which are, well, nothing. He just makes it all up, spouting leftist agitprop.

As we noted, this is a typical leftist version of Jesus and Christianity, where Jesus becomes an excuse for leftist political philosophy and social action that perfectly aligns with Marxism.

Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia: The Nature of Saving Faith - by Ed Dingess

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

Mr. Dingess has a real fondness for foreign words and obtuse explanations, which has the effect of rendering his article nearly impenetrable. Maybe he thinks it makes him seem more intellectual, or maybe it's an affectation. 

Regardless, there is no reason to write this way, especially for one who fancies himself a Bible teacher. Teachers explain, clarify, and impart information. A teacher who would impede that is known as a poor teacher.

And, the author has nearly 1200 words (minus quotes) in which to do this.

We will summarize: It's not enough to believe there's God. Further, it's not enough to believe accurate information about salvation. Saving faith is necessary, and that is a gift of God. That's all there is to this article, in terms of the author's stated objective. He adds little else, which leaves us wondering why he wrote the article at all.  

Happily, the author actually quotes Scripture. This rather rare occurrence among these "Bible teachers" gladdens our hearts.

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

John the Baptist: The Last Prophet - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur is a respected Bible teacher, so we are surprised at the errors and even bad doctrine often contained in his postings. Since he represents himself as an authoritative voice, we feel justified to hold his feet to the fire.

Today he discusses John the Baptist, and in doing so makes several errant comments, not the least of which is contained in the title, "The Last Prophet." But by no measure was John the Baptist the last prophet. Dr. MacArthur will not mention anything about him being the last prophet in this article, but he will provide a single-sentence mention of this in his subsequent article:

Though his story is told in the gospels, John was the last of the Old Testament prophets.

Oh. So he wasn't the last prophet, he was the last OT prophet. But how does Dr. MacArthur know this? The Bible doesn't say so. Jesus does identify him as a prophet, and more [Lk. 7:26]. And we do have some of John's prophecies [Lk. 3:16-17 and Jn. 1:33 for example], so there is no doubt he was a prophet, and no one was greater [Mt. 11:11].

There were numerous NT prophets [Ac. 11:27, Ac. 13:1, Ac. 15:32, Ac. 21:9]. There is the prophetic office [Ep. 4:11] and the spiritual gift of prophecy [Ro. 12:6]. However, Dr. MacArthur, being a cessationist, wants John the Baptist to be the last prophet because he doesn't believe in contemporary prophecy.

But at least he quotes Scripture. This is relatively rare among these Bible teachers.

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

An Open Letter to Fellow Believers Who Have Concerns About Online Polemics/Discernment Ministry - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Discernment" ministries are nothing if not sensitive. They're in the business of criticizing pastors and churches, but they don't like being on the receiving end of criticism. 

And Protestia is no exception.

The thing about it is, "discernment" ministries are sometimes worthy of criticism. They are too often over-the-top, insulting, and, yes, down right wrong. In keeping with their hyperbolic tendencies, their response to criticism is also hyperbolic.

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person who believe that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia!) as follows:

hideously ugly

post-menopausal woman 

bizarre wardrobe choices

a penchant for cackling

no personal charisma

a face that scares children

a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard

pugnacious

unladylike

uglier on the inside than she is on the outside

the personality of a Roomba 

 the personal charisma of fetid corpse

unpleasant and evil woman

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• T.D. Jakes might have some problems, but here's what a "discernment" minister wrote about him: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men. Like you, he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• This man says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

Also, the author seems to think that because Jesus was violent once and Paul was insulting once that it gives him carte blanche permission to do the same. This of course is ridiculous. Description is not prescription.

We don't want to suggest the above examples are typical, but they happen frequently enough that they're not aberrations. And thankfully, there are sane voices who carry a message of caution that is valuable for all of us.

As a final note, this long defense of the author's "ministry" doesn't contain a single quote from the Bible. There are many Bible references, but no verses. It's continually dismaying to us how these people think they can teach the Bible without quoting it.

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

Euthanizing The Poor Is Just Capitalism’s True Face: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix - by Caitlin Johnstone

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

The author is a doctrinaire leftist, and not a particularly bright one. She is so inured to the leftist agitprop that she really believes it to be the truth. We've often found that socialists have a unique set of blinders they wear when considering political systems. They have an uncanny ability to completely ignore the atrocities perpetrated in the name of their political philosophy while simultaneously blaming the other side for the results of their advocacy.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

However, the reality is most leftists are cynically spewing their agitprop. They don't really believe anything they say or what other leftists say. They are simply doing their duty in service to The Narrative. A leftist is permitted, even encouraged to say anything if it serves The Narrative. In return, they get accolades from their leftist friends, they get a pass on behaving like greedy capitalists, and they are free to engage in any behavior, legal or illegal, they wish, if they simply say the right things and hold to the right ideas.

The Narrative, therefore, is the talking points and bumper-sticker slogans approved by the Central Committee for dissemination each day. This is why we see such uniformity in The Narrative as each purveyor of agitprop receives his or her marching orders.

The sole purpose of The Narrative is not to tell facts, explain things, or increase understanding. No, the Left doesn't care about women, the poor, gay rights, fascism, inequality, abortion, or racism. Those things are only of interest to the degree they can be used to service The Narrative. In fact, Leftists regularly act in opposition to these causes, but as we said, they will invariably get a pass because they are serving The Agenda.

The Narrative has one singular purpose: To advance The Agenda. The Agenda, quite simply, is to overthrow the power structures so as to install Marxism. They want rich people's money taken from them, America's liberty negated, and respect for individual rights subordinated to the state, and the destruction of every idea or activity that allows people to live in peace unaccosted by tyrannical government as they pursue their beneficial self-interest. 

The Left cannot countenance a people who have achieved a nice life, a nice family, who are generous and helpful, and polite and hard working. The Agenda requires a disaffected, dissatisfied, envying class of people (the proletariat) who can be persuaded to rise up against the power structure (the bourgeois). 

Thus the purpose the author's article is solely to promulgate The Narrative. She did her duty today, and will repeat the same bumper sticker slogans and leftist talking points tomorrow and every day until The Agenda is finally installed.

As an aside, it is the Left that wants to euthanize. Canada, a decidedly leftist government, has legalized euthanasia, and to date, has euthanized nearly 32,000 people. A former Olympic athlete who had been trying for years to obtain a wheelchair ramp was instead offered euthanasia.

This is typical for leftists, to accuse their adversaries of doing something untoward while they themselves are actually doing that very thing.

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

Does “only God know the heart”? Or are there cases when we do too? - by Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are saddened once again to be pressed into service regarding Ms. Prata's errant teaching. Today she sets out to refute the idea that no one can know someone's heart. She claims that it's possible to know a false teacher's heart, and lists a bunch of Scriptures that are supposed to document her case.

Thus there are three prongs to this issue that come to bear:

1. The cited Scriptures talk about the heart
2. The cited Scriptures tell us we can specifically know someone else's heart, and 
3. The cited Scriptures are all about false teachers.

Unfortunately for Ms. Prata, each of the prongs is incorrect. None of these verses contain the English word "heart," none of them contain the Greek word kardia, none of them tell us we can know someone's heart, and only some of them are even about false teachers. 

From these Scriptures Ms. Prata concludes that she is able to discern the contents of a specific false teacher's heart. That is, because the Bible describes what comes from an evil heart, for her that is the same thing as being able to know an individual heart. Or more likely, she had an idea in mind and went searching for Scriptures that confirm it.

So what about knowing hearts? We are pretty certain that Ms. Prata does not believe that apostolic power is in operation today, nor does she believe in the "supernatural' gifts. Peter, an apostle, discerned both Ananias' and Simon's heart:

Ac. 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?  

Ac. 8:21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 

The prophetic gift reveals hearts: 

1Co. 14:25 ...and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

These are about supernatural empowerments. So unless the discernment Ms. Prata claims to possess is the supernatural ability [1Co. 12:10] to distinguish between spirits [1Jn. 4:1], she does not have the ability to know a particular someone's heart. Knowing what comes from evil hearts does not necessarily give the ability to know a specific evil heart.

We do find evidence that we can get a hint as to the nature of our own hearts:

Mt. 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

We might have some evidence of the contents of someone's heart, but that does not mean we actually know someone's heart: 

Mt. 12:34b For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Further, a deceptive heart definitionally means that evil is being hidden by deception. Deception means someone is being deceived:

Mt. 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible.

What does the Bible actually say about who knows the heart? 

He. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Je. 17:9-10 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”

The thing about this is, Ms. Prata presents herself as a teacher of women. She has a website that purports to tell the truth. But invariably she has an underlying agenda in mind when she writes about something. So rather than teach the topic, she simply tries to refute something under the guise of a teaching, in this case those who would defend who she thinks are false teachers.

Thus she enters the equation with a bias, which means she will completely miss the things we just discussed, leading to faulty teaching.

Lastly, once again we find a supposed Bible teacher who is unable to quote Scripture. We shall remedy that problem below.

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

Dr. Michael Brown Blaming the Lost and Defending His War Against Them - By Anthony Wad

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade's premise is in his title. But Dr. Brown never blames the lost, nor does he describe any sort of desire to war against them. These two accusations are the result of Rev. Wade insisting on his own definition of words. Dr. Brown employs the phrase "culture war" to describe the conflict between good and evil in society, which is a very common descriptor for the state of our country. Rev. Wade badly wants this phrase to mean that the other side of the "culture war" must be an enemy. Thus Dr. Brown is blaming sinners as being the enemy.

But no one uses the phrase in this way. In fact, it is a rather mild hyperbole used to describe the struggle between two world views.

Rev. Wade uses more than 2700 words (excluding quoted material). Notice that we summarized Rev. Wade's position in a couple of sentences. Because Rev. Wade is given to long tangents and stream-of-consciousness presentations, he is largely unable to express cogent thoughts.

In addition, Rev. Wade neither quotes nor references any Bible verse (except for the opening Scripture). Not a syllable of the Bible anywhere in this "devotion." No doctrine explained. No exegesis. No precept we might be able to use to enhance our walk of faith. No biblical principle clarified. Nothing of eternal importance. 

Nothing.

We should say, we are not here to defend Dr. Brown. Our intent is to examine Rev. Wade's presentation.

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

Why Trumpism as a fascist movement will not disappear - By Wayne Madsen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Yet another Trump-is-fascist article. When the command goes out from headquarters, the minions leap to their word processors and start cranking out their bumper-sticker slogans.

This article is one of those. The author's purpose is not to inform, explain, or clarify. He's not intending to impart information or understanding. This is not written to contribute to the debate.

No, the author is simply bolstering The Narrative in service to The Agenda. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points of the day, the factoids and topics that always appear simultaneously all over the media landscape, designed to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the elimination of the current system to install Marxism. 

This article is far more clumsy than what we typically see. It is so breathtakingly dumb, so filled with agitprop, false narratives, leftist talking points, and invented conspirators, that we barely know where to start. We are attempting to shake off the effects of this, but an odd brain fog resists all our efforts to do so. 

This is what raw, unadulterated leftism does to a previously clearheaded person's mind.

We should also note that the author is engaging in Mountain Man's Law. Everything he tells us about the Republicans is something the Left is actually doing.

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

RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ABOUT AMILLENNIALISM - by Gabriel Hughes

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In the past we have criticized the author for his poorly reasoned writings. But for the most part today's article is a very well done explanation regarding his eschatology. He quotes Scripture, challenges conventional thinking, and respectfully lays out his case logically and from the Bible. 

This presentation gladdens our heart. So rarely do we find Bible teachers who actually quote and reference the Bible. And no attacks on the opposition. Well done.

Unfortunately, the author doesn't really explain amillennialism is or even what the millennium is.

In addition, we do have some quibbles with the author's presentation, which we will note below.

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

Unformed Expression Share -by DAVID DE BRUYN (about structure in our church practices)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author builds an elaborate edifice based on preconceptions, appeals to historical practices, and culture-based factors. 

We don't accept the author's premise that spontaneous expressions (i.e., a preacher speaking extemporaneously, a worship leader singing a spontaneous song, or a person going off script when giving a testimony) are without form and therefore undesirable. It seems to us that a spontaneous expression can and often does have its own form, perhaps undiscernible to the casual listener. 

Further, even if there's a lack of form, we are at loss to produce a Scripture that tells us this is bad.

And in fact, the author is unable to produce a Scripture that says this. In fact, he is unable to quote or even reference a single Scripture. Not a syllable. We have noted many times this defect in the presentations of supposed "Bible" teachers.

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

Rethink - Original Sin

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 what we think are 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 too 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 there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

Election Day 2022 - Exegeting Psalm 95 to Remember What God We Serve - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

Rev. Wade comes out with guns a-blazing again, this time disguised as an exegesis. If only he could set aside his leftist political agenda long enough to actually deliver a teaching, he might turn out to be good at it.

This has yet to happen, however. Today's article nothing more than a grenade toss at the NAR.

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

Get Ready for the Coming Impeachment of Joe Biden. The GOP is ready to again beclown American democracy - By Jeet Heer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It renders us nearly speechless to read articles like this. This agitprop so brazenly spins the truth that we are left dizzy.

This author warns us of a possible clown show coming regarding the impeachment of Joe Biden as if the Democrats didn't clown show impeach Trump twice, the second time when he wasn't even in office. So the author warning us about something the Democrats have already done, a politically motivated impeachment.

We have deemed this rhetorical technique Mountain Man's Law, which is: "Everything a Leftist Democrat accuses someone of doing is actually being done by Leftist Democrats." So if there is an accusation of nefarious activity, tax evasion, moral depravity, or corruption leveled by a Leftist, one can be sure that it is a cover for what Leftists are actually doing.

Also, we must remember that when dealing with a doctrinaire Leftist, the issue is never the issue. The issue is actually a smokescreen, an excuse, a diversion. The author doesn't care about impeachment, he cares about The Agenda. The Agenda is the implementation of Marxism. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to promulgate The Narrative (which is the agitprop used to advance The Agenda), nothing more.

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

Emotionalism versus reason

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 what we think are 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 too 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 there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

Sola Scriptura and Cyber Worship - by Jacob Trotter *updated*

Found here. Our comments in bold. See our *update* below.

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

Though Mr. Trotter complains that the article he is evaluating is lacking in Scriptural content, he will manage to quote only a single Scripture in the nearly 1200 words of his article. We find this way too often in these so called Bible teachers.

Mr. Trotter promises more articles where he will apparently explain biblical worship. If today's article is any indication, however, we doubt he will do so since he was unable to explain it here. 

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

An Appeal to Charismatic Friends - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

One would think that an appeal designed to draw people out of error and into the truth would not be phrased to alienate them. We think the typical charismatic would find this sermon condescending and insulting. Rather than treating his adversaries as thoughtful people, he denigrates them, stereotypes them, and considers them his inferiors.  

But more to the point, this long sermon is completely absent of documentation of his central points. We realize it is the conclusion of several days of preaching, but we still require documentation of the assertions he makes. 

As he wanders off course into a tangent, he does manage to quote a number of Scriptures, but he only supplies references to his ancillary points. But he is unable or unwilling to document his doctrinal claims about charismatics. 

As an aside, we should not that this sermons was delivered several years ago. But since Dr. MacArthur is still speaking against nameless charismatics to this day, we think it's still worthy of our analysis.

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

Whose pay keeps up with inflation? Why Social Security and not the minimum wage? - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The utterly clueless Dr. Reich again pontificates about something he clearly knows nothing about. Or rather, like a good little leftist he fulfils his agitprop duties once again, furthering The Narrative in pursuit of The Agenda.

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

Does a woman reading a Scripture verse during worship constitute “exercising authority”? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is simply bad teaching. Not that it's bad content (though it certainly is bad content), but rather that it's poorly taught. 

Ms. Prata is a "Bible teacher" who has developed an entire catalog of micro-doctrines regarding what she thinks 1 Timothy 2:12 allows and doesn't allow women to do in church. 

Can a woman teach a co-ed adult Sunday School? What about a woman teaching a boy? Is it teaching to team with her husband to counsel men? Can women pray on the stage? Read announcements? Sing solos? Sing in the choir?

The list goes on and on, and Ms. Prata is happy to supply convoluted and error-ridden explanations, all based on what we consider to be a false understanding this one Scripture verse. 

We've covered the particulars of the verses Ms. Prata quotes here, so we'll try not to repeat ourselves.  Our purpose today is to consider yet another parsing of doctrine: Can women read Scripture to the congregation?

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

A Caution to Those Who Decree and Declare - by OYEWOLE AKANDE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We tend to agree with the author on almost every point. We would further say that the Word Of Faith movement has taken the decree and declare concept too far, but we believe there is a biblical expression of this idea.

We think that a Christian ought to speak forth the Scriptures, the promises of God, and the things that constitute God's reality. His reality is that which stands in opposition to natural things. It doesn't mean that to do such will create some sort of reality out of thin air, but rather should be employed as a faith builder and a reminder of what God has spoken is true:

Col. 3:1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.

There are things that capture our attention and divert our energy. So Paul counsels his readers to focus on the eternal, the beneficial, and the noble:

Ph. 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things.

So our attention is toward heavenly things, and our words ought to be as well:

1Co. 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

There is a lot in the NT about our words, which should not only include the way we speak to and about ourselves, but also how we would speak to and about others:

Ep. 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

So if our general words ought to be governed by spiritual principles, how does that apply to decreeing and declaring?

The Psalmists made many declarations:

Ps. 22:22 I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you.

Ps. 51:15 Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.

Ps. 89:2 I will declare that your love stands firm for ever, that you established your faithfulness in heaven itself.

We would say therefore that declarations first involve the speaking of the greatness and glory of God. Further, declarations would involve the communication of Holy precepts:

De. 5:1 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them.

Paul made declarations:

Ro. 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Ro. 6:9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.

Col. 2:9-10 For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fulness in Christ, who is the Head over every power and authority.

In our view, declarations ought to communicate what God has already spoken, i.e., His reality. So we don't speak new reality, we speak His reality.

We deal with this topic in more depth here.

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

Peeking into ‘the other side’- Two Questions (part 2) - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have found that the Doctrinal Police are obsessed with every jot and tittle of their doctrine. This has the effect of narrowing the field of what they consider orthodoxy, which means large swaths of Christians can then be regarded as heretics.

This also has the effect of encouraging the micro-examination of small details of the Bible to determine the "correct" view, even though there's really nothing at stake, there's no salvation issue present, there's no potential for heresy, and there's no impact on properly living the Christian life. 

Today's article from Ms. Prata is this. The article comes in at about 800 words, where she discusses an issue of no importance, who the "great cloud of witnesses" aren't. Ultimately, her conclusion is that the witnesses are probably not observing us on earth, but we'll find out for sure when we get to heaven. So we would wonder why she bothered to write this article.

Although this is an issue of only passing interest to the average Christian, we shall still take advantage of the opportunity to devote a bit of time to explaining. The inconsequential nature of this issue actually has an extension into a more important arena, which will discuss in a moment.

First let's define the word, which surprisingly Ms. Prata does not do. "Witnesses" is martus, which has two main meanings, depending on the context. The first is in a legal sense:

Mt. 26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses (martus)? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy."

So this meaning is someone who testifies, primarily in a legal matter. But not only would a witness legally testify, so would an evangelist for the Gospel, or simply a person who has observed something and tells about it.

The second is in a historical sense; one who is a spectator:

1Ti. 6:12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses (martus).

In this sense it is simply a person who saw something or is watching an event. Notice there is no hint that these witnesses did anything beyond observing Timothy's confession of faith. 

This second category is where Hebrews 12:1 belongs. Therefore, Ms. Prata gets it backwards when she writes:

Those saints are witnesses to us because their lives testify about the value of trusting God no matter what hardships we face. They are active witnesses who speak to us by their example; not passive witnesses who watch us with their eyes.

That is, she thinks these witnesses are testifying to us, which the first category defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. But they are actually spectating something, which is the second category.

We mentioned that there is an extension of this issue into a more important arena. That arena is the issue of choosing an apostle:

Ac. 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness (martus) with us of his resurrection.

This word "witness" belongs in the first category; that is, the new apostle would need to be someone who would testify of the resurrection. Many people think that this verse means that the new apostle had to have witnessed the risen Christ as a qualification for apostleship, but in actual fact the 11 apostles were not describing a qualification of the potential apostle, but rather a duty of the new apostle. We discuss this here.

The important doctrinal issue at stake here is the idea that there can be no present-day apostles, based on the incorrect idea of an apostle must have witnessed the risen Christ. By using the wrong definition, a wrong conclusion is reached.

We can see how applying the wrong definition to a word can lead to improper understanding and application of what the Bible teaches. 

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

Miracle or Providence? - by Jesse Johnson *Updated*

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

*Update*

We left a comment on the article asking questions, to which the author replied.

Question: How does a Bible teacher not quote the Bible? Where in the Bible does it tell us about these things? How does the distinction between providence and miracles matter or make a difference in the life of a Christian?

Answer: Good questions. Above I use three Bible stories--the water to blood, the light sound that confused, and the angel who killed. At what point is one a miracle and the other "providence." Some argue for a difference b/c they want to argue that the gift of miracles is for today, so they have to show how it is distinct from providence. but I don't buy that distinction. Hope that helps.

In essence, the reason the author advocates for "providence" is to remove the possibility of contemporary miracles. Thus it's not so much a matter of obtaining the biblical teaching, but rather to deprive his theological adversaries of an issue.

This is certainly a sad development. Ordinarily a Bible teacher's task is to make plain the Bible, but apparently now their is an aspect of advocating for a particular doctrine because it can be used as ammunition against someone with a different doctrine.

*end update*

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

The main topic of his article is "providence," which he will define in a way that will leave the reader wondering what he is talking about. He will then quote the Westminster Confession, which will still not plainly define what is meant by "providence."

So we will step up to do what the author seems unable to do: Define the word. Providence is

God omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence.

This is also known as as "ordinary providence," where God uses the mechanisms and circumstances of the natural world He created in order to effect His will. This is in contradistinction to miracles (or "extraordinary providence"),  which is God working

directly, and without the secondary causes. 

So quite simply, providence is when God uses the created order ("secondary causes") to get His things done, while miracles are His direct interventions which do not use "secondary causes."

It only took us a handful of words to describe these concepts. Hopefully this will help the reader.

Our initial reaction to this article agrees with the author's question: Why would such a distinction matter? He will expend almost 1200 words engaging in arcane explanations, but he will not quote any Scripture However, he will discuss a theologian and a statement of faith.

After reading this article, our question is to ask why. Why all the parsing and minute detail? What is the author's intention? What is he trying to prove?

Our answer is that the author doesn't believe in miracles. His doctrine as a cessationist is that miracles have ceased. God no longer directly intervenes in human affairs, but in our present day only uses circumstance and elements of His creation to work out his purposes.

He believes this even though the NT uses the word Greek word for "miracles" 1411 times. NT characters like Paul or Peter would have completely understood the supernatural power that is miracles, but they would not recognize the author's definitions and his advocacy for providence. 

Providence, then, is the workaround to the miraculous. So when the author reads,

1Co. 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

he can safely dismiss its relevance for today because of providence. Thus there are no healings, prophecies, tongues, or signs and wonders. The distinction between miracles and providence in his view is an artificial one because providence covers it all.

So, the statement he wants to refute, 

...more “miracles” happen in the Muslim world among Christians than in the Western world, because in the Muslim world, believers there “expect” more miracles.

violates his cessationist doctrine, and that is what offends him.

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

What does Jesus mean by "greater things?"

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 what we think are 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 too 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 there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

What Are the "Greater Works" for Believers? - by Jeremiah Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Other than the subject text, the author will not quote the Bible. This is our continuing complaint with these so-called Bible teachers. They don't bother with the Bible.

He will manage to quote some people who have the opposite opinion, which is a welcome thing, but unfortunately, he will not directly address their points.

The premise under which the author operates is that the miraculous was uniquely apostolic. He does not explain how he arrived at this premise, but that is upon what he bases his presentation. So if miracles were the sole province of the apostles (and perhaps their designees), then present-day miracles are definitionally not possible. We discuss why this is incorrect here.

The author is trying to reconcile his experience and the powerlessness of the historical Church with the truth of the Bible, and cannot eliminate the dissonance. Rather than let the Bible speak for itself and allow faith to arise in his soul, he is content to simply explain away the truth of this promise.

Before we get to the article, let's define "greater." The word is megas, which means, big (literally or figuratively, in a very wide application). The word does not mean "superior" or "better." The verse says, and greater works than these he will do..., so Jesus was telling his disciples that anyone who believes will do what He does in greater magnitude. He was not telling them that we would do better miracles than He did.

We will have additional commentary at the end.

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

Bad Worship Songs: Sound Mind - by Bryan & Katie Torwalt

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 coherent 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, "Sound Mind." 

Audio link.

Theological Song Review: Rejoice by Keith and Kristyn Getty and Rend Collective - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Having previously examined a couple of Mr. Morrill's writings, we now understand the perspective from which he comes. He's against charismatics and the NAR, so his song analyses are biased in favor of conservative, reformist, cessationist music. As a result, he has an evaluative process where just one of the steps ("Association") can disqualify a song simply because of some connection with a charismatic church or a previous history with a NAR group. This of course a handy tool for someone like the author.

Today he examines a song that he approves of. This will be the first time for this, so we were curious as to how his approval would be determined. 

We happen to like the song, so our main intent is not to critique it, it is to critique the author.

In addition, we should note that the author quotes no Scripture, and references only a couple.

Let's quote the lyrics first, because his analysis will make little sense otherwise: