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:

Jesus For the Left, Jesus For the Right - By Bob Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Johnson has been critiqued before in our blog. He is a self-proclaimed deist, a philosophy which apparently supplies him with the solution to all the religious and social problems. Why this might be so, however, is never explained.

He is one of those guys who simply writes something down and that makes it fact. He does this over and over in the below article. He proclaims things as mythical, false, or evil without so much as an explanation. He doesn't like Christianity at all, and makes sure you know that. 

Mr. Johnson is not a thoughtful writer. He simply has a vague idea about this or that and writes about them.

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

Theological Song Review: What a Beautiful Name - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We were introduced to this writer only a few days ago, and commented on his criteria for evaluating worship songs here. We decided there that his criteria, while useful, is largely subjective. 

That post also contained our evaluation of his first critique of a worship song, "Forever and Amen."

Below is his second song evaluation. We note as an aside that the author's title is "Theological Song Review." not "Biblical Song Review." The author makes a correct choice, since he will only manage to quote Scripture a single time. 

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

Sean Feucht: Church Hero or Villain - Evangelical Dark Web

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a grudging respect for Sean Feucht, and is generally pretty honest about it. The problem is, he cannot get past the idea that a person who is charismatic, or formerly associated with Bethel, might actually be a fruitful Christian. 

This is the plight of the "Doctrinal Police." For them, heresy is any perceived deviation from  their doctrine, and these heretics are not saved, they are wolves and deceivers. But Feucht violates this template, and as such, the author doesn't quite know how to deal with it.

But again, we appreciate his sober honesty. This is an all-to-rare occurrence with the Doctrinal Police.

Further, the author doesn't quote a single syllable of Scripture. Not one. He does reference a couple of Scriptures, but can't bring himself to quote any. We think a person who intends to evaluate doctrine should be able to quote Scripture.

We also should mention that we do not intend to defend Sean Feucht or Bethel, our focus is to examine the author's presentation.

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

Discerning Praise and Worship – A Primer - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We are happy to find a somewhat thoughtful commentator on a subject dear to us: Worship and praise. We say "somewhat" because the author on one hand provides a generally useful, though subjective framework for evaluating worship songs, but on the other hand clearly has an ax to grind.

A "primer" is a basic course of instruction, particularly for young children learning to read. As such, we would expect the author of today's article to restrict himself to elementary concepts and simple terminology, so as to give the reader a bare foundation of understanding.

After we consider his primer, we will comment on his evaluation of a song called "Forever and Amen," by Cody Carnes and Kari Jobe. Here we will see the typical nitpicking and quibbling that often characterizes the "Doctrinal Police."

In addition, the author will write 1350 words discussing various aspects of worship music, and another 600 evaluating "Forever and Amen." However, he will only manage to quote a snippet of two Scriptures and reference one other. Unfortunately, this also is typical of the "Doctrinal Police."

We believe that current trends in worship music, though faulty at times, are valuable and timely. Many quality worship songs are being written, and this is a good thing. The rising eminence of musical worship in the Church is a signal of the revitalization of Christians and churches. We think the Church needs a fire placed in it. It is too comfortable and too locked into routine and tradition.

An important remedy in our view is revitalized worship.

Jesus spoke to a Samaritan women at the well, and told her about worship:

Jn. 4:22-24 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 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. 24 God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.

We can't help but notice what Jesus says the Father is seeking: True worshipers. If an evolving contemporary Christian worship music, including the recording of church bands and locally produced music, will contribute to the people of God becoming true worshipers, we're all for it.

Our criteria for a good worship song includes:

• 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

We should note that our intent is not to defend any particular person or church mentioned by the author, neither shall we defend the song Forever & Amen or its writers, but rather we shall examine the presentation of the author.

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

Dominionist - The Government is Meant for Moral People to Run It - LOL By Anthony Wade

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

It is with a great deal of reluctance that we once again comment on another Rev. Wade screed. We have long since abandoned any hope that Rev. Wade would be a competent Bible teacher. He's not a exegete. He's not a thinker. He's not even a very good writer.

Rev. Wade is a leftist political operative. And an inept one at that. Yet he still enjoys a certain amount of access to discernment websites who publish his articles. It's astonishing that they would do so, but considering the low quality of many of these websites, we should not be surprised.

His reason for writing is what he always writes about: Dominionism. Nearly every article is about this. But he never gets around to properly explaining dominionism, why it's wrong, or how the ones he targets are Dominionists. 

Dominionism isn't political involvement. Advocating for candidates isn't dominionism. Running for political office isn't dominionism. Praying for America isn't dominionism. Patriotism isn't dominionism. Dominionism is the idea that Christians should take over government and society and install the Kingdom. 

So we are here today to document more of his foolishness for the primary reason that hopefully readers of this blog will be armed with the truth if they ever encounter a Rev. Wade article. 

Lastly, we will note that this is labeled as a devotional. But Rev. Wade explains no biblical precept, quotes no Bible verse (except for the opening Scripture), and does nothing to increase our devotion.

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

The Pronouns Preach: Lessons on the Glory of the Church - By Jim Eliff

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

We are delighted find a Bible teacher who makes an excellent point about an often-overlooked issue in the NT. The use of pronouns is important, because it tells us to whom Paul is referring in his letters. Too often Christians insert themselves into the narrative when they simply don't belong there. 

We find it particularly interesting that he focuses on Ephesians, since this letter is the source of some misunderstood teachings for the very reason Mr. Eliff describes. Though he alludes to chapter one, he doesn't discuss it, preferring to discuss chapter two. We suspect the reason he focused on chapter two is because chapter one is one of the sources of the predestination doctrine:

Ep. 1:4-5, 11 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ... 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined...

This is where predestinationists inappropriately insert themselves. If we were to follow Mr. Eliff's advice, we would pay careful attention to determine who Paul is actually talking about. We would discover that these verses are not referring to Paul's audience. Paul applies these verses to himself and his company:

Ep. 1:12 ...in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

So the predestined ones are "we" (those who were first to hope in Christ). "We," in Mr. Eliff's terms, are those “who were born Jews but are now believers.”  

In the next verse Paul turns to his audience:

Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. 

You also were included in Christ... When did this happen? ...when you heard the word of truth... The Ephesians were not predestined. They were included when they believed, as opposed to the Jews who came to faith because of predestination.

We would suggest that those who were first to hope in Christ were the "firstfruits," that is, the earliest Jewish believers, chosen to salvation. All subsequent believers are included in Christ when they heard the word of truth. We explain this in detail here and here.

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