1967 Camaro coupe build - retrospective

I bought this Camaro in 2005, which for me represented a purposeful change in direction from early Ford hotrods to muscle cars. I previously owned a 1947 Ford 2 door sedan, a 1940 Ford sedan delivery, a 1946 Ford coupe, and a 1962 Chevy stepside shortbox. The stepside was the transitional vehicle, neither a hotrod nor a muscle car.

The Camaro was out of state, so that means I bought it sight unseen. This is not a smart thing to do, but I figured that I was buying a builder car, not a finished ride, so part of the building process would be to fix things like hidden damage. 

It's still not a smart thing to do.

Here are some pics the seller provided:

Letter to the editor: Several questions for a 'pro-Trump' conservative - by Robert Loftis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is simply bad writing. Usually there is at least a superficial level of coherence in a typical leftist diatribe, but not today. The letter writer is simply copy and pasting slogans from leftist websites. And these slogans don't even make sense.

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

Republican senatorial candidate Tim Sheehy’s online ads (but not his on-air ads) describe him as a “pro-Trump conservative.” As such, I have a few questions for Mr. Sheehy. (The letter writer is apparently unacquainted with the idea of calling Sheehy's office and asking his questions.

But in actual fact, the letter writer is not interested in obtaining information. His questions are designed to further The Narrative, which is the daily talking points and slogans promulgated throughout the media landscape.

He uses the obvious and based rhetorical techniques of the Left, with the intent to reframe and obscure the issues he raised. But he's a clumsy propagandist. Most leftists are.)

What about Trump’s dementia? - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Left has gotten more and more brazen. It's as if they're trying push the limits by how obvious their projections and transferences have been recently. By this we mean Mountainman's Law:

Whenever a Leftist accuses someone of wrongdoing, they are actually doing this very same thing themselves.

So if a Democrat brings charges of a Republican cheating on his wife, then the Democrat is cheating on his wife. If a leftist accuses a conservative of cheating on their taxes, the leftist is cheating on their taxes.

So today Dr. Reich levels the accusation of Trump's supposed dementia. Yet for months people have been discussing the growing concern over Biden's obvious cognitive impairment. Dr. Reich will never acknowledge Biden's dementia, yet he's suddenly he's really, really concerned about dementia. Only it's not Biden!

We suspect that this is simply the next talking point of The Narrative. The Narrative is the daily talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated by Central Command. The media, academia, and the entertainment industry quickly and repeatedly disseminate these talking points until they receive new orders.

So Dr. Reich got the memo and immediately wrote an article about dementia, Trump's supposed dementia. 

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

How Bernie Sanders Should Talk About Democratic Socialism - by ERIC FONER

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

We find it very nearly hilarious when the Left wants to explain Socialism. "How should we talk about it," they ask themselves. "What's the best approach to changing the way people think about Socialism?" "How can we make our message resonate with people?"

Socialism must be contextualized. Framing is important. Messaging, sayings, and slogans are evaluated. A constant topic with the Left is how find ways of diverting, changing the subject, or flipping the script.

The question never is, "Should we tell the truth about Socialism?" "Should we tell people about what we actually want to do?" "Should we just be honest?" 

The answer is no, because Socialism cannot be presented honestly. It would be summarily rejected by everyone. In fact, it would be rejected by Socialists if they ever allowed themselves to think honestly about it. No, Socialism at its core depends on painting a caricature of present capitalistic despair contrasted with a rosy picture of a bright future in the worker's paradise.

That is why Professor Foner is writing. He has some advice for the vivacious, energetic face of Socialism in the United States known as Barry Sanders.

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

Repairing the rusted wheel arches - 2011 GMC Sierra

I was shopping for a used truck a couple of years ago. I wanted a Tundra but those are hard to come by. So I decided to look at this 2011 GMC Sierra 1500 It seemed to be a pretty nice, well-cared-for unit. 

I look for certain things when I'm evaluating a vehicle, like if the previous owner actually cared about the vehicle beyond just doing the maintenance. There are hints, like

• the parts used for maintenance are not cheap brands
• the owner touched up rock chips 
• there are no holes for aftermarket equipment
• aftermarket equipment is not cheap brands
• the engine compartment looks completely original
• the bed is not beat up
• the interior looks like it's been cared for
• the wiring has no taps or cuts

This truck had all those features. It did not seem to be abused. The mileage was right, the tire wear was right, and the oil pressure was right. So I sprung for it:

Nothing to complain about.

It came with trailer brakes and a hitch, running boards, wheel arches, and a tonneau cover. I didn't really like the wheel arches, because with stock rims and tires it made the truck look out of proportion. After a few months I decided that I would rather not have them, so I took them off.

That was a mistake. Here's what I found:

What did Jesus mean when He said, “It is Finished!”? - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author seems to have a bone to pick with certain unidentified heretics, but he doesn't go down that road. Instead he spouts some unexplained Calvinistic jargon (the elect, perseverance, imputation) and eventually veers into his stated topic, the finished work of Christ. 

The purpose of the other stuff is a mystery.

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

Why Is Prayer a Means of Grace? - by Barry York

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a little over 600 words, and about 500 of them are wasted. It seems the author loves writing in the stilted language of professors and theologians, language invented to explain the concepts and categories they also invented to describe matters of faith and doctrine.

Thus the author confuses and obscures simple ideas like prayer.  He doesn't seem to really want to teach about prayer, how to pray, or why. No, for him it's a theological obstacle to overcome.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Pastoral Oversight and the Musical Ministry of the Church - by Jacob Crouch

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is to be commended for his desire to honor his leadership, but we think he gets a lot wrong.

Church leadership delegates authority to various people based on their discernment of qualifications and spiritual maturity. They then provide oversight, but they do not run the ministries. The leaders they chose do.

It is our view that the music leader in the church service is the highest operating authority during the worship, and the rest of leadership defers to him for that time. That is, all authority transfers to him for this portion of the service.

The music leader also has final say as to the content of the ministry activities, like the songs. Yes, the church leadership is ultimately responsible, but their general attitude should be, let the leaders lead. Directional changes should be implemented with respect for the authority they delegated. Again, the music leader is in charge of the ministry. This means the leadership itself renders honor to the music leader by letting him do his job.

Lastly, the author manages only two Scriptures. None of what he tells us is based on Scripture, it's based on tradition and existing practice. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Has Montana really solved its housing crisis? - Susan Shain High Country News

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Chronicle reprinted this agendized "news" article and also posted it on Faceborg. A exchange of comments, found at the bottom, ensued. Our commentary appears after.

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

Is the suffering of Christ related to forgiveness?

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 that our doctrines are actually unbiblical. This causes us concern. 

We have deemed this reconsideration 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.

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

Bad Worship songs - Gone, by Elevation Worship

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, Gone.

They’re not even hiding it anymore: Beth Moore, preaching, and how to get women into the pulpit. Bonus: Moore’s teaching on 1 Tim 2:12 - By Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Unfortunately, Ms. Prata is back in our pages. Her confidence in her doctrine is matched only by her arrogance towards those who disagree. 

She has withering criticism for those who would question her understanding of the Bible. Mostly, this criticism consists of summary contradiction. This, coupled with a careless reading of her theological enemies' positions, brings us to the unfortunate conclusion that this is Bad Bible Teaching.

This presentation has a confusing format. Oddly, the outline is actually at the end. There are four points in the actual presentation (number 2 is not numbered, and number 5 doesn't seem to be discussed, since it is not identified with a heading). We omitted all of the article that occurs before the actual points.

We should also state for the record that we are no fan of Beth Moore. We are here to examine Ms. Prata's presentation.

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

The Atonement: Final Installment - Wayne Grudem: Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith

Installment one.

Installment two.

This is our last post regarding the author's chapter on the atonement. All our comments are found at the bottom.

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

Is Election Unfair? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul will not tell us who the "elect" are, or even discuss the Calvinistic doctrine of election. He presumes that God chooses everyone who is to be saved, but does not demonstrate this belief from Scripture.

We have developed an alternate theory to this doctrine, which we think better explains the elect.

The elect are not simply a generic group of humans who God chose to be saved. The elect are a special group, the remnant of Israel God predestined by grace (Ro. 11:5) to be saved. In Romans Chapter 9 Paul uses the idea of the true Israel identified by lineage to illustrate that there is a select group of Jews who will inherit salvation. These Jews are the "children of promise" (Ro. 9:8). 

These Jews who are saved are the firstfruits (Ro. 11:16). The firstfuits are the very first part of the harvest of souls, which by definition is not the entire harvest. Believing Jews are the firstfruits, after which comes the rest of those (gentiles) who are saved (1Co. 15:23).

The firstfruits are the 144,000 Jews (Re. 14:4). They are special and unique, so much so that they have their own song to sing (Re. 14:3). They are set apart by tribe (Re. 7:4-8). Then immediately after we see the great multitude, the saved gentiles from every nation (Re. 7:9).

The "children of promise," the "firstfruits," the 144,000 Jews... they are the elect.

Further, Paul referred to "us" and "we" in Ephesians chapter one (Ep. 1:4). This "us" and "we" is not you and I. "Us" and "we" is Paul and his fellow Jews who were saved. Notice now the shift in the narrative at Ep. 1:13. After Paul describes "us" and "we" as predestined and chosen, he turns to his audience ("you") and tells them they were included in Christ when they heard the Gospel, and it was then they were marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

"Us" and "we" were predestined. "You" were saved and included when "you" believed. Two categories of God's people, the elect and the saved. Therefore, the only people who are the elect lived and died 2000 years ago, and they were all Jews, chosen by God out of Israel to be the firstfruits of salvation.

Thus there is no "unfairness" in God's election. Israel has always been the apple of God's eye. This is why Paul wrote that all Israel will be saved (Ro. 11:26). Not all Jews will be saved, but only the elect Jews, the "children of promise."

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

The Atonement: Installment two - Wayne Grudem: Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith

Installment one.

Installment three.
------------------

This is a continuation of our analysis of a chapter from this book. 

The author continues his explanation based on reformist doctrines, particularly Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This doctrine postulates that Jesus took our place to be punished by the Father for our sins.

This, in our view, is a false and pernicious doctrine.

The author seems to be aware of the objectionable nature of this doctrine, but appears to think there are only a couple of viewpoints representative of the opposition. These are the only alternatives he thinks are worth mentioning.  

Ultimately, the author is simply wrong. And because he is acclaimed as a magnificent Bible teacher, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Living and Active Word of God - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. MacArthur ably explains the wonderful value and utility of Scripture, but bases his presentation on the wrong verse:

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.

This verse is not talking about the Bible. "Word" here is Logos:

II. Its use as respects the mind, alone, Latinratio; i. e.:

1. reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, etc.: once so in the phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the divine mind, pervading and noting all things by its proper force, Hebrews 4:12. 

That is, Logos is the expression of the mind of God, ultimately the things He says. The same word is used here: 

Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Logos is not graphé, the word found here:

2Ti. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Dr. MacArthur would have us believe that the writer of Hebrews was referring to the Bible. This is incorrect.

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

The Only “Prophets” the Bible Says Will Endure Throughout the Church Age are False Prophets - By Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" is back with a teaching about prophecy. As is typical, he's woefully lacking. 

Happily, "Publisher" actually quotes some relevant Scripture, which is a substantial departure from the way these Bible teachers typically operate. Unfortunately, his documentation disappears at key moments, leaving behind a string of bare assertions.

Most of this nothing more than recycling old cessationist talking points and misrepresented Bible verses. There is some new ground covered, however, an odd interpretation of Joel's prophecy.

This is about as bad as we have seen it from "Publisher." We deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Marks of a True Apostle - by John MacArthur - Strange Fire Conference

Our comments in bold.

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

The strange fire conference was held about 10 years ago, and it was dedicated to attacking charismatic Christians. Though a decade ago, the fallout continues to this day, resulting in all sorts of errant teaching.

Now, we certainly do not claim that every charismatic Christian has perfect doctrine, but neither do cessationist Christians like Dr. MacArthur. 

Today we combine several articles regarding Dr. McArthur's false teaching about apostles. It troubles us that Dr. MacArthur is unable to examine these issues clearly, yet he is considered a stellar Bible teacher.

Dr. MacArthur provides five false criteria as marks of a true apostle. He concludes with a completely astonishing lack of logical thought to assert that because there aren't apostles there aren't other spiritual gifts.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Atonement, installment one - Wayne Grudem: Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith

Installment two.

Installment three.

Our comments in bold.

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

This is an analysis of a chapter from a book by Wayne Grudem:

The author makes some astonishing undocumented doctrinal claims, going into great depth explaining these things without naming the Bible verses that teach them. These premises, assumed to be true, are upon what the author builds his case. 

However, we think that these premises must be documented and not assumed. For if the premises are wrong, what is built on them will be wrong. 

A good deal of what is explained here is in the context of doctrines known as Reformed, derived from Calvinism. We have written many articles about the flaws of Reformed doctrine.

The author will attempt to explain the atonement, but we need to understand that the NT never uses the word "atonement." Although some translations render hilastērion and related words (hilasmos, hileós, and hilaskomai) as "atonement" (Ro. 3:25, He. 2:17, He. 8:12 ["forgive"], 1Jn. 2:2, and 1Jn. 4:10) we think this is misguided and misleading. "Atonement" is an OT concept, where the blood of sacrificed animals atoned for sin. The Hebrew word is kaphar, which means to cover over or appease. Thus "atonement" merely covers over sin and doesn't actually remove it.

But the work of Christ is a greater work. He didn't just cover over sins, His blood completely removed them. That's why we prefer the old-fashioned translation, "propitiation," so as to differentiate from the OT concept.

As we read we will come to the conclusion that the author is simply wrong. And because he is acclaimed as a magnificent Bible teacher, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The ancient doors and the watchmen - rethink

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.

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

How to talk politics at Thanksgiving - Aaron Murphy, Team Busse email

This is the text from a recent email, designed to equip leftists on how to deal with conservative family members.

We will find that the author doesn't want them to actually talk with conservatives. He wants them to spew scripted talking points, diversions, and reframes so as to completely avoid answering questions or explaining positions. 

We are not surprised, but we are curious. The Left has been using these bumper sticker slogans for years if not decades. Do they really believe them? Do they think people are persuaded by brainless talking points? Or perhaps, leftists are just cynically repeating what they read on leftist websites?

We don't know, but  Mr. Busse comes off as evasive and slickly fake.

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

Why Did Jesus Say, "Don't Cling to Me"? - By RONDI LAUTERBACH

Found here. An interesting explanation.

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

I remember the day my husband and I loaded the car and drove our children to summer camp. We stayed long enough to carry suitcases into their rooms and meet their counselors. I lingered, offering to help them unpack and put sheets on their bed, but my husband caught my eye and mouthed the words, “It’s time.”

The desire to cling to someone we love is so natural. But the time finally comes when we have to let them go so they can fulfill their purpose.

Mary Magdalene was among the group of women who followed Jesus during his earthly ministry. Luke tells us that each of these women, whether privileged like Joanna who lived in Herod’s palace or tormented by evil spirits like Mary Magdalene, had been healed by Jesus from both physical and spiritual ailments (Luke 8:1–3). Her sense of need must have run deep. Fears would have chased her as evil spirits oppressed her. We can only imagine how long this had been going on before she finally met Jesus of Nazareth.

Christ or Chords? The Manipulated Emotionalism of Hillsong, Asbury, and Pentecostalized Evangelical Worship - by SCOTT ANIOL

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

Mr. Aniol will expend over 2000 words in this article. He will quote a good deal of Scripture, but not a single word of the Bible will be employed to actually document his many assertions about emotion or the role of music in the Church. Not one.

Besides the opening Scripture (Mt 22:37, which he does not explain) and a series of Scriptures regarding sobriety and self-control, Mr. Aniol will never Scripturally document any of his pronouncements. Not one. 

However, he will manage to quote several theologians and historical figures who agree with him. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Do billionaires have a right to exist? - by ROBERT REICH

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

Dr. Reich has already discussed this, but we suppose it's time to recycle this talking point. 

Can you imagine? What sort of person would ask if someone has a right to exist? Besides the sheer hutzpah of this is the idea behind it: There should be an entity with the power to decide things about people. In this case it is wealth, but of course there is no limit to the power of an entity that has the power to decide wealth.

We find it astounding that anyone would presume to dictate how much money a person is allowed to keep. This is a feature of dictatorships and tyrannies. Yet Dr. Reich wants government to simply confiscate a person's money at whim. 

What Dr. Reich does not seem to realize is that a government that can go after billionaires' money can go after his $5 million too. 

That is the Agenda, the overthrow of the system. Make everyone equal by taking away the money of the rich. Government needs that money to fund more programs. In fact, it wants it all, no limits. 

Dr. Reich's title is somewhat of a misdirection, since he isn't going to be discussing the execution of billionaires via firing squad or lethal injection. At least this is what we hope. No, he wants government to target billionaires' excessive money. Maybe the spilling of blood might be necessary if other means do not work, but that has never stopped a Marxist.

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

Some people use the word "woke" as if it's supposed to be an insult... Faceborg meme

A leftist friend posted this: 

Leftists created this term for the purpose of allowing themselves to brag about their superior morality. Then they and are surprised when they get mocked for it and are offended by the blow-back. They respond to this by doubling down on their moral preening and insulting those who mock them. 

The fellowship and ministry of the Holy Spirit

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.

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

CALLING DOWN THE FIRE OF GOD - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author's position is reactionary. She is not intent on explaining the use of the metaphor of fire, she simply is looking for a reason to disagree with charismatics. As a result she misses some pretty significant Bible verses that talk about the fire of God in ways she rejects.

We have no intention of defending any particular practice of contemporary churches. We are only intent on critiquing the author's presentation. As as we have come to discover via the author's other articles, she is not a competent Bible teacher.)

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

Bethel Faux Worship Song "Champion" Makes YOU the Champion - By Anthony Wade

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

Sadly, the eristical Rev. Wade returns to our blog. We continue to comment on his articles because we view it to be our duty to stand as watchmen on the wall. We would not write about everyday Christians getting something wrong, but we do feel obligated to oppose those who would position themselves as truth-tellers, teachers, and Correctors of Doctrine while teaching errantly.

We have deemed people like him as the "Doctrinal Police." The Doctrinal Police have particular characteristics, including

• they avoid quoting Scripture
• they make undocumented assertions 
• they personally attack their theological opponents
• they narrow the spectrum of orthodoxy so that any deviation is heresy
• they engage in breathlessly urgent rhetoric over relatively small matters
• they have thin skins when they are subjected scrutiny themselves

Rev. Wade is a particularly spectacular example of this, so much so that we created another tag, "scorched earth discernment," to account for the often egregious rhetoric that spews from his word processor.

Rev. Wade once again only manages to quote a single Scripture, which he barely discusses right at the end. We suspect it's there to provide cover for his desire to write about other things.

We should note that we are not particularly interested in defending the song. Rather, we are here to examine Rev. Wade's presentation.

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

DREAMS, DELIVERANCE, AND SOLA SCRIPTURA - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is going to tell us about Sola Scriptura, but does not use the Bible to do so. In fact, she doesn't use the Bible at all. No quotes, not even a Bible verse referenced. How can the author be so fervent about Sola Scriptura yet completely avoid it?

We think the author is actually vitare Scriptura.

We discuss this topic in more detail here.
---------------------------

What is to be our response when a well-known professing prophet claims that God spoke to him in a dream and told him that he was going to receive a new operating system for the current generation? (We weigh what was said against the Bible.)

Are we obligated to obey a professing modern-day apostle’s book on deliverance ministry that is said to contain fresh revelation on particular passages directly from God? (No.)

When individuals claim such revelations from God while stating to hold to sola Scriptura, how are we to respond? (We weigh what was said against the Bible.)

I find the topic of sola Scriptura particularly relevant right now having acknowledged the significance of Reformation Day. For years, I did not understand this term because I had not heard this term discussed in detail. The Word of God would be stated as valuable, but then personal experiences were elevated and even pursued and revered. Those who could testify of personally hearing God’s voice and having supernatural experiences were viewed as really knowing God. Scripture would be utilized to draw out secret or hidden prophetic revelation said to be revealed by God. It is safe to say that personal experiences were of equal value to what Scripture had to say, though this would be denied. (All of this is anecdotal and has nothing to do with the biblical case for the author's views.)

However, it is important for us as believers to acknowledge and to understand the importance of having a high view of Scripture and what sola Scriptura means. (Does having a high view of Scripture include quoting and explaining it?)

An important point to consider when addressing such claims and teaching is the difference between sola Scriptura and prima Scriptura. Admittedly, I had not heard the term prima Scriptura until the past few years. According to this author, “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.” As believers in Christ, we are to rest upon Scripture alone as our final authority for truth. Prima Scriptura is the belief that God’s Word is the primary way in which God speaks to His people, but it is not the only way. Though Scripture is viewed as authoritative under the belief of prima Scriptura, there are other means by which revelation can come, which could also be authoritative. (The author dishonestly slips in the word "authoritative.")

This includes, traditions, dreams, visions, angels, etc. (We discuss the many ways God speaks here.)

With regards (sic) to areas of the Charismatic movement and those who would hold to teachings associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, there is concern that the claim to dreams from self-professing prophets and divine revelation given to a self-professing apostle are undermining the sufficiency of Scripture and denying sola Scriptura. (We hope the author will explain. We discuss sufficiency here.)

Rather, these claims seem to agree with prima Scriptura, and the claim to God speaking to an individual should not be taken lightly. At no point in God’s Word is it understood to be a suggestion or without authority. (There's that idea of "authority" again.)

Those who are leaders within these movements, claiming to hear God and to speak on behalf of God, are speaking authoritatively. ("Authoritatively.")

The question could be posed that if an “apostle” or “prophet” claim to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit on a matter, are we not obligated to obey the instructions? (No.) 

If we reject this revelation, are we not risking rebelling against God Himself? (No.

Now we see why the author has continually inserted the idea of authoritative revelation. She is a cessationist, that is, someone who believes that the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit have ceased. Thus for her the only source of revelation is the Bible. So if someone claims to receive revelation from God, the cessationist rejects it. 

Why? It goes like this: If someone speaks a prophecy or has a dream or receives some sort of revelation apart from the Bible, this revelation is "authoritative." "Authoritative" means on the same level as Scripture. "Authoritative" means we are obligated to obey. "Authoritative" even means the revelation must be included in Scripture.

So all this is based on the premise that every revelation is "authoritative." But this is quite clearly not true. This concept is not taught in the Bible.

Let's address this by first noting that everything in the Bible is something revealed by God, but the Bible does not contain everything God has revealed. Otherwise we would have the prophecies of Philip's four daughters [Ac. 21:9], but we don't. We would have King Saul's prophecies [1Sa. 10:11], but we don't. We would have a record of what Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul prophesied [Ac. 13:1], and what Judas and Silas prophesied [Ac. 15:32]. But we don't.

We also don't have Paul's letter to Laodicea [Col. 4:16], which means the Holy Spirit chose not to include it as Scripture. The Holy Spirit even did this editing with Jesus [Jn. 21:25].

It is clear that all revelation is not "authoritative" as defined by the author.

It is also important to note that Sola Scriptura was never intended to forbid everything except the Bible. It was intended to subordinate everything to the Bible. Thus Sola Scriptura was a principle originally designed to elevate Scripture above the ideas and practices of men so that those ideas and practices would be subject to the Bible.

Interestingly, while Sola Scriptura is rhetorically employed by the cessationist to forbid every source of revelation except the Bible, in actual real-life practice the cessationist subordinates every source of revelation to the Bible. The cessationist happily reads commentaries, listens to sermons, reads Christian books, and relies on the counsel of the brethren. Therefore, cessationists are not actually Sola Scriptura, for they pick and choose what extra-biblical sources they will accept.)

As someone who came out of the modern prophetic movement, I now understand why having this high view of Scripture is so important. Modern prophecies, dreams, and visions are claimed with authority in the name of God while denying equal authority with Scripture. (This of course is false.)

It seems contradictory to make this distinction, and it seems to agree with the belief of prima Scriptura. If we consider these occurrences, we should understand that God has never spoken without authority. (Of course this is true. But it does not come to bear on the prophetic. God communicates His holy words flawlessly, but we humans are subject to seeing a poor reflection in a mirror [1Co. 13:12]. We prophesy in part [1Co. 13:9]. This is not God's problem, it is ours, which is why prophecy is to be weighed. [1Co. 14:29])

He is God, and we are obligated to obey Him. There are practices within this movement where people are told prophecy can be fallible while the professing prophet is not deemed a false prophet. The issue is said to simply lie in wrongly transmitting what God said. (The author acknowledges this but doesn't even bother to discuss or refute.)

Practices in hearing God’s voice personally are encouraged, and for some, standing on the Word alone for instruction and understanding are deemed religious and dead practices. (This same Word the author values also describes the gift of prophecy.)

I believe the practices done within such beliefs bring an assault to sola Scriptura while leaving people with a poor understanding of Scripture. When personal experiences are desired and pursued above being a student of the Word and growing in fellowship with God by understanding His Word more and treasuring the gospel of Jesus Christ daily, we set ourselves up for error and deception. We become starved sheep. The Protestant Reformation established the five solas, one being Scripture alone, sola Scriptura. God’s Word is authoritative for our lives, and it is sufficient in guiding us in our spiritual lives. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and the truth is found in the Word He authored. God has left us His sufficient Word. We can trust that when we read it, God has spoken.

Excerpts from this article were originally featured here: Why Is Sola Scriptura Important? (christianity.com)

Listen to this in-depth episode concerning this topic: The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: Dreams, Deliverance, and Sola Scriptura on Apple Podcasts

Trump’s Chaos Agenda - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is basically a recycling of a previous article, which is a recycling of a Leftist bumper sticker slogan, which is a recycling of a Leftist talking point. That's what the Left does, endlessly parrot talking points until they start to actually believe them.

This is what we've deemed The Narrative. The Narrative is the day's talking points, promulgated by the media and various apparatchiks like Dr. Reich. Thus nothing contained in these articles are explanatory, informational, or even truthful. That's not the purpose of agitprop. Agitprop is designed to inflame, foment anger and envy, and mobilize the True Believers into rage-filled action.

The Narrative is ever-present, always in pursuit of The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling of the system. The system is American culture, the institutions and traditions, and the values and morals formerly regarded as virtuous and noble, but are now regarded as toxic, oppressive, and evil.

If the reader will keep this mind, the real meaning of Dr. Reich's article will become apparent.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair - updated 01/02/24

Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

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

I have now reached the point where there is no more rust in the lower body shell, the frame has been repaired, straightened, and PO15'd, and the body is temporarily back down on the frame. Now it's time to move to more Stage Two repairs, like the core support and some of the small rust areas in the upper body. 

Let's start with the core support. The area around the battery tray on these cars is typically rusted from battery acid, and my car was no exception. This is the driver's side where the rubber mount is located:

On Fascism: Its Definition in its Historical Context, for 2023, Parts 1 & 2 - By Steven Jonas

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a completely obtuse presentation, made even more dense by an excessive use of comas,  compound descriptors separated by "/," parentheses, and run-on sentences. 

The author tries to come off as thoughtful and scholarly, but his ideological leanings become plain very quickly. He employs Leftist rhetoric and democratic talking points prolifically, tilting his presentation to obtain his desired conclusion: Trump and his supporters are fascist.

Nearly 3600 words of agitprop spewed forth for the sole purpose of impugning political opponents.

In addition, the author will continually refer to "the ruling class." Leftists always talk in these terms, because to them society is made up of castes based on wealth (which is power) having competing interests. The ruling class is composed of exploiters, and the worker is the exploited. Thus the Left wants the worker (the proletariat) to rise up and overthrow the ruling class (the bourgeois).

The problem with the idea of a "ruling class" is that someone or some group will always be in this position. Further, the amount of power they might have is an extension of the magnitude of government power. A big, controlling, coercive government (like America) can be manipulated and corrupted by "the ruling class." 

However, if our government were to be returned to its constitutional limits, then "the ruling class" would have no power to achieve their aims. Thus the entire framework of the author's argument collapses.

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

Is there a scriptural basis for discernment? Part 2 - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is back in our pages and is still unable to understand the issues surrounding discernment. Discernment is a spiritual gift, which means the Holy Spirit gives it for a spiritual purpose. She rejects this, substituting refined doctrine and study instead. While having good doctrine and studying Scripture is necessary these are not the spiritual gift of discernment.

The title of Ms. Prata's article tells us she wants to teach us about the Bible, but amazingly, she only manages to quote two Scriptures, neither of which are about discernment.

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

Untwisting the Bible, Part VIII: Slain in the Spirit - By Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" provides a superficial, unnuanced examination of a practice found in some charismatic churches and pronounces the issue refuted. But he doesn't explain anything. He doesn't tell us what the proper understanding ought to be or bother to quote more than a snippet of Scripture.

How can one "untwist" an unquoted Bible? This continually astonishes us.

We would not claim that every (or even any) experience is from or because of God, whether it be prophecy, Tongues, healing, trembling/shaking, impressions, or being "slain in the Spirit." We would suggest that this uncertainty is part of the reason cessationists reject these things. Cessationists seem to have a pronounced desire to know every detail for certain. In addition, the excesses of some charismatics justifiably leads cessationists to question these manifestations.

Therefore, we are going to discuss "slain in the Spirit" not to affirm that every, or even any, instance claimed as being from God is true. Rather, our intent is to establish the idea that such occurrences are not outside the bounds of Scripture.

The first thing we should note is that many things in the NT were unprecedented. For example, Pentecost. While this does not give us license to deem any and every unusual occurrence as being of God, it does suggest that we ought to be a bit more circumspect about rejecting something out of hand simply because we haven't seen it before, or because such an occurrence might not have precise Scriptural precedent. 

Trembling or falling down in the presence of the Glory of the LORD is scriptural. And there are a lot more instances of this manifestation than the ones provided by "Publisher."

• Old Testament examples

Ge. 15:12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him.

Ez. 1:26-28 ...and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell face down, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

Ez. 3:23 So I got up and went out to the plain. And the glory of the LORD was standing there, like the glory I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell face down.

Ez. 43:3-4 The vision I saw was like the vision I had seen when he came to destroy the city and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell face down. 4 The glory of the LORD entered the temple through the gate facing east.

Ez. 44:4 Then the man brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple. I looked and saw the glory of the LORD filling the temple of the LORD, and I fell face down.

Da. 8:17-18 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” 18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.

Da. 10:8-9 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

Ex. 3:4-6 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” 5 “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” 6 Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Jo. 5:13-14 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” 14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell face down to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

Is. 41:4-5 Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD — with the first of them and with the last — I am he.” 5 The islands have seen it and fear; the ends of the earth tremble.

Ge. 17:1-3 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. 2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.” 3 Abram fell face down...

Habk. 3:16 I heard and my heart pounded, my lips quivered at the sound; decay crept into my bones, and my legs trembled.

Is. 66:2 Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?” declares the LORD. “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.

Je. 5:22 Should you not fear me?” declares the LORD. “Should you not tremble in my presence?"

• New Testament Examples

Re. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.

Mt. 17:5-6 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground, terrified.

Mk. 5:33 Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth.

Lk. 5:8 When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”

Ac. 10:10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.

Ac. 16:29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas.

Ac. 22:17-18 When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord speaking.

Again, we do not advocate for these or any other manifestations, we simply acknowledge their possibility because there is a scriptural basis for them.
-------------------

THE CLAIM TO FEMALE APOSTLESHIP - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Other than the opening Scripture the author does not quote a single verse. Not one. How is it possible to be regarded as a Bible teacher without quoting the Bible?

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

The Binary Choice Deception - Cessationism Vs. Charismania, Both are Equally Wrong - By Anthony Wade

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

It's been nearly three months since we've critiqued a Rev. Wade article. It's been a welcome respite from his typical flaming-throwing offerings.

But unfortunately we're back today, hoping that he's finally going to explain something. Here he's supposed to set us straight about what's wrong with each side of the cessation/charismatic debate. But he uses over 2100 words to tell us nothing about the Bible regarding these two sides. Nothing.

Rev. Wade posted this as a devotional. But he doesn't quote or even reference a single Scripture, except for the irrelevant opening Scripture. He doesn't tell us about any Bible precept, holy principle, or anything about the faith. Nothing. Yet it's a devotional. Hmm.
------------------------

The Agenda - all you need to know about the Left

On this blog we have critiqued many times the motives and techniques of the political Left. They prolifically disseminate their doctrines, their talking heads are amazingly consistent in their language (almost to the point of being verbatim), and they are doggedly persistent in their objectives. 

This post is to explore some of the inner workings of the Left, and to offer solutions to negate their pernicious influence.

Little known bible characters 3 - Trophimus - by Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have not had occasion to comment on Ms. Prata for some time, something that gladdens our hearts. This could only mean that she has maintained a degree of sensibility. 

Up until now.

This excerpt is an aside she inserted into her article, unrelated to the topic she was writing about. But because the desire to refute charismatics is always present, she take a tangent to make sure we know she doesn't believe in the gift of healing.

Ms. Prata asks a legitimate question, why Paul didn't heal Trophimus, but she didn't ask it to gain information. Cessationists like Ms. Prata don't like the idea that the Holy Spirit would move supernaturally in our contemporary churches. So they create doctrines out of thin air based on speculation about what the Bible doesn't say.

Resurrecting the Common Good: A Civic Education for All - Chapter 9 of the Common Good - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a long and obtuse article. Dr. Reich presumes his false premises and builds upon them until the whole rhetorical structure totters. 

This man is supposed to be an educator, but he is nothing more than spouter of agitprop. He doesn't intend to explain, inform, or clarify. Nothing here is designed to be logical or factual. Dr. Reich is simply putting out the Narrative, the leftist bumper sticker slogans promulgated by Central Command. 

The Narrative is for the sole purpose of The Agenda, which is the dismantling of the system. The system is the structures, institutions, and philosophies of the American culture and way of life. These things are repugnant to leftists like Dr. Reich. They must be done away with.

That's why we always hear about systemic racism, income inequality, and the super rich. These are represented as the result of the current system. Thus, take down the system. Lie about the founders. Mock those who want to live their own lives free from unnecessary dictates and government burdens. Silence those who disagree. Deplatform dissenters. 

The system must come down.

Now, Dr. Reich makes noises about things like the common good, democracy, and educating voters. The average person would accept these ideas for their common meaning. That is what Dr. Reich hopes, that the casual reader would agree. 

That is the nature of agitprop. The Narrative is only about The Agenda. Agitprop is only about The Agenda. Dr. Reich and everyone like him are only about The Agenda. It's pernicious, deceptive, evil, and based on half truths and modified history.

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

IS CESSATIONISM HERETICAL? - Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author doesn't quote a single Scripture. Not one. She will mention the Bible many times, but does not ever quote it. Astonishing.

In fact, she will many claims without any sort of documentation, biblical or otherwise. We must designate this article as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Heaven's Perspective on the Cross: Substitute - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We recently commented upon another article from this series written by John MacArthur.

Dr. MacArthur's doctrine regarding Jesus' sacrifice is largely based on the misunderstanding of a single word, "for," which is found in several of his cited verses, like 2 Corinthians 5:14:

One died for all.

The Greek word is huper, which means on behalf of, for the sake of. It does not mean instead of. 

Jesus died for our benefit, not in our place. In fact, the whole idea of Jesus substituting Himself in our place for punishment is preposterous. No courtroom would accept the idea of an innocent party volunteering to be punished in the place of a guilty party.

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

Bad Worship songs - King Of Kings - by Brooke Ligertwood, Scott Ligertwood & Jason Ingram

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, King of Kings.

Video link.

Heaven's Perspective on the Cross: Sacrifice - by John MacArthur

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

Dr. MacArthur wants to correct a misconception about Jesus' sacrificial death. Apparently this is a grave doctrinal situation. He makes a big deal out of the distinction between Christ's death for us and what His death meant regarding the Father. 

But he commits several crucial errors. He never tells us why the distinction is important. He misrepresents the OT sacrifices. He selectively quotes Scripture, leaving out parts of verses that contradict him.

This is unfortunate considering his reputation as a stellar Bible teacher.

The question we always consider when reading a Bible teaching is, what is the relevance to the Christian walk? If a teaching has little or no bearing on holiness, service, worship, maturity of faith, fellowship, or generosity, then it is simply an empty intellectual exercise. 

That is the case for this article. Ordinarily we would deem such a thing "bad Bible teaching," but we think that "irrelevant Bible teaching" is more applicable.

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

10 Things You Should Know about the Holy Spirit - by Fred Sanders

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It's nice that someone wants to discuss the Holy Spirit. He seems off limits by so much of Christendom so this is very refreshing. However, the author can only bring himself to quote a single Scripture and a small snippet. This should not be so, if one wants to represent one's self as a Bible teacher.

More importantly, he has ten points he deems important, but the ministry of the Holy Spirit (2Co. 3:8) doesn't even make the list. This is a glaring omission. 

We shall do the author's work for him. 

He convicts:

Jn. 16:8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt...

He made it possible for Mary to conceive Jesus:

Mt. 1:18 ...she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Jesus baptizes us with Him:

Mt. 3:11 I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

He anointed Jesus:

Mt. 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

He speaks through us:

Mt. 10:20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Blaspheming Him is serious:

Mk. 3:29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

He circumcises men's hearts:

Ro. 2:29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit...

He dwells in our hearts:

Ro. 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

He makes us sons:

Ro. 8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.

He intercedes for us:

Ro. 8:26 ... but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

He helps us understand the things of God: 

1Co. 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

He gives spiritual gifts:

1Co. 12:4, 7 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit... 7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

He helps us bear spiritual fruit: 

Ga. 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

We have only scratched the surface of what the Holy Spirit does. The author overlooks all of this for less important things.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two (updated 2/9/24)

Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

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

Now it's time to install the outer rockers. Here's the new pieces:

.

I purchased these from Amazon for $104.99 for the pair. They are made of a heavy enough gauge of metal. But they're are not complete stampings, they're more like skins. This AMD piece looks better, but because it's twice the price I bought the others.

Of course, as I mentioned in another episode, sometimes cheaper is not cheaper. 

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop - updated 02/05/24

Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

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

So just to bring the reader up to speed, we've gotten a little out of order. In the previous episode I noted the body had been dropped back on the frame in order to finalize the floor pan positioning and passenger rocker so as to weld them in. Which means today's episode has already happened. 

I couldn't do the final welding on the underside until the main welding was done on top. So that means the body had to come off again, both for the welding as well as the undercoat. I'll cover that as well. 

That will be body drop number two, this time for good. 

As I mentioned in another episode, the rear crossmember had been yanked backwards and twisted, probably by a tow hook. Plus it was rusty enough to justify buying a new crossmember. Here's the old and the new:

I had to straighten the old crossmember enough to get at the mounting bolts. So even though it looks kinda ok in this pic it is really wacked out. 

With the bumper brackets removed and the old crossmember out of the way we can see the driver's rear frame rail had cancer:

I marked out the cut line and fired up the grinder, which yielded this result:

Bad worship songs - Speak the Name - by Koryn Hawthorne

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, "Speak The Name."

Video link.

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

Souls are not to be won by music - by the wanderer - Jeremy Walker

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

This short and entirely scriptureless presentation wants to refute something no one has claimed. The author quotes Spurgeon issuing an imperative, a thing that we apparently must not do: "Souls are not to be won by music." This prohibition implies that someone thinks the converse, "souls are to be won by music," but no one has suggested such a thing.

Maybe it's an issue of archaic language? Is the real statement in modern language something more like, "souls are not won by music?" That would make a bit more sense. But such a statement presumes we know what God can use to save a man. God can do this thing, but He cannot do that thing. 

Though he doesn't really say it, the author is probably referring to the spectacle that infects some churches, that those church services are entertainment productions where there is little or no biblical preaching. But that is an entirely another issue. The author's intent is not to examine matters of faith and church practice. He simply wants to drop a rhetorical bomb as if that's all that needs to be said:

"Souls are not to be won by music."

If this is true, then Christian music that contains lots of biblical truth, the Gospel message, or a call to repent cannot affect the soul. Which means songs like

• Rock of Ages - Augustus Toplady
• This is Amazing Grace – Phil Wickham
• Just as I am, without one plea - Charlotte Elliott
• At the Cross (Love Ran Red) – Passion, Chris Tomlin
• Mighty to Save – Hillsong Worship
• O Come to the Altar – Elevation
• The Mercy Seat - Don Moen
• This is My Surrender - New Wine Worship
• Song of Repentance – New Wine Worship
• O come to the mercy seat, needy one, come - William Stevenson
• God Would You Forgive Us – Here Be Lions
• Lord, I Need You – Passion
• Give Us Clean Hands – Charlie Hall

are never used by God to save someone. The Holy Spirit would not use these songs to call forth a sinner into the Kingdom. Even the adoration and praise in a worship service would not cause a sinner to repent. 

But is there any real difference between preaching the Gospel and singing it? Can the Holy Spirit convey sufficient information in a song so that salvation is effected? Or will God only use the spoken word?

The author doesn't bother with any of this.

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

What Does It Mean That God Is Sovereign? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul uses the terms "sovereign" and "sovereignty" a total of 24 times but never defines them. Read the article carefully. It never happens. He sort of hints at what might be included in God's sovereignty, but as far as telling us what His sovereignty is, he never does it.

The dictionary definition is:

1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as.
2. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
3. A national governing council or committee.

In the NT we find the Greek word despotés, a lord, master, or prince:

Ac. 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them.

In the OT we find this:

2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

This is "Adonay Yahweh," simply, Lord YHWH. 

English does not really have an equivalent term. 

So what does it mean to be sovereign? It means the unlimited possession of all power to do with as one wants. The King owns everything in the kingdom with no limits. We see the scope of lordship power and ownership in David's conversation with Araunah. Araunah rejects David's desire to buy his threshing floor: Araunah gives all this to the king. (2Sa. 24:23)

This was quite proper. Araunah knew the power of the king and knew his place. The king could simply take it because it is already his. However, David had a different idea:

2Sa. 24:24 But the king replied to Araunah, “No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.”

This is an astonishing display by David, very unking-like. This could very well be one of the reasons David was called a man after God's own heart. 

So a sovereign stands alone in the magnitude and scope of power, knowing no limits and recognizing no other authority. Yet a Lord can still do as he pleases, even if it seems to violate his own sovereignty. David did that, and God can do that.
-------------------------