John. 6:44: "No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." Is this irresistible grace?

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.

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

The five elements of fascism. And how Trump and much of today’s Republican Party embrace them - ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Yet another Republicans-are-fascist article. It is with certainty we can assert that these leftists get their marching orders from Central Command, and today's topic is, surprise, fascism. Again. 

The thing is, repeatedly calling someone a fascist is not designed to inform or explain. It is to agitate, to get the troops moving, to inflame and create animosity. There is no constructive purpose to call everyday Americans fascist.

Further, the charge is preposterous. There is no fascism from the side of the political spectrum known for its individualism and quiet, moral living. There are no authoritarians or dictators or mass slaughters on the Right. Fascism (i.e., National Socialism) contains all the features found on the extreme Left: Oppression, violence, censorship of ideas, speech codes, redefining language, isolating and attacking political enemies, fixing elections, and purging of opposition political figure by prosecution, harassment, and character assassination.

In addition, we are absolutely certain that Dr. Reich has no idea what a real fascist is. Trump most certainly isn't a fascist. Remember, he was President for four years? And we have a new President now? How could an "fascist" simply leave office when his time was up? And really, what "fascist" things did Trump do? We all lived through his presidency and experienced his leadership. What exactly did he do to expand his power, curtail civil rights, free assembly, religious freedom, or property rights?

Nothing? Oh. 

Well, he must be the worst authoritarian to ever walk the face of the planet.

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

Live and Let Abort (What's wrong with libertarianism) - by John C. Wright

Found here. A very good discussion.

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

Part of an ongoing discussion.

The Libertarian maxim is laws deterring harm to others are licit, but laws deterring harmless acts are not. Harm here means physical violence, theft, trespass, fraud, breach of contract.

This is the core of what all variations of libertarianism hold in common: one may never initiate harm against the innocent. Harm is only to be used to deter harm, only in due proportion, and only against the one who initiates the use of harm.

Strangely, nearly all libertarians classify public drunkenness, recreational psychedelics, adultery, bigamy, pornography, pollution, draft-dodging, tax evasion, false advertising, suicide, euthanasia, and abortion as harmless.

Harmless must be allowed.

Whereas nearly all libertarians earnestly debate privatizing the police, public roads, public parks and common greens, and disbanding all standing armies, on the theory that maintaining borders and collecting taxes are unacceptable impositions on the liberty of the sovereign individual. And planning and zoning laws are right out. Using the coercive power of the state for public works or the common defense is harmful.

Harmful must be not allowed.

This inability to see harm as harmful is one of the main reasons why I departed the cause of Libertarianism.

Killing your unborn child is not harm? But defending the child is? So says that paragon of Libertarians, Ayn Rand.

In 1968, Ayn Rand wrote an article denouncing Humanae Vitae, by merely ignoring all the philosophical and moral principles of never initiating violence against the innocent that she had so vehemently been trumpeting in heaven-shaking volume with every syllable of her writing previously or since. This, from a woman who praised and promoted logic as the paramount, if not sole, human good more than any other. At the same time, she both promoted and practiced adultery, under the same rubric, namely, that breaking faith with one’s sworn spouse harmed no one.

FAQ: When Does God Write Our Names in the Book of Life? - By Adriel Sanchez

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is another one of those explanations that really doesn't matter. Knowing when one's name is written in the Book of Life has no bearing on any part of living a God-pleasing, proper Christian life. 

However, perfect doctrine is important to some. In particular, Calvinists will find this article interesting, since the explanation is based on Calvin's teaching. We are not Calvinists, however, so the teaching rubs us the wrong way. Not surprising.

So let's take a moment and examine the author's presentation. Happily, the author does quote some Scripture, an all-to-rare occurrence among these Bible teachers.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - Episode five, tail light panel install

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.

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

As of today I am a week short of three months since I began my rust-replacing binge. The trunk and wheelhouses took most of that time and took much longer than I thought.

In this episode I replace the tail light panel. Here's the new panel, along with the floor pan and the rear frame crossmember:

It's a GTO panel, but that's all that seemed to be available at the time. I may modify it into Lemans configuration, or maybe I'll stick with the GTO appearance because the GTO taillights are way cooler than the Lemans. I'll decide that later.

Here's what I started with:

I don't like the fit of that trunk lid. It sticks out 1/4" at least. Hmm.

You can see that the car took a pop to the back, probably by being backed into a pole. It appeared to be a light hit but turned out to be quite a bit worse, some of which was hid by the bumper:

The damage goes into the tail light panel, the trunk panel flange, and the trunk lid as well. In fact, the spotweld flange was pushed in a good inch and a half, and the lip was completely doubled over in one spot. 

As you can see, I started by removing the rear bumper (no easy task). It is held on by a bumper bracket on each side of the frame with two bolts each, and a center bracket that attaches to the rear frame rail, also with two bolts.

Rusty bolts.

After failing to wrench the bumper bracket bolts off I got out the cutting wheel and split the threads right down the middle lengthwise and through the nut. I then pried off the two halves of the nut and popped the bolt right out. But for the center bracket I needed to move the rear crossmember back just to gain access to the bolts. It was pulled rearward, mostly likely due to a tow hook.

You can also see that I have already removed the rear crossmember. It was heavily damaged and rusty. Also, the rear frame extensions were no longer level to each other, with the passenger side up by about two inches. I cover that repair in episode ten.

Why today’s “prophets” aren’t prophets - posted by Amy Spreeman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author purports to be a Bible teacher, a discerner of truth. It therefore surprises us as to how superficial is this explanation. In fact, she manages to quote only a single Scripture. How does one teach the Bible while barely quoting the Bible?

Ultimately, we are not terribly interested in what she has to say about contemporary prophets and their shortcomings. Even if there wasn't a single person on earth correctly expressing the prophetic gift, this does not tell us anything about what the Bible teaches. 

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

The Mailbag: Communion Questions - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley answers a question about communion without quoting any Scripture except for the communion text itself. How is this possible? Well, it's rather easy when all she is doing is explaining her tradition.  

There is one fundamental mistake Ms. Lesley makes, and that is she misunderstands a single word, "home(s)" (1Co. 11:22, 34). She writes:

Look at the language in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and how it differentiates between eating outside the church gathering (at home) and partaking of the Lord’s Supper inside the worship gathering of the church. 

There were no churches (buildings) in the first century! The worship gathering of the church was at someone's home: 

Ac. 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts...

This is communion in a nutshell. Breaking bread is communion, and they did this together in various homes, because the church met in peoples' homes:

Ro. 16:5 Greet also the church that meets at their house.

1Co. 16:19 The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla

greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Col. 4:15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

Phile. 2 to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow-soldier and to the church that meets in your home...

Remember that Saul (Paul) was zealous to stop this movement. How did he proceed?

Ac. 8:3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

The Church met in houses. Saul needed to go from house to house to destroy it. 

So the Corinthian church, meeting in someone's house, was being corrected for the way it treated people at the Lord's Supper meal they ate together when they gathered as the church. In someone's house. 

Thus Paul tells them that they should properly regard the body (every believer in attendance) (1Co. 11:29). Paul's point is, if someone is really that hungry, they should eat at home so that there is enough food for everyone (1Co. 11:34).

We really don't need to go any farther. But because this idea of communion as a solemn church ceremony done alone and in silence is not found in the Bible, we feel compelled to make a more thorough case. So let's examine the aftermath of Peter's vision of the sheet descending from heaven. A man called Cornelius sent some men to Peter to invite him to his house, so he went:

Ac. 10:25-27 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” 27 Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people.

Cornelius invited a lot of people to hear Peter. So Peter gave a Gospel message, which concluded with:

Ac. 10:43-48 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

This was a momentous occurrence, for it was here that the Jewish believers finally understood that the outpoured Holy Spirit (Ac. 2:17) was also for the gentiles:

45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Notice they were baptized at Cornelius' house, which Ms. Lesley also thinks should only be done in a church building. Let's keep reading:

Ac. 11:1-3 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

This is the last piece of the puzzle. Not only did Peter have a church service at someone's house, he baptized new believers and also ate with them (communion).

Ms. Lesley states, you wouldn’t (I hope) baptize people at your Tupperware party or even your weekly women’s Bible study, and you shouldn’t be observing the Lord’s Supper in those sorts of venues either.

Well, Peter did it, so why not? Ms. Lesley will not supply any Bible verse in support of her opinion, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Ken Alexander’s messages to me about his wife Lori, The Transformed Wife - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata's complete lack of self-awareness leads to this exchange with the husband of a woman she criticized. Ms. Prata believes her activities are self-evidently virtuous, under the guise of "discernment." Thus she has no qualms whatsoever about "discerning" a woman (and her husband) who she doesn't know, has never talked to, and with whom she has no relationship whatsoever. 

Why is this important? 

We have become convinced that the the idea of criticizing false teachers as practiced by "discernment ministries" is not found in the Bible. Every example of naming and disciplining false teachers in the NT is in the local congregation. That is, those who cause division, who are immoral, or who teach false doctrines in the midst of the church are subject to scrutiny, correction, and/or avoidance.

This does not mean we cannot critique the teachings of those outside our church. We do this often here in this blog. It simply means that because those who would want to exercise local discipline are not actually gathered with those people they criticize, they do not have authority and cannot engage the biblical practices (like Matthew 18, Tit. 3:10, Romans 16:17, 2Ti. 3:5, 1 Ti. 1:19-20 or Galatians 6:1, for example). 

Church discipline can only be expressed in the local body. It is up to the church where the false teacher is located, or denomination of which his church is a part, to engage the process of correction. It is not the job of someone not in that denomination or congregation.

All discernment in the NT is local. Every discernment verse is regarding something happening in a local congregation. There are no Bible verses that teach or even imply that a Christian ought to smoke out false teachers living in another city, or even in another church in the same city.

What does it mean that God made Jesus to be sin for us?

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.

A dream about church foundations

12/21/22

The scene is in what feels like a church basement, like where potlucks would be held. It's not dark or stifling in any way. There is a small group of people around me, all of whom are familiar and trusted people. 

We are engaged in some sort of deliverance on behalf of a troubled man. This man is disturbed and agitated as we pray for him, but we don't seemed to be concerned about him as a threat to our safety. In other words, he's dangerous, but it doesn't bother us.

In fact, at one point he actually sort of hugs me from the back in such a way as to choke me, but I sort of casually tell him to release me and he does so immediately.

I then realize that there are 20 or 30 people at the perimeter of the large room observing what we are doing. I begin to address them in a teaching sort of way, explaining what we are doing and what's going to happen. I remember quoting Scriptures and explaining scriptural principles, moving around the perimeter of people as I speak. I remember feeling extremely comfortable with doing this, as if this is an opportunity to impart and edify.

As the small group of people continue to pray for the troubled man, I tell the people that they may wish to remove their children, as things are about to get messy. Some adults take the children upstairs.

I seem to have a moment of discernment, "This is a spirit of suicide."

That's when I wake up. As I wake up, two phrases are on my mind:

• We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God
• unfurl the banner of Christ over the house of God

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - Episode four, door rust repair - updated 02/24/24

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.

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

Having got the trunk pan pretty much in order, I turned to repairing the rust in the doors. The driver's side door was savable but the passenger side was too damaged by collisions:

So I bought a pretty decent OEM passenger door from Frank's. Let's start with the rust repair of the front inside corner.

The reason I'm doing these Stage Two repairs now is because the doors need to be perfectly positioned with good gaps in order to allow the proper installation of the quarter panels and rockers. 

The new passenger door was in relatively good condition, except for some rust through in a couple spots:

The Mailbag: Can unforgiveness cause you to you lose your salvation? - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author provides a detailed description of her doctrine, but it is based on a presumption. That presumption is Calvinism. Calvinism is often summed up with the acronym TULIP:

• Total Depravity - man is unable to choose God or participate in any way in salvation
• Unconditional Election - God chooses those who will be saved (the Elect)
• Limited Atonement - the blood of Jesus only applies to the Elect
• Irresistible Grace - those God has chosen for salvation cannot resist 
• Perseverance of the Saints - The Elect cannot fall away, they will endure to the end

One can see that a couple of these items come to bear on the author's presentation, particularly Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints. So a Calvinist cannot accept the idea that someone might fall from the faith or lose their salvation. Their answer is that the one who falls away was never saved, i.e., a false convert.

Further, a person who falls away may yet be a Christian. Such a person might live the rest of their life grieving the Holy Spirit, yet ultimately would repent, perhaps days or hours before death.

But what if this person doesn't repent? Is it a requirement to be a completely repentant person the moment before death? Does salvation depend on the last thought that goes through our minds? Is good fruit required for the duration of one's life after salvation? Is salvation an event or a process?

These scenarios do not lend themselves well to doctrinal pigeon-holing. Thus, as with so many of these doctrinal debates, ultimately it does not matter. It does not matter if a person is a false convert or has rejected their faith. It does not matter, doctrinally speaking, to know these things or have a doctrine that parses it out. 

But it is important to Calvinists. 

This kind of fruitless doctrinal hair-splitting is typical for them. We say fruitless because the distinction between falling away as opposed to being a false convert does not contribute to a life of faith or worship, proper service, generosity, holiness, or anything else that constitutes Christian maturity.

Nevertheless, we shall examine the author's presentation. 

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

No, Women Can’t Preach - by SCOTT ANIOL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes an attempt to explain his doctrine, and does so with more depth than we accustomed to seeing from these internet Bible teachers. Plus he actually quotes some Scripture, again, something we rarely see.

However, he leaves some pretty substantial logical gaps, and he also makes some assumptions based on his tradition, not the Bible.

Further, he completely botches his explanation of women teaching men. We think we can safely deem this article to be bad Bible teaching.

We also commented on another of the author's articles, where he made a poor attempt to explain why there are no apostles today.

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

The Myth Of White Supremacy - By Daniel Greenfield

Found here. An interesting and timely article.

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

The largest mob lynching in the South was of Italians.

The 1891 lynching of 11 Italians in New Orleans, after a roundup of over 1,000 Italians, grew out of an internal conflict among Louisiana Democrats and was praised by progressives of the era.

“These sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins,” the New York Times editorial board railed. “Lynch law was the only course open to the people of New Orleans.”

Future Louisiana Gov. John M. Parker, who helped organize the lynchings, described Italians as “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in habits, lawless, and treacherous.”

Columbus Day was created as a quasi-apology to Italian-Americans for the lynchings which held only until Democrat identity politics began tearing down statues of the Italian explorer.

Odds & Ends - Dave Ramsey Gets Sued and Chick-fil-A Commits Heresy? - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

The irascible and often unintelligible Rev. Wade is back for another round of vague accusations, undocumented claims, and wild tangents. It's a logical mess. He expends over 1700 words (minus quoted material) in this "devotional" without a single Scripture or Scripture reference apart from the opening verse.

Rev. Wade is a political Leftist. He spouts leftist talking points with fluidity. He is obsessed with the NAR because of their supposed deification of Republicans. He hates those who love their country and want to change it for the better. However, he never, ever has a bad word for any Democrat or Leftist.

We are going to skip Rev. Wade's ramblings about Dave Ramsey, for there is nothing there of substance or value.

Ordinary Means of Grace - by Travis Montgomery

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

One might think that the doctrine "ordinary means of grace" would be some sort of important concept necessary for us to be able to live proper Christian lives. There must be a profound truth here, or maybe a description of God's character that would spur us to worship, serve, or share our faith with more purpose and effectiveness.

Nope. 

Or perhaps it would lead us to think that the author is going to explain "ordinary" as contrasted with "extraordinary." Like maybe there's a regular, unnoteworthy, typical "means of grace" as opposed to a remarkable, supernatural, or spectacular "means of grace." 

Nope.

Or, one might think that a "means" is one of several avenues through which God works in the life of a believer to accomplish His purpose or to empower the believer. 

Nope.

It's one of those obfuscating theological terms that attempts to categorize God without explaining anything. Let's allow the author to define it:

They are the outward practices God has prescribed by which He promises His nourishing presence to His people when they participate by faith. Put more simply, the ordinary means of grace are God’s prescribed proclamations of the Gospel, and they include Word (preaching, teaching, and evangelism), water (baptism), and table (the Lord’s Supper).

So does that clear things up? No? Let's try to figure it out from the author's presentation. Maybe there are hints.

The author describes "ordinary" as outward, tangible, and often very simple elements. What are "elements?" Well, they are "outward practices." What "outward practices?" The author makes this list:

1. Word (preaching, teaching, and evangelism),
2. water (baptism), and 
3. table (the Lord’s Supper)

And a little later he finally supplies some relevant Scripture references for each of these:

1. Rom 10:13–15, 
2. Matt 28:19, and 
3. Luke 22:19–20)

How is it there are only three? Don't know. Why are they more important than other things? Don't know. How does grace work through these ordinary means? How is "ordinary" different than "mystical" (which describes in a footnote as errored)? Don't know.

It seems Christians do these things and grace flows through them somehow. God works through these "elements" in some fashion. And it's critical to have this explained to us. But he doesn't use the Bible to point to this doctrine. 

Of course, that's because it isn't found in the Bible. The doctrine is nothing more than an amalgamation of Scripture themes combined together into a doctrine and labeled "ordinary means of grace."

Let's go ahead and quote the author's verses:

Ro. 10:13-15 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [Joel 2:32] 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” [Isaiah 52:7]

Mt. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... 

Lk. 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

No one would doubt that these are things that Christians should do. But they seem rather arbitrary, don't they? Again we wonder, why are these three given a special theological name?

We think grace flows through other things as well. Like, worship should be on such a list: 

Jn. 4:23-24 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.

And holiness:

Ep. 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Obedience:

Lk. 6:46 “Why do you call me, `Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?

Love:

Jn. 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Aren't these as important as the word, the water, and communion? Maybe even more important?

Lastly, we think that the author misdefines "grace." Actually, we're not quite sure that he ever defines "grace." Grace is 

charis, preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

God wants to be near us, He's always leaning towards us to give of Himself. He does this without consideration for deservedness or merit. He does not regard them at all. God never says "you don't deserve this." He simply gives grace (His nearness and goodness) freely without us needing or trying to earn it:

Ro. 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

So the idea that there is a particular category of grace, or a particular delivery method of grace, called "ordinary means of grace," seems truly odd in light of the definition. 

Such a concept adds nothing to our understanding. We must consider this bad Bible teaching.

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

Letter to the editor: The destabilizing effects of leisure capital - by Steve Kirchoff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This letter to the editor is typical leftist agitprop. The letter writer does what all leftists do: foment envy. It's always about the rich oppressor and the exploited worker.

In this case, the letter writer invents a bogeyman, "leisure capital," and blames it for all the economic issues we face. He has his narrative, and seems to think he doesn't have to explain anything. It sufficient for him to simply make statements as if they're unvarnished truth.

Again, typical for a leftist.

Further, the letter writer wanders from Gallatin County to the Montana Governor and legislature to "Yellowstone clubbers" in Big Sky. Does he even know who his enemy is?

Lastly, it concerns us to note that the letter writer is a political science instructor. Hopefully he's not indicative of the state of political science.

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

Michael Brown, Authentic Fire, & John 14:12 - by Matt Waymeyer

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

The author will do his best to find work-arounds in order to stay true to his cessationist doctrine. The first step to confirming one's doctrine is to extract a verse out of its context. The second step is to explain away clear statements made by the verse. The third step is to claim that people who believe the clear statements are in error.

The author does all of this, as we will see. Plus, he will actually lie to us about the contents of a verse. 

This is beyond bad Bible teaching. The author is a false teacher.

Before we continue, let's provide an extended excerpt of the passage in question:

Jn. 14:8 -17 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 

11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 

13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. 15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you for ever — 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

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

Guest column: The Second Commandment vs. the Second Amendment - by Rep. Ed Stafman Guest columnist

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

The author is a Rabbi and a leftist. The combination seems fatal to logical thought, at least when it comes to guns. He invokes his religious principles as if those should be implemented into law, and parrots leftist talking points as if they're proven fact.

As a liberal screed it ticks all the boxes.

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

Why Don’t Complementarians Believe Women Should Wear Headcoverings in Church? - By Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In the past we have had occasion to comment on several of the nameless author's explanations of biblical beliefs. Almost without exception they have been superficial, error-prone, or simply downright unbiblical. 

Today's article is no exception. The author arrogantly suggests, despite acknowledging centuries of debate over the teachings of the Apostle Paul, that he is going to settle the matter. What follows is the author's errant attempt.

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