How to Design and Lead a Healthy and Productive Church Board - By Dan Reiland

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author's presentation is based on the unbiblical idea that the Pastor is the CEO leader of the local church. He thinks it's the pastor's job to select elders and to remove who he considers bad elders. He backs up none of this with Bible passages that speak to this. In fact, he quotes no Scripture at all and mentions only one.

Something the author also never address is, what if the pastor himself is the problem? If there's trouble in the leadership, maybe the pastor has some blame.

He wants board members who support him. While we're sure that his statement is innocent, a cynical person would observe that it is self-serving for a leader to select yes-men to rubber stamp everything he does.

Now, we realize that there can be toxic people in positions of leadership, but simply disagreeing with the pastor is not toxic. And of course, the pastor is sometimes wrong, and needs to surround himself with men who are willing to hold him accountable.

Lastly, the Bible does not teach pastoral leadership. The church is to be led by the elders: 

1Pe. 5:1-3 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

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

Rethinking the pastor position

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.

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

Jesus is our Judge - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

There is a prevalent idea, echoed by Ms. Prata, that Jesus engaged in a legal transaction to pay our debt of sin. That is, Jesus' death was offered as the legal remedy for the charges against us as sinners.  There is a presumption which forms the fundamental premise, that Jesus' brought us salvation through a legal transaction. Thus the act of redemption legally makes believers not guilty. But no documentation is ever supplied for this idea, other than presumption. 

So, where in the Bible does it say that legal charges are brought against us as sinners for breaking the law, for which Jesus intervened in an act that allowed the Father to pronounce us "not guilty?" It doesn't. 

This idea of a legal process we think descends from Calvin, who trained to be a lawyer. It did not exist before Calvin. 

"Not guilty" is a legal determination of western law, that not enough evidence has been presented to convict:

...the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of crime.

We need to remember that our idea of legal process is not the same as ancient Israel. So it is wrong to impose a western cultural understanding on a uniquely Hebrew concept.

In the Bible, the sinner does not experience a trial, no evidence is presented, and there is no presumption of innocence or right to confront one's accuser. Rather, our prior lost status is described as condemnation:

Ro. 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...

That condemnation is is not a legal determination, it is a divine declaration. Condemnation is the default state of the unsaved. That's where every human starts. Everyone who has ever lived or is living now on the planet began as condemned. They are condemned already. We discuss this further here. We discuss the idea that Jesus substituted His death for ours here.

This means that rather than "not guilty," when we are saved we are declared to be justified:

Ro. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...

"Justified" is

dikaioó, to judge, declare, pronounce, righteous and therefore acceptable...

Thus God pronounces the saved person as righteous. It is a declaration from the mouth of God, not a legal process of considering evidence. It is not a legal process, it is a sacrificial process. We discuss this further here.

We will find that Ms. Prata presumes her premise and from that makes a plethora of errors.

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

The basics - The order of salvation - The Riddleblog

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Kim Riddlebarger has been writing a series called "the basics." We have commented on these several times in our blog, and our complaint has been that his explanations are not basic. Sometimes the topics themselves are not basic.

The latter is the case today. The ordo salutis does not involve any aspect of Christian living, holiness, worship, or maturity of faith. We think things that are "basic" to our faith ought to come to bear on how we conduct our lives. The ordo salutis does not.

We should note that the author approaches his topics from the perspective of Calvinism, which means that the things he writes often have another meaning. For example, when he writes that we are "unable to do anything to save ourselves," he means that a person is totally depraved and cannot make a decision and be saved. God has predestined the ones He has selected to be saved, and His sovereign choice cannot be resisted.

This means that the biblical idea that "works cannot save us" actually means that a person making the decision would itself be a work. Thus salvation is only the work of God from beginning to end, and so we are predestined. 

So the Calvinist tries to explain the detailed process by which God saves a man, and from that arises the ordo salutis.

Lastly, the author never provides us with a plain list of the full ordo, so we shall:

1) election/predestination 

2) Atonement 

3) gospel call 

4) inward call 

5) regeneration, 

6) conversion (faith & repentance), 

7) justification, 

8) sanctification, and 

9) glorification. 

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

The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way. - by Adam Grant, NY Times

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

This is what the "newspaper of record" has been reduced to, a parody of a news organization. We are living in times where satire is indistinguishable from journalism.

Here is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR who thinks that democracy would be best served by eliminating voting. This not only speaks to the state of journalism, but also the educational system.

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

Worship Regulated by Scripture - by SCOTT ANIOL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is going to tell us about Scriptural worship. If you thought that worship is our expression of our devotion and praise, or the posture of our hearts, you would be wrong. The author is actually going to explain how to properly conduct a Sunday church service.

He will go on and on for nearly 2900 words and explain virtually nothing. He makes various appeals to Scriptures that do not actually bolster his point. He is only able to make his case towards the end by invoking historic practice and a couple of theologians.

The author's position is tradition. He does these things because that's the way they have been done. It's all about the correct way to do Sunday service. In addition, he never discusses the Holy Spirit's role in the church gathering.

And sadly, nowhere does the author ever actually discuss the act of worship. 

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

Bad Worship Songs - Jireh by Elevation Church

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, "Jireh."

Audio link.

I saw a Cardinal. Did I Just Receive a Sign from God? - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata represents herself as a Bible teacher and a guardian of doctrine. She has often appeared in our blog because of her careless and errant Bible exposition. So once again we take note of an incorrect explanation.

5 Ways to Tell if Your Church’s Worship Music is Man-Centered - By Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an almost Scriptureless presentation, where the unnamed "publisher" places before us what he likes and doesn't like as the standard for proper worship music. Yes, his taste is the measure.

He extracts two stanzas from two offending songs and deceitfully presents them as representative of those songs. He further suggests that these extractions are emblematic of the perceived problems with contemporary worship music as a whole. 

However, he is unable (or unwilling) to offer us examples of excellent worship music that satisfy his unquantifiable standards.

We think an excellent worship song should contain at least some 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
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture or Scripture quotes
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

Having said that, we do not require that every worship song be doctrinal a treatise. Sometimes a very basic expression of adoration is appropriate. We have to remember that not every Christian takes an intellectual approach to the faith. Some are more empathetic, some feel deeply, and some are even autistic, have Down's Syndrome, or are experiencing dementia. A rigorous exposition of doctrine in a worship song may not resonate with certain people.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - Episode seven, Driver's quarter panel - updated 02/09/24

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 used the same techniques for the driver's side repair as I did for the passenger side (episode six), but there were some unique things about the driver's side. So I decided to document the driver's side as well. 

Original pic:

Where does sin come from? - by Guy M. RIchard

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

This is a rather convoluted explanation. One of the theological debates of the centuries is the problem of sin, and that debate deserves more than the author's speculations and bare assertions.

The author believes that sin was not created, that it exists as a possibility until it is actualized. This fundamental premise is not documented from Scripture. 

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

The Basics -- The Cross of Jesus Christ - the Riddleblog

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

Inexplicably, Mr. Riddlebarger explains his doctrine with Bible verses that do not tell us what he says they tell us. It's a rather astonishing display of doctrinal color-blindness.

The Bible does not teach that Jesus died in our place. Nor does it say that the Father punished Jesus for our sins. And finally, Jesus did not atone for our sins, He propitiated them (turned away the Father's wrath.) 

Jesus carried our sin to the cross as a burden-bearer. Just like the sacrificial animals of the OT, He was never regarded as guilty, nor was He punished or forsaken by the Father. Jesus died to spill His blood and cleanse us from sin.

Sound of Freedom Is a QAnon Fever Dream - CHRIS LEHMANN

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

How does an author like Mr. Lehmann attempt to dismiss a real and problematic topic that resonates with great swaths of people? How does such a person tread the fine line between not voicing approval or disapproval of a heinous practice? How does a leftist write an article criticizing a child trafficking movie while avoiding criticizing child trafficking?

The author will do his level best to negate and delegitimize the movie, its actors, the person and organization the movie is based on, the director, as well as anyone he can link, however loosely, to something called QAnon. He really, really wants to create the perception that the movie is bad, wrong, deceptive, false, and not worth seeing. 

The objective? Well, our theory is that child traffickers want to continue their activities, and the author is either deliberately providing cover for them, or is deceived himself. But either way, notice the author never has any criticism of child trafficking. None.

Letter to the editor: Political balance has long been missing from Montana - Jerrold E. Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Johnson doesn't write letters to the editor as often as he used to. So today's letter gives us more insight into someone who would represent himself as a moderate. It is a scattershot letter without focus or coherence, designed solely for the purpose of bashing Trump and furthering the false narrative of Jan 6th.

Dr. Johnson will advocate for "balance," whatever that means, but doesn't seem to understand that each and every elected official was put in place by the voters of Montana. There is no such thing as "balance," there is only the result of elections.

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

False Worship is False Doctrine - The Case Against Listening to Hillsong - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The truculent and bombastic Rev. Wade returns to our blog. As is his wont, Rev. Wade provides a stream-of-consciousness, unfocused, unreferenced rant that is almost completely devoid of any spiritual value. Yet he persists in putting these screeds under the his subheading "devotionals."

In over 2100 words Rev. Wade will make many claims about the Bible, but will not quote it or reference it aside from the opening verse. He will also make many claims about his theological adversaries without even bothering to discuss or explain.

Lastly, we note that Rev. Wade will not be telling us why we shouldn't listen to Hillsongs, he will be telling us why churches should not use Hillsongs in the services.
-------------------

Why Bidenomics will get Joe another term and give the Democrats control over Congress Trump will help, but Bidenomics will be the key - by ROBERT REICH

Found here.

Dr. Reich is reliably colorblind when it comes to economics, toeing the Leftist line on class envy and bigger government. In actual fact, he's simply doing his part to push The Narrative, which the media are also doing.

Ironically, hot on the heels of Dr. Reich's fawning over Bidenomics is this report. Fitch downgraded the US's credit rating. Hmm.

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

"Join forces. Succeed together." Liberty Mutual's webinar to require diversity, equity, and inclusion

Sadly, Liberty Mutual has joined the woke crowd. The below email extends an invitation to their online seminar (aka, indoctrination session) to explain why diversity, equity, and inclusion are good things for business. 

They first supply a veiled threat:

When is the Rapture going to occur in relation to the Tribulation? - gotquestions

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It takes a mere four paragraphs for gotquestions to examine the issue and pronounce its own interpretation as the most biblical. Yet gotquestions manages to quote only a single Scripture. How is this possible?

Now, we recognize that a brief overview like this cannot be an in-depth doctrinal treatise. But the question being answered is regarding the timing of the rapture, which gotquestions doesn't answer. It acknowledges this to be a major controversial issue but just moves right on into defending its preferred position.

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