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 are surprised when they get mocked for it. Then they 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.

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