Can I Tell an Unbeliever ‘Jesus Died for You’? - by JUSTIN DILLEHAY

Found here. Our comments in bold. 

----------

The author grapples with a problem created by his Calvinistic doctrine. He believes in "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that Jesus' sacrificial death is applicable only for those who are predestined to be saved. So, Jesus died only for the Elect.

This means that the author cannot tell a non-believer that Jesus died for them because he doesn't know it that person is one of the Elect.

However, if one is not a Calvinist it's not a problem at all to tell someone "Jesus died for you." 

This is one of the many issues we have with Calvinism, that it creates problems that need to be worked around.

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

Responding to Dr. Michael Brown's Questioning of Discernment Ministers - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

"Discernment" ministers don't like to be discerned. They bristle at being questioned, held to their own standards, or subject to any sort of evaluation.

Rev. Wade is offended at the questions posed by Dr. Brown. He's outraged that anyone might suggest that "discernment" ministers ought to be held accountable. The thing about it is, "discernment" ministers are often worthy of criticism. They are too often over-the-top, insulting, and, yes, down right wrong. 

In keeping with their hyperbolic tendencies, their response to criticism is also hyperbolic.

Here's a "discernment" ministry that claims that its brand of discernment is definitionally loving.

This is a "discernment" minister who was respectfully asked a question about the status of her heart when she writes about false teachers, and her response is truly astounding.

This same person does concede that some criticism is deserved, but spends the greater part of her article complaining about how difficult it is to be a "discernment" minister.

Here we have a person who believe that only false teachers are divisive, which apparently justifies any and all bad behavior of "discernment" ministers towards false teachers.

"Discernment" ministers can get really nasty. Here's some examples:

• Here's a fellow who seriously wants all charismatics to die of COVID (from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• Karen Swallow, an admittedly questionable Christian, was "discerned" (by Protestia) as follows:

hideously ugly

post-menopausal woman 

bizarre wardrobe choices

a penchant for cackling

no personal charisma

a face that scares children

a voice that sounds like nails down a chalkboard

pugnacious

unladylike

uglier on the inside than she is on the outside

the personality of a Roomba 

 the personal charisma of fetid corpse

unpleasant and evil woman

• Here's a "discernment minister" (also from Protestia) who thinks it's appropriate to rank the worst Christian of the year.

• Here's one who accuses a person of committing the unforgiveable sin.

• This man feels it's within the bounds of proper discourse to call someone an imbecile (also from Protestia's predecessor "Pulpit and Pen").

• T.D. Jakes might have some problems, but here's what a Rev. Wade himself wrote about him: TD Jakes deserves no honor among bible teaching, God-fearing men. Like you, he deserves nothing but our contempt and the working end of the shepherd's rod.

• Rev. Wade also says we don't have to pray for people who are false teachers.

There are many more examples, including from Rev. Wade, that we could list. We don't want to suggest the above examples are typical, but they happen frequently enough that they're not aberrations. 

Lastly, Rev. Wade's "devotional" doesn't contain a single quote from the Bible or a discussion of any spiritual principle. It's continually dismaying to us how these people think they can be any sort of minister, let alone a discernment minister, without quoting or even discussing the Bible.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Women Bible Translators… Doctrinally sound deliverance ministry… Brain fog and Bible/book reading) - by Michelle Lesley

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

Ms. Lesley is back, once again parsing 1 Timothy 2:12, which she doesn't even bother to quote:

1Ti. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 

She writes to add yet another subdoctrine derived from an improper application of this verse. This astonishingly bad and unbiblical description ought to be an embarrassment, but she presents it as unassailable truth. 

This verse is not describing a church service, it's not about what pastors do, and it has nothing to do with what generic women can or cannot do on Sunday. You can read our explanation here.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Wayback Wednesday ~ Risky Business - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------

The author takes issue with what some people supposedly say about taking risks in faith. But she then concedes that walking in faith is indeed risky. 

-------

His sheep and the doctrine of election

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 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 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 we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Both Worm and Worthy - by TREVIN WAX

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrestles with the dichotomy between our prior lost status vs. our position as new creations. He thinks that God previously regarded us as the lowest of the low, but the Bible never records God saying anything like this.  

But God does regard his creation as having value, because He sent His Son to save us. We have value because the Bible says so: 

1Co. 6:20 you were bought at a price.   

 

"Price" is timé, perceived value; worth (literally, "price") especially as perceived honor – i.e. what has value in the eyes of the beholder; (figuratively) the value (weight, honor) willingly assigned to something.

The price Jesus paid for us according to the value He assigned to us. We were never worms, no matter how we may have regarded ourselves as such.

-----------

The Battle for Grace Alone - by R.C. Sproul

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
------------------

In the article Dr. Sproul discusses the difference between predestination and pelagianism, and mentions a position half way, which he calls semi-pelagianism. 

He concedes that semi-pelagianism is not a matter of heresy, yet the very name implies a heretical stance. If it's not heretical, then why not call it semi-predestinationism?

Dr. Sproul seems to think that the "battle" is about the degree of corruption brought by sin, which is a framing based on the Calvinistic idea called "total depravity." However, Calvinists actually demand "total inability" to respond to the gospel, not "total depravity. " So, all Christians can consent to "total depravity" while differing regarding the sinner's ability to respond to the gospel. 

However, the issue isn't about the degree of corruption brought by sin (i.e., our ability or inability to respond to the Gospel), but rather, the nature of God's sovereignty. For Calvinists like Dr. Sproul, God's sovereignty must be viewed as having total control, dictating every outcome. The two ideas correlate but are not synonymous. God defines His own sovereignty, so we must grant Him the power to be sovereign and at the same time acknowledging that He created us with free will. It is not a binary, either-or situation.

A particular thing of note in the below excerpt is that there seems to be some difference between an eternal decree and foreknowledge, but Dr. Sproul does not explain or discuss it.  

And, there isn't a single Scripture quoted or even referenced in the entire article.

Lastly, the entire issue is actually irrelevant. None of Calvin's doctrines matter. People still need salvation, Christians are stilled called to holiness, fruitfulness, and worship no matter what one believes about Calvinism.

SACRED NAME OF GOD? or BLASPHEMY? - by R.H., July 2005

Found here. An interesting presentation.

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

I genuinely appreciate that many people are attempting to take a sincere religious position by honoring a sacred name for God, like Yahweh. I think it is being done somewhat in reaction against the organized Christian churches which are nothing more than painted sepulchres. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that such "sacred?" names originated in non-Israelite pagan cultures of the Ancient Near East. There is evidence that YHWH was the name of a god worshiped by neighboring races but there is no evidence that such a name was used by true Israelites in ancient times. From the historical evidence, it appears that the Edomites have given true Israelites one more fraud which some of our people have claimed with enthusiasm, even making it central to their religion. Here are some details of the history of the word YHWH.

Only Bad Calvinism Abandons Souls: The Story Behind a Missions Revival - by Ryan Griffith

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author offers Andrew Fuller's critique of "high Calvinism." "High Calvinism" is a doctrinal position which is simply the logical conclusion of the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty, taken to the nth degree. 

Calvinism teaches "irresistible grace," which means that those whom God has chosen to be saved must and shall be saved. The author doesn't like that "high Calvinism" actually embraces this doctrine in fullness: If the elect are already selected to be saved then evangelism is irrelevant.

This conclusion is logical. But it's unbiblical. It's not unbiblical because failing to evangelize is unbiblical, it's unbiblical because Calvinism is unbiblical. Calvinism is in fact "bad Calvinism" if it actually holds to what it teaches.

The author should be sensible enough to come to this conclusion from Andrew Fuller's list of "six reasons to plead," which he quotes below. The list comprehensively explains why evangelism is biblically required. Which is a de facto refutation of Calvinism.

If  the elect are predestined, then "high Calvinism" ought not offend the author. If the conclusions of "high Calvinism" are repugnant, then the author ought to abandon the Calvinism that gives it weight. Calvinism of any flavor must regard evangelism, at least in theory, as irrelevant. Therefore a Calvinist who believes that evangelism must occur should abandon Calvinism.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only one Scripture. That's it. 

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

Teen girl speaking at a conference? - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata has returned to our blog, and provides some more parsing of this verse: 

But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12).

This is a verse that has been subject to much abuse, and Ms. Prata adds to this. She writes about a teen girl giving a talk in church, adding to the list of sub-doctrines and rules:

Since the prohibition in scripture is against women speaking during church to a congregation (and by extension in parachurch ministries/conferences) teaching men or usurping their authority by exegeting scripture, I think the teen’s talk is fine.

Ms. Prata continues on, offering even more rules:

...it’s fairly clear that sharing thoughts or testimonies to an audience is fine.

A woman sharing knowledge, testimony, or expertise when not under ecclesiastical authority is fine. Or at church but not during the Sunday services, say, during a Saturday conference where the church becomes a venue. 

...A woman or teen standing in the place where scripture is exegeted during church services, even if she’s just giving announcements, is part of that slippery slope. 

Dear reader, take another look at 1 Timothy 2:12. Does the reader see any of these commands, provisos, or prohibitions in this short verse? No? Then how does Ms. Prata arrive at her endless list of rules?

Well, it's convoluted series of assumptions and false premises:

• Paul's letters to Timothy are deemed to be "pastoral." But Timothy wasn't a pastor.

• A "pastoral" letter therefore consists of instruction on how to be a pastor. But actually, this is a personal letter to Timothy containing a variety of advice, instruction, and doctrinal teaching

• Since the letter is presumed to be about how to be a pastor, it is presumed 1 Timothy 2:12 must be about Sunday morning church order. But Paul doesn't talk about church order until chapter 3. Chapter 2 is in fact general instructions about Christian conduct.

• If 1 Timothy 2:12 is about Sunday morning church order, then "woman" and "man" need to be changed to "women" and "men" in order to force 1 Timothy 2:12 into the congregational setting.

• Then, since most contemporary pastors are teachers and pastors are the boss, that makes teaching into an authority role. However, the biblical authority in the local church is not the pastor or teacher, but rather the elders (1 Timothy 5:17, 1 Peter 5:1-2)

Ms. Prata must squeeze 1 Timothy 2:12 through this gauntlet of assumptions in order to derive all these little doctrines and prohibitions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The biggest contrast in the upcoming election (other than democracy vs. "blood in the streets" fascism) - By Robert Reich

Found here.

Today Dr. Reich is more incoherent that usual. If he didn't have his bumper sticker slogans handy he would be completely unintelligible.

He wants to "save" Social Security for the umpteenth time. It's been saved before, but because rich people do bad stuff it needs saving again. And this time only more taxes will save SS. Tax increases always make things better.

Why The Unbiblical IHOP 24-7 Prayer Model Has to Go - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Rev. Wade has now written in excess of 20 "devotionals" about the IHOP debacle. Astonishing. Today he writes almost 1700 words, but 1520 of them are employed to simply rehash his previous "devotionals" about IHOP. That leaves only 177 words spent actually discussing the subject.

So let's examine his "biblical" case that the 24-7 prayer is unbiblical. For clarity, we have eliminated everything else he writes about.

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

Your Body Is Not the Temple, But THE Body Is - By Nicholas G. Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The authors are making a big deal out of whether or not our individual bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit or if it's the universal body of Christ. The authors want it to be a binary choice, either/or. It's not.

This is one of those intellectual exercises that really does not matter. If the community is the temple or if each individual is a temple (or if both are true) is actually irrelevant.

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

Why Is Good Friday Called “Good”? - by Karrie Hahn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We noted here that Jesus was not crucified on Friday, because that does not allow three nights in the grave. 

The author makes several Calvinistic doctrinal claims that just don't bear up. Contrary to the author's claims, the Father did not punish Jesus,  Jesus did not swap Himself for us, and He did not pay for our sins. In fact, the whole idea of Penal Substitionary Atonement is false.

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

How do Calvinists explain Satan? The illusion of free choice

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 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 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 we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Woman “Pastor” Claims That Names in the Bible Have Been Changed to Hide All the Female Apostles - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The unnamed "Publisher" cannot be bothered to quote or reference the Bible. He hyperventilates about some woman making various claims, but cannot seem to tell us exactly where in the Bible she goes wrong.

This is par for the course for "Publisher." No Bible verses and no biblical exposition or logical refutation.

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

Hell to Pay: What Truly Happened to Jesus on the Cross? - By Nick Batzig

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We don't intend to disrespect the author, but his article is a contender for a top ten position as the worst Bible teaching we have ever read. It has all the indicators:

• Lengthy quotes from theologians
• Lengthy quotes from pastors
• Lengthy quotes from statements of faith
• A quote from a hymn
• No Bible quotes
• No Bible verses referenced
• Cherry-picked opposition position

How is it possible to teach on a doctrine without quoting or even referencing the Bible? This is astonishing. But this is what the author routinely does. He rarely, if ever, quotes Scripture.

We think that the reason the author avoids the Bible is because none of his statements can be backed up with the Bible. Jesus wasn't forsaken, the Father did not punish Him for our sins, and He didn't experience hell on the cross. We will explain below.

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

Was Jesus in the Grave for Three Days? - by Gabriel N.E. Fluhrer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The Church has traditionally taught that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday morning. This teaching creates a time problem. 

The author is going to supply us with the conventional apologetic for the problem of how long Jesus was actually in the grave by counting partial days. However, this explanation does not account for required three nights. 

Our full solution to this problem appears at the bottom.

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

For every player who credits God for the win, a player from the opposing team can logically blame God for the loss

A Faceborg friend posted this:

The text:

For every player who credits God for the win, a player from the opposing team can logically blame God for the loss. Neil deGrasse Tyson

We have a few comments, assuming of course that Dr. Tyson actually said this.

The first thing we want to mention is that when we have questions about astrophysics, we will want to know what Dr. Tyson thinks. When it comes to religion, we will ask someone who believes in God and has some expertise in religion. 

How to Read the Pastoral Epistles - by William Barcley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has a mistaken view of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, yet for some reason he still manages to hit all the right notes. 

Timothy and Titus were not pastors, so these three letters cannot be pastoral epistles. Both Timothy and Titus were on assignment from Paul (1Ti. 1:3, Tit. 1:5) to set things in order until Paul could arrive (1Ti. 4:13) or until these men could return to him (2Ti. 4:9, Tit. 3:12). They went on other assignments as well (Ac. 19:22, 1Co. 4:17, Ph. 2:19, 1Th. 3:2, 2Co. 7:6).

They weren't pastors because they were sent to establish the leadership of these churches, not be the leadership (1Ti. chapter 3, Titus chapter 1). They weren't pastors because they ordinarily traveled with Paul (Ac. 17:14, Ro. 16:21, He. 13:23, 2Co. 7:6, Ga. 2:1). They weren't pastors because these men were charged with correcting doctrine, dealing with false teachers, and modeling and teaching holy behavior.

They were not pastors.

We mentioned the author otherwise hit all the right notes. Had he omitted the word "pastoral" he would have been right on.

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

Can Baptists believe in infant regeneration? Of course! But what is the state of infants? - by Steve Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Interpreting doctrines through Calvinism creates many complicating factors that need to be explained, accounted for, worked around, and speculated upon. 

The author's below article is an example. He intends to explain his topic via the Calvinistic doctrine of Election. However, he doesn't even bother to quote Scripture. Nothing. He does mention the word "Bible" twice and the word "Scripture" once, but the Bible itself is completely absent.

Astonishing. How does one explain a doctrine without using the Bible?

Election is the idea that God has already chosen those who will be saved. The Elect are pre-selected, which means the lost and the saved are already determined and irrevocably destined for hell and heaven, respectively. 

The author suggests that infants can be part of the Elect (using the truly cumbersome and unenlightening word "regeneration"), but Scripture is completely silent on the eternal fate of infants, as well as  pets, aborted babies, and the mentally disabled. It is therefore improper to speculate based on the silence of the Bible. Yet the author does speculate, not from the Bible, but on how Spurgeon's Calvinism comes to bear on the problem.

After going around and around with Calvinistic doctrines like Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Total Depravity, he finally concludes that he can only rely on the fact that God always does the right thing. This is quite sensible, but it also means his entire presentation is moot. 

When God does not speak to an issue in the Bible, we can only stand firm on His justice and mercy.

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

Sad Pastor vs. Joyful Pastor - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata quotes a social media post written by discouraged pastor and another pastor's response. She then has some closing remarks. 

But none of what is written below is biblical. This is a textbook example of why pastors fail, stumble, get divorced, have affairs, or just give up. These pastors are doing a laundry list of duties that has nothing to do with being a true pastor.

A biblical pastor has no other duty than to care for the flock. He isn't the singular CEO leader, he isn't the administrator, he not the teacher, he doesn't shovel snow off the sidewalks. 

He cares for the flock.

The Bible teaches that local churches are run by a plurality of elders:

1Pe. 5:1-2 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...

Peter was exhorting this group of elders to be the pastors and overseers. In other words, these elders needed to step up and care for the flock and take care of the business of the church. 

The elders function in these roles. The elders do the pastoring. Pastors do not preside over the elders, the elders pastor.

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

The most troubling aspect of today’s Supreme Court decision - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich never ceases to amaze us with his astounding ability to agree or disagree with the issues of the day based only on his leftist perspective. The thing he opposes when they go against his politics are the same things he favors when they favor of his politics. 

He always is supportive of court rulings that conform to his politics. So if, say, Florida had ruled that Biden could not appear on its ballot, Dr. Reich would be arguing the opposite of what is found below. 

Dr. Reich is semi-adept at the rhetorical wigglings that are necessary to make it sound like he's being thoughtful and reasonable.

But he is an apparatchik spewing leftist talking points, nothing else.

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

Does God impute righteousness to 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 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 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 we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

THE GREAT MYTHS 14: “THE INQUISITION” – MYTHS AND HISTORY - by Tim O'Neill

Found here. An important article.

--------

Along with “the Witch Craze” and “the Crusades”, the violence and oppression of “the Inquisition” is part of a triumvirate of historical atrocities that is usually invoked by anti-theists as proof of the wickedness of Christianity in particular and religion in general. “Everyone knows” these things were evil, even though what most people know about each of these things is largely wrong. This is perhaps most the case with “the Inquisition”; given that there was never a single institution by that name and most people’s conception of inquisitions are cartoonish clichés based on popular media which are in turn based on centuries of deliberate distortion and propaganda. By modern standards, the various historical inquisitions were certainly oppressive, often deadly, and their aims and many of their methods are, to us, repugnant. But anti-religious polemicists tend to be largely uninterested in the facts of this complex historical subject, relying entirely on their own inadequate conception of “the Inquisition” and basing arguments on these erroneous ideas.

Does the Doctrine of Limited Atonement Undermine Evangelism? - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

It is refreshing that a Bible teacher actually quotes some Scripture. But if Dr. Sproul quoted them to prove his doctrine, these Scriptures do not do that.

And, the question to answer from the title is about how the doctrine might come to bear on evangelism, not if the doctrine is true.
-------------------

The Doctrine of Imputation - AN ESSAY BY J. V. Fesko

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We think the author complicates and confuses simple concepts. Jesus' death on the cross was sacrificial, not something akin to a financial or legal transaction. There was no exchange, there was spilled blood, the agent of forgiven sin: 

He. 9:22 ...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 

Jesus' sacrificial death overcame sin (1Co. 15:56-57), and His victorious resurrection overcame death (Ro. 6:9). We needed both.

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime - final update, 4/8/24

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.

This is our last official episode, having achieved our one year goal of fixing the rust, doing the bodywork, and priming the car. The car was listed on Faceborg marketplace on April 1st, and the new owner picked it up this morning, April 8th.

This last episode will cover the panel prep for block and prime. This is another big task, where all the gaps need to be checked and aligned, the door jambs, trunk jambs, the cowls and other untouched surfaces need to be sanded to accept primer, and the surface rust and degraded original paint must be sanded out.

But before I get to all this it's time for a pre-primer review of where we came from.

Did Tongues Cease or Not? - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This frustrating article is just short of 4000 words, yet the author manages to quote only three actual full Bible verses, none of which bolster any of the author's central claims.

But he has a lot to say about what people historically believed, or what the Bible does not say, or what contemporary Christians do or don't do. These are logical fallacies which have nothing to do with the biblical case. We will identify each of these fallacies as they come up by identifying them with the phrase "an Appeal To...." or "an Argument From..." There will be an astounding 38 of them. 

We will also highlight in red the author's text that employs these techniques. The reader will see that precious little remains.

Further, the author never actually discusses the answer to the question contained in the title.

Lastly, the author continually presumes his premises via the terminology he employs. For example, "apostolic gifts." The matter to be demonstrated is whether or not the gifts were indeed apostolic. Of course, the author never does explain or document these presumptions.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs - Beautiful Exchange - Hillsong 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.

We should note that our title is about worship songs. A bad worship song can be a good song. 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, Beautiful Exchange:

Video link.

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

Francis Chan Says God Wants Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox All at the Same Communion Table - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The doctrinal Police are at it again. The unnamed "Publisher" has an opinion about a statement made by Francis Chan about communion. Now, we don't wish to defend the unbiblical doctrines of various sects, nor do we intend to defend Mr. Chan, but we also don't want to dismiss millions of professing Christians (it's not within anyone's ability to know the eternal status of anyone) as far as who is eligible to receive communion. 

In addition, correct doctrine is not a determiner of salvation. Correct doctrine is certainly a desirable pursuit, but regarding the Holy Spirit's action in the human soul, well, that is a matter of divine knowledge and not related to correct doctrine.

But more to the point, eligibility to partake of communion as a sacrament is really a matter of individual church or denominational practice. But this is not described in the Bible. 

Nor is it the solemn ceremony practiced by most churches.

The Bible describes communion as a meal where the saints come together to fellowship. The early church gathered frequently to eat together: 

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...

Paul told the Corinthian church that their divisions were a big problem:

1Co. 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

According to Paul, this was spilling over into their communal meals (1Co. 11:20). They were dishonoring the Body by getting drunk and excluding people, who ended up going hungry (1Co. 11:21). That's why Paul charged them to examine themselves to see if they were properly remembering the Body in the midst of their fellowship together (1Co. 11:28).

Notice that Paul made no requirement regarding the salvation status of anyone. We might presume that all were Christians, but Paul doesn't say. The problem was one of division and exclusion, not of the salvation or doctrine of the attendees.

So let's bring this to today. Biblically speaking, communion ought to be the regular gathering of the saints to eat and to remember Jesus' sacrifice. Though an assembly of the saints, it should be open to all comers. Those who are lost and those who might belong to a deviant church should come and see how much the brethren love one another. 

It might save some of them.

It seems ironic that "Publisher" would want to exclude certain people when that is exactly what Paul's complaint was about. We would therefore hope that attitudes about communion would change to conform to biblical teaching.

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

The Emerging Republican Theocracy - White Christian nationalism is the creed of red America - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The most striking thing about this screed, aside from its irredeemable irrationality, is its irony. Everything Dr. Reich complains about is implemented or about to be implemented by the Left. Dr. Reich goes on and on about the possibility of dangerous authoritarianism of "Christian nationalists" while right now we have the authoritarianism of the Left in operation. He wants freedom of religion while the Left is simultaneously silencing Christians for putting their faith into practice.

Can anyone remember "Christian nationalism" being a thing prior to maybe a few years ago? The idea appeared out of nowhere, doubtless a talking point from the deep state. It's truly astounding how fast these bumper sticker slogans gain traction. 

So, Dr. Reich thinks these "Christian nationalists" are dangerous. They are going discriminate, force people to believe in God, and march people off to the gulag. This nonsense is designed to ramp up outrage against an imagined enemy so as to mobilize the troops. The objective, of course, is to suppress Christianity. 

But the upshot is, even if every "danger" described by Dr. Reich is true, we would still prefer that society over the one envisioned by Leftists. 

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

WHAT DO WE DO WITH DREAMS AND VISIONS? - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Finally we have someone who will be discussing the cessationist view of Joel's prophecy, the pouring out of the Spirit on all people. Astonishingly, the author will completely avoid the plain statements of the passage. Basically, the author will say, "well, it can't mean what it says, so it must mean something else."

In addition, the author will never quote any Bible verse other than the one verse from Joel, so her article will generally be presented without the Bible. And, she never answers the question asked in the title.

Lastly, the author will not quote Peter's restatement of the prophecy:

Ac. 2:16-21 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 20 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [Joel 2:28-32]

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Joyce Meyer Says Christians Should Never Feel Guilt for Sinning - by Staff Writer

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

Now, we have no intention of defending Joyce Meyer, but we shall examine the claim made by "staff writer" in light of what the Bible says. It's but a single sentence of commentary regarding this supposedly egregious explanation made by Ms. Meyer. 

We begin our excerpt at the point in the article where "staff writer" actually turns to address the subject matter.

We shall comment at the end.

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

Why You Can’t Get to Heaven through the Mormon Faith - by Eric Davis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We fully agree with the author's assessment of the various errant LDS doctrines. But his whole presentation is predicated on the idea that what a person believes has something to do with them getting saved. Or, good doctrine is required to be saved. 

However, good doctrine does not save a person. And errant doctrine doesn't condemn a person. So of course you can't get to Heaven through Mormonism because you can't get to heaven through Christianity either. 

How does one get saved? We suppose that somewhere in the author's presentation is buried the Gospel, but it is never coherently expressed. He does quote a couple of Scriptures, but none of them are about the Gospel.

Yes, Mormons certainly worship a different (or, perhaps, improperly described) Jesus, they have an mistaken view of Scripture, and they add to the Bible. This all is certainly true. But none of this speaks to someone's salvation status. It's quite possible there are many truly saved Mormons, who when sitting in their temples heard enough of the Gospel to put their faith in the one true God and His Son Jesus. 

They were saved in spite of Mormonism, not because of it.

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

What Happened To The Asbury Revival? - SAMUEL SEY

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is basically a "see I told you so" article where the author feels vindicated that the Asbury revival didn't do what he thinks revivals should do. Rather than operate in faith and pray the the Holy Spirit causes people to get saved or Christians to bear fruit, the author celebrates being a nay-sayer.

Revival is not defined in the Bible. But it does describe various times when God moved in various situations, sometimes in surprising or unusual ways. There is nothing in the Bible about local churches receiving benefits from a revival, nothing about "lasting outcomes." There is nothing about "changing churches." The author's criteria is not found.

In fact, we would know nothing about what the Bible says if we were to rely on the author, since he never quotes or even refers to it. He mentions Jesus once and the Holy Spirit exactly zero. 

He claims he called local churches to see what effect the revival had. However, he did not mention calling anyone who had attended, which would be a superior way of ascertaining what God might have done at Asbury. Neither did he contact the college. Yet he is more than happy to report a "fake" revival, even warning of unmentioned dangers to "young Christians."

So the author is an armchair quarterback hoping the home team will lose. 

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

Bad worship songs: Man of Sorrows - Hillsongs, Crocker, Ligertwood

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.

We should note that our title is about worship songs. A bad worship song can be a good song. 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, Man of Sorrows.

Audio link.
-------------------

Is there generational sin/curses? - 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 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 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 we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

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

God Told Me: The Pentecostalization of Evangelical Theology - by SCOTT ANIOL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author makes some astonishing claims as he presumes his premises. Problem is, one must accept these undocumented premises in order for any of this to make sense. It's a logical and Scriptural nightmare.

But this is what we have too often found as we have examined some of his other articles.

The author will his best to bias the reader by his use of language. Thus he agendizes his explanation to tilt the debate to his perspective.

This is over 2600 words, including quotes. And it takes the author over 1000 words for the author to finally quote Scripture. Then when he finally does quote it in defense of his assertions he misrepresents it.

We don't like being lied to, so we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Let's quote the entire passage, since the author never does: 

2Pe. 1:16-21 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 

18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

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

Ed Stetzer’s Super Bowl He Gets Us Commercial is the Most Blasphemous One Yet, Depicts Jesus as Affirming of Homosexuality and Abortion - by Publisher

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

On one hand we agree with the unnamed "Publisher" that the He Gets Us campaign often presents an inaccurate/incomplete picture of Jesus. On the other hand we understand the campaign's aim to portray Jesus in a way that contradicts the stereotypes non-believers often have. 

We don't think the campaign always does this accurately. We were critical of another of their commercials here.

However, our intent today is not to critique the He Gets Us commercial, but rather critique "Publisher's" Scriptureless critique.

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

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED-THE LOVESICK SCRIBE

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is answering a question about the NAR, with special attention about people who desire to hear from God. This is part of her answer.

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

We are not told to hold onto or trust a personal experience. We are told to trust in Christ alone. Peter helps us to remember that in 2 Peter 1:16-21. Though Peter’s experience in witnessing the glory of Christ on the mount of Transfiguration was real and powerful, Peter instructed others to trust in the more sure word of prophecy, which testified of Jesus Christ. This was lamp to light their way forward. It was not their reliance of a dream or a personal prophetic word.

***

Let's quote the passage:

2Pe. 1:16-19 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eye-witnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

The author thinks this passage is referring to the sureness of the Bible vs. personal experience. We emphatically disagree. Peter was clearly not attempting to prove the superiority of Scripture over the prophetic. 

Hoax List - John C. Wright

 Found here.

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

I have maintained a list under the tag “Not Tired of Winning Yet” showing the various campaign promises by Trump made and kept. But I did not keep a list of the various lies, hoaxes, prevarications and gaslighting absurdities perpetrated by the mainstream Project Mockingbird assets known as the Fake News, but by the Men of the West called The Mouth of Sauron.

Fortunately, John Nolte of Breitbart has done my work for me:

• Russia Collusion Hoax
• Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Hoax
• Jussie Smollett Hoax

What Does It Mean to Be Chosen in Christ? - By Jonathan Landry Cruse

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is writing about the Calvinistic idea that there is a select group of people (the elect), whom God long ago chose to be saved. This is one of the five points of Calvinism, a rough summary known as TULIP:

T - Total Depravity

U - Unconditional Election

L - Limited Atonement

I - Irresistible Grace

P - Perseverance of the Saints

The "U," Unconditional Election, is also known as predestination.

 

We find that the promulgation of Calvinism is largely accomplished via misconceptions and misrepresentations. We don't think this is done maliciously, but rather due to entrenched tradition. People are sucked in to Calvinism unawares. Many of these bad teachings have been examined in the pages of this blog. 

But more importantly, the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism are irrelevant. None of them change the obligations or privileges of a Christian. We still must be saved, grow in faith, be holy, be generous, be worshipers, etc. Not a single doctrine of Calvin comes to bear on living an adequate, proper, or perhaps even remarkable Christian life. 

Happily the author actually quotes Scripture. Unfortunately he misuses it. Badly.

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

The Mailbag: Potpourri (...Women giving pro-life talks in church) - Michelle Lesley

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Lesley is back from her blog hiatus and quickly returns to parsing 1 Timothy 2:12, creating yet another micro doctrine about things women cannot do in church.

Here's the verse:

1Ti. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

We note that Ms. Lesley never quotes this verse or any Bible verse. Her presentation is simply another speculation based on a mistaken understanding of this verse. There is nothing here or anywhere in the Bible about a woman giving a "brief, personal testimony" and there is nothing about forbidding a woman from replacing the sermon.

We extensively discuss the role of women in church here.

Further, the Bible does not tell us "pastors, preach the word." Let's quote the verse: 

2Ti. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage — with great patience and careful instruction.

This was Paul's instruction to Timothy, not to pastors. And Timothy wasn't a pastor, which we discuss here. And, the verse does not tell us anything about preaching in a church service, but rather preaching in season and out of season (i.e., the proclamation of the Gospel in every place at every opportunity). 

There is a difference between preaching and teaching. They are two different things: 

Mt. 4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Here we find that Jesus was doing three different things, teaching, preaching and healing. 

"Teaching" is didaskó, 1. absolutely, a. to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them...

"Preaching" is kérussó, b. specifically used of the public proclamation of the gospel...

Therefore, Paul's instruction to Timothy in 2Ti. 4:2 was to preach (kérussó) the word, i.e., proclaim the Gospel. We can easily confirm this assertion because only three verses later Paul instructed Timothy:

2Ti. 4:5 ...do the work of an evangelist...

Evangelists preach the Gospel.

Now, we should be clear that Paul did command Timothy to teach (1Ti. 1:3, 1Ti. 4:11, 1Ti. 4:13, 1Ti. 6:2, etc.). But that doesn't make him the pastor because the Bible does not tell us that pastors teach. Pastors care for the flock, and teachers teach (Ep. 4:11). Elders lead the church, not pastors (1Pe. 5:2). 

Paul agrees with Peter about elders leading the church: 

1Ti. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Timothy was being instructed about leadership structure in the church. Therefore, Timothy was not the pastor.

Ms. Lesley's answer, then, is wrong from beginning to end. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Is Music Worship? - John MacArthur

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

It seems that every MacArthur sermon or article we read causes us to wonder how this man can be regarded as a stellar Bible teacher. We don't wish to dishonor the man, but we are fully willing to examine and evaluate his teaching.

Today we have excerpted his sermon about contemporary worship music. That's his target. He doesn't tell us about why his opinion is better, only that contemporary worship music is Satan's music and doesn't belong in the church.

Though he does quote Scripture, none of it comes to bear on his assertions.

This is simply bad Bible teaching.)

Leadership in the Church - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------
Dr. Sproul completely misrepresents Paul's statement in the subject passage, 1 Corinthians 2:1–5.  The word "minister" is diakonos, servant. Servanthood in the Kingdom is certainly in view in this word, but Dr. Sproul is not referring to general servanthood. He's talking about church leaders like pastors.

Paul was contrasting rhetorical and intellectual credentials with spiritual power. Dr. Sproul puts words in Paul's mouth that sidestep this, thereby changing the thrust of Paul's statement.

Paul was not talking about leaders avoiding a posture of superiority, he was laying the groundwork for his subsequent argument in chapter three about the Corinthian church following certain people. Therefore, Paul was making a point about members of this church following these people according to how well they preach or how smart they were.

Remember that Paul spent a lot of time defending himself against the accusations of the Corinthians (1Co. 4:19, 1Co. 9:1-2, 1Co. 15:9, 2Co. 11:5, 2Co. 13:2-3). They thought he was an inferior apostle. So his point here is that though he isn't much in person (2Co. 10:10) he had the Spirit of God powerfully, and that should be enough to commend him to the Corinthians.

This passage is not about church leadership at all.

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

Bad worship songs: Praise (feat. Brandon Lake, Chris Brown & Chandler Moore) | 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, Praise.

Video link.

Is God's wrath appeased or transferred?

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 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 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 we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

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

Social Security is not insurance: Faceborg conversation

A Faceborg friend posted this:

A conversation ensued:

Me: Not insurance.

The Doctrine of Original Sin and the Wrath of God - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------

The author promises but does not deliver a discussion about original sin and the wrath of God. In fact, aside from the very first sentence, he does not mention these at all.

We would infer from his presentation that he thinks that those who don't believe in original sin don't believe in sin at all. It is from this false dichotomy that the author goes on and on about things no true Christian would disagree with. 

But none of it is about the the subject.

We discuss original sin here.)

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

The Lord’s Supper is Not a Pot Luck - by Ryan Higginbottom

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We would hope the author demonstrate his premise from the Bible but he doesn't. In fact, he only manages to quote one Scripture, though a relevant one. 

What is more important, however, is that the author is actually defending traditional church ceremony. He objects to the pot luck idea, not because it's unbiblical, but because it's not the solemn ritual in a church service.

He provides two reasons why a potluck can't be the Lord's Supper, but neither actually speaks to this. Both reasons are related to the spiritual nature of communion, not to a potluck. It seems the author intended to write another article about what communion means, rather than why a potluck doesn't cut the mustard (pun intended).

The NT does not contain a solemn communion ceremony, or in fact, any ceremony at all. Communion was a meal, with the whole church participating in fellowship.

The first mention of a meal after Pentecost is

Ac. 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

So the early church was particularly committed to eating together, praying together, fellowshipping together, and they wholeheartedly devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles. The emphasis is on community - being together. They probably communed nearly every day. This is much different than our contemporary practice, and it is our opinion that the church has suffered for not maintaining this practice.

Paul broached the subject of the Lord's Supper for the first time in 1Co. 10:16-17:

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Partaking of a meal together speaks to us being one body. The sharing of bread is symbolic of togetherness, unity, and a singular identity. Eating together means we belong together as the family.

This is a critical understanding, that communion is a representation of the body as one entity. It is with this understanding that we approach the author's quoted passage regarding the practice of communion and what our obligations are:

1Co. 11:20-30 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

Notice that this was a full blown meal, deemed "the Lord's Supper" (the author's quote omits this verse) ".Supper" is deipnon (δεῖπνον, ου, τό) From the same as dapane; dinner, i.e. The chief meal (usually in the evening) -- feast, supper. Clearly they were not just introspectively eating a little cracker and a tasting a bit of grape juice while sitting in a church building. The early church was eating together. It wasn't a sacrament, it was a time of regular fellowship together with a meal.

And we find out that the Corinthian church was in fact despising the Body (Jesus' sacrifice, and by extension, the Church body) by neglecting those who were there, and by getting drunk.

Next we read:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul was directly telling the Corinthian church what the elements mean. His Body, the church, was to remember the great sacrifice Jesus gave at the cross.

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 

"Whenever." Every time we eat together we must proclaim His death. Every time we eat together it is communion. Every time we eat together we must consider His body and blood.

28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Thus this examination is regarding not only His body broken for us, but also His Body the Church as well. And in fact are rejoicing over Christ's victory over death.

If we don't recognize the Body we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves. If we eat and exclude, diminish, or dishonor our brothers and sisters, we tear down the Body. It isn't about considering the state of our own souls in relation to unconfessed sin, it instead is about our regard for the Church and Jesus' sacrifice, as well as our care and honor for the Body!

Communion is the interaction of the body of Christ one with another in honor when it gathers together to eat. To dishonor the body (the church) is to dishonor Christ.

It seems clear that communion is more accurately represented by the church potluck than by the little cracker and splash of grape juice during a solemn church service. Communion speaks of a much higher purpose for the church than is currently practiced, a togetherness and unity of vision and purpose that far exceeds the ritual. 

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

Summary 2020 Presidential Election Fraud - By John C Wright

Found here. Important information.

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

Below is a report on the voter fraud in the 2020 Election campaign which recounts the voting irregularities and illegalities in one tidy summation. I reprint it here because it is being ignored or libeled by the press.

As best I know, no point-by-point rebuttal, answer, or explanation exists for these allegations.

The endnotes are extensive, and I hope were transferred here accurately. If not, please tell me.
Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States

“Out of fraud no action arises.”

Introduction
Georgia
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Michigan

Introduction

It has often been repeated there is “no evidence” of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won.

Ongoing investigations in the Swing States reveal hundreds of thousands of votes were altered and/or not lawfully cast in the Presidential Election. Joe Biden needed them. On Election Night Nov. 3, 2020, President Donald J. Trump was sailing to reelection with landslide leads in numerous battlegrounds.

REVIEW – ALEC RYRIE “UNBELIEVERS: AN EMOTIONAL HISTORY OF DOUBT” - by Tim O'Neill

Found here. An interesting commentary on faith from an atheist.

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

Alec Ryrie, Unbelievers – An Emotional History of Doubt (William Collins, 2019) 262 pp.

We unbelievers are often mentioned in passing in histories of religion, but there are only a few works of history that focus on those of us who reject religion or who never held religious beliefs at all. This one is by a scholar who is a Christian, but one who strives to give a balanced and nuanced view of how various modern Western strains of unbelief arose and where they came from. Unusually, Ryrie focuses on the emotional rather than the rational roots of modern unbelief and the result is an interesting analysis that leads to some surprising people and insightful conclusions.

Bad worship songs: Gratitude - Brandon Lake

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, Gratitude.

Video link.

Why the hell is Trump rising in the polls? (Why American capitalism is so rotten, Part 6) The real choice ahead - by ROBERT REICH

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

Dr. Reich has no idea why Trump is polling better than Biden. He cannot fathom it. Or, he does know but would rather keep to The Narrative, that is, the leftist talking points promulgated throughout the media every day. 

He spouts these leftist talking points with facility. There is almost nothing true in the below article. He makes no argument or refutation. He presumes his world view as he cites evidence that actually is contrary to his position.

Worst of all, he quotes Trump but does not comment, as if what Trump said was somehow offensive or incorrect, even though each of Trump's assertions are perfectly reasonable.

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

We're All Muzzled Oxen Now. On pastoral salaries and the bigger picture - by RHYS LAVERTY

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Almost 3700 words, and only two quoted (and misused) Scriptures. We deleted large irrelevant sections in order to distill the author down to his reasoning regarding pastoral pay.

The big problem, so common in Christianity, is investing the pastor position as being the titular head of the local church, with everyone else under him. This is unbiblical. There is nothing in the Bible that places the pastor in such a position.

It is from this flawed model the author develops his thesis. 

We should say that we are not opposed to those who are in the ministry being paid adequately. Rather, we are opposed to unbiblical church leadership.

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

Why Is the Lord’s Supper a Means of Grace? Jonty Rhodes

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

We previously reviewed other "means of grace" articles ("Why preaching is a means of grace") ("Why is prayer a means of grace?") from the same website. In each case the explanations seem to make things more complicated. 

Such is the case for today's article. Not content to simply teach the Bible, these teachers create categories and doctrines and sub-doctrines, like "means of grace." However, such things are unnecessary and obtuse. Simply, "means of grace" is nothing more than the various ways God does things to our benefit.

Ironically, the author begins his article by complaining about how everyone is talking about being "Gospel-centered" when he thinks it isn't really that complicated. Yet he goes on to complicate things himself by giving an inscrutable title to a simple idea.

It takes the author five paragraphs to actually get to the topic promised in the title. He manages to quote a couple of related Scriptures, but for the most part this article is actually a Scriptureless explanation of his belief about his doctrine. 

His answer to the question is two-fold:

• Communion is an aide to remind us of Jesus' death
• Communion is a spiritual feeding

 These two things are what the author chooses to include, and he supplies a relevant Scripture that identifies each, but he doesn't tell us anything about how these are a "means of grace." He quotes no Scripture in support of how communion is a "means of grace." 

More importantly, there's more to communion as a "means of grace." For example, communion is (or should be) an actual meal, with the community, fellowship, and sharing that implies (1Co. 11:33). Communion shouldn't be a solemn ceremony in a church service; rather, it's a coming together with food in remembrance and celebration.

The author assembles his two items and affixes the label "means of grace." "Means of grace," then, is a obscuring expression that creates an arbitrary category used by certain theologians and teachers to describe concepts and semi-connected ideas derived from Scripture but not expressly stated in Scripture.  

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

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair - updated 3/18/24

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.

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

Hear Ye, Hear Ye. 

This is a milestone. After 9 months of work, working Wednesdays and Saturdays, I am proclaiming the body shell's rust repair to be ended. Finished. All done. Completed. 

It's been an arduous journey.

I entered into this knowing it would involve many difficult deep-dive repairs. But even though I've done much of this sort of work before I was still not prepared for how difficult this car would be. This is a major pitfall of the car hobby: Even knowing it will be hard, it's always harder than you thought.

Given this, I am quite literally surprised that I didn't screw it up to the point of making it junk. Or kill myself. Or even experience a serious injury. I succeeded in every single task. The car came out solid, square, and everything lines up. 

In the very first episode I invoked Jesus' help, and He did.

This first punch list is largely complete:

In episode one I outlined my strategy for working on the car. Stage One was body shell repairs. This is the stage I'm proclaiming as complete. Stage Two is the repair of the bolt-on sheetmetal repairs. Which means I have moved on to stage two.

Actually, I have been doing some Stage Two repairs already, like the passenger and driver door and the trunk lid. In particular, the door repairs were necessary in order to properly fit the quarters and the floor pan.

I've also been doing some Stage Three repairs (bodywork) in many of the episodes, but really just rough-in bodywork. There's a subsequent episode for the finish bodywork.

In this episode I'll be addressing the last of the Stage Two repairs The fender patch panels, fender dents, and the repairs to the inner fenders. 

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