Debunking Myth #9: “Inflation is caused by wage increases and too much government spending.” BUNK! - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In his latest installment in service of The Narrative, Dr. Reich again tortures logic and reason in pursuit of his hatred of successful businesses. He thinks inflation is companies raising their prices. He thinks government is the fix and not the cause.

In fact, he never discusses the premise posed by the title. He just dismisses it and move son to accuse businesses of causing inflation.

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

Jesus drank the waters of fury - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata is back in our blog, and her teaching is no more auspicious than it has been. She represents herself as a Bible teacher, but somehow does not manage to quote a single Scripture. Thus what she writes is simply undocumented opinion.

Today she tackles the cup metaphorical cup from which Jesus drank. She writes, 

...He drank the waters of God's wrath on the cross, absorbing God's fury fully...

Ms. Prata probably derives her belief based on this unquoted Scripture:

Mt. 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Let's be direct. Jesus did not drink God's wrath, because the Father did not punish Him. The Bible simply does not tell us what Ms. Prata thinks it does. Check it yourself, dear reader. 

We discuss this false idea that the Father poured out His wrath on Jesus here. 

It is only because of the belief that the Father punished Jesus for our sin that this verse is interpreted to mean that this was the cup of the Father's wrath. But there are several problems with the assertion:

• As mentioned, The Father did not punish Jesus. We discuss this in detail here.

• The verse does not mention wrath, so it is assumed. In fact, there is no verse in the Bible that indicates that the cup Jesus drank from was God's wrath or that He experienced the Father's wrath.

• The testimony of another Scripture about drinking from the cup. Previously in Matthew we read this:

Mt. 20:21-23 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

If the cup Jesus drank from was God's wrath then these two disciples (James and John) also drank from it. This of course is false.

 

The cup from which Jesus drank was the destiny set before Him, a way of pain, persecution, torture, and death, but ultimately resulting in glory. This destiny was indeed shared by James and John, as well as the other apostles and early believers. 

• The cup of God's wrath was always symbolically drank by God's enemies in judgment against them. For example:

Je. 25:15 This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 When they drink it, they will stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.”

Is. 51:17 Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, you who have drained to its dregs the goblet that makes men stagger.

If we adopt a simpler and dare we say more biblical approach a lot of complicated explanations are no longer needed. The Father did not punish Jesus for our sin. He did not need to punish Him because the blood is sufficient to forgave our sin/ The blood was all that was needed. 

If we truly believe the blood was enough we do not need to add to it the punishment of Jesus or the Father's wrath being poured out on Jesus. Neither of these needed or biblical. 

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

Looking For Truth in All the Wrong Places - by John MacArthur (excerpt)

Excepted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have considered quite a few of Dr. MacArthur's teachings in our blog and have found them to be less than satisfying. 

He spends a lot of time in this article trumpeting the importance of Scripture, more than 1600 words. Yet he can be troubled to quote only a summary of one Scripture and a snippet of another. 

It seems he really doesn't want to teach the Bible, he wants to talk about present-day believers with whom he disagrees. Any thoughtful Bible student would not be interested in what contemporary Christians do or don't do, he would want the biblical case. 

Dr. MacArthur doesn't really bother.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Does Hebrews 1:2-4 teach the cessation of revelation?

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.

Why Social Security can't be Privatized- By Scott Baker

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author must have intended to write a different article. He never answers the Quora question, preferring instead to extoll the virtues of SS.

But most troubling is the idea that government should not have any restraints on spending. The author thinks that revenue is irrelevant and therefore spending is irrelevant. 

Astounding.

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

The Grand Old Party of Liars - by JOHN NICHOLS

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wrote his article on July 3rd, before the assassination attempt on Trump and before Biden was forced to pull out of the race. We wonder if the author would want to take it back in view of the fact that Biden' decision was based on blowback from his poor debate performance. 

We say this because it is necessary to realize that everyone around President Biden knew he was cognitively impaired but covered for him. To put it plainly, they lied. Repeatedly. Extensively. For their own gain. For years.

Further, this article suffers from a fundamental problem: The author never quotes a single lie. How odd.

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

What does it mean to put on Christ in Romans 13:14? - gotquestions

Found here. A very good explanation from a site we often criticize.

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

What does it mean to put on Christ in Romans 13:14?

ANSWER

In a very real sense, the Christian life is a “put on.” In Romans 13:14, the apostle Paul instructs believers to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (ESV). The phrase put on Christ means to figuratively clothe oneself with the Lord Jesus Christ to reveal the glory of God to the world.

Rich's proverbs, book two (updated 7/29/24)

Book nine here.

Book eight here.

Book seven here.

Book six here.

Book five here.

Book four here.

Book three here.

Book two here.

Book one here.

As mentioned in book one, I decided to go to my church every morning at 6 am to pray for an hour. This is a continuation of my practice to take notes on what I prayed.

I'll be adding to this post periodically.

Chapter One

1) I pray for increasing spiritual depth in my church's people. Take us from the shallow routine and ritual into the deep waters of the Holy Spirit.

Stop Calling the Church a ‘Family’ - by T. M. Suffield

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Strangely, the author will not tell us why we shouldn't call the church a family. He thinks the Bible doesn't tell us this, but doesn't say where in the Bible we find this. He thinks the term could be misunderstood, but doesn't cite anyone who misunderstands. He is certain that the term incorrectly conjures images of a typical American household, but doesn't say what the correct view is. Lastly, he believes the term creates false expectations.

 

At the end he sort of concedes, but simply tells us we have to do better at it.

Worst of all, he is only able to quote four words of the Bible and provide 2 Scripture references, none of which demonstrate his thesis. 

Before we go, we should explain what the author didn't seem to want to explain. Here's what the Bible says about the idea of family. First, being a child of God:

Ep. 5:1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children

Ph. 2:14-15 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe

1Jn. 3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!

"Child" is teknon  properly, a child; (figuratively) anyone living in full dependence on the heavenly Father, i.e. fully (willingly) relying upon the Lord in glad submission. This prompts God to transform them into His likeness.

If there are children, there is family.

Mt. 6:26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

"Father" is patér father, (Heavenly) Father, ancestor, elder, senior.

If there's a father, there is family.

He. 2:11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.

"Brothers" is adelphos a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

If there are brothers, there is family.

Ro. 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea.

If there are sisters, there is family. 

1Ti. 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

"Household" is oikos (a) a house, the material building, (b) a household, family, lineage, nation.

If there is a household, there is family.

Now let's put it all together:

1Ti. 5:1 Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

The church is to regard other Christians as mothers, father, sisters, brothers, and children. Definitionally, this is a family.

Don’t Believe Trump When He Claims He’s Not Racist - by CLARENCE LUSANE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The actual title of this article should be, "Don't believe anyone who claims they are not racist." The Left purposely creates a sisyphean no-win situation when they accuse someone of racism. Any denial of the charge is proof of racism. Every person is by default a racist. 

Thus the Left sets the terms, they are the police, judge, jury, and prosecutor. The verdict is always guilty. 

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

Debunking Myth #7: America is socialist - BUNK! - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich doesn't explain what Socialism is, but yet he is able to make mention of many government programs that are Socialist in nature. But the purpose of the article is to claim that America is not Socialist.

Dr. Reich seems unable to put together a procession of ideas. In fact, he explains absolutely nothing.

This article is a logical nightmare. 

Dumb anti-Christian memes - "I’ve checked everywhere and I cannot find the following anywhere in the Bible..."

Posted by a Faceborg friend. Our comments in bold.

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

Whenever leftists start talking Christianity one can be sure they won't get anything right. Their Bible incompetence is exceeded only by their arrogance. 

Here we have a meme that dumps in just about every false assumption, stereotype, and mischaracterization of Christians. Not a single thing here is an accurate or even reasonable characterization of any Christian anywhere.

And although the meme is supposedly going to set us straight on what the Bible says, there isn't a single Bible verse, Bible reference, or even a biblical concept in the entire meme.

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

The gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author has what he thinks is insight regarding a familiar passage. It takes him awhile to get to that discussion, with a few odd theological pitstops on the way.

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

Regeneration: The Most Significant Beginning - by R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In this article Dr. Sproul repeatedly makes a distinction between the moment of salvation versus the process of sanctification over the course of one's life. He hammers the point over and over.

It seems obvious to us that there is a difference between and event and what happens afterwards. Perhaps there are Christians who believe that getting saved is all that is necessary, and the life they lead after is irrelevant. Ironically, this would actually be the logical extension of Calvinism, which was Dr. Sproul's doctrinal perspective. Calvinism teaches that God chooses those who will be saved. 

If God chooses the Elect, then there is nothing the Elect can do to circumvent this. Thus their life choices are completely irrelevant. There is no logical reason to pursue holiness if God has chosen the Elect and they cannot lose their salvation.

And something that continually irritates us is the term "regeneration." Are the biblical expressions "new birth," "born again," or "new creation" somehow inferior compared to "regeneration?" 

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

Not Sparing His Own Son - by John MacArthur

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

This article is not really about God not sparing His Son, it's about Calvinistic predestination. Dr. MacArthur does spend a little time on the topic contained in his title, but he really wants to discuss his Calvinism.

We are disappointed in Dr. MacArthur's rhetorical manipulation. He makes a series of true statements but follows each with a non sequitur conclusion. This is either dishonest or ignorant.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Debunking myth #5: “The market doesn’t play favorites.” BUNK! - ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich again provides service to The Agenda. He reinforces the talking points of The Narrative, which is the leftist version of reality. And as usual, his presentation is crippled by undocumented assertions and false talking points.

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

Is “Talking to Jesus” by Maverick City Music and Elevation Worship Biblically Sound? - by Publisher

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

The unnamed author, "Publisher," has an opinion about a Christian song. But he cannot do us the courtesy of quoting anything other than snippets of the lyrics, nor does he type a single word from the Bible. How can someone evaluate the biblical soundness of something without a single Bible quote?

There are so many other rich targets out there, yet "Publisher" chooses this particular song. There must be some unstated offense "Publisher" has because the lyrics contain no doctrinal errors. We suspect he chose to evaluate it because it comes from the hated Elevation Worship and Maverick City Music. Thus "Publisher" is looking under every rock and poking in every cranny to find something, anything, that he can use as ammo against the song.

In fact, the song is an innocuous story-telling song with a clearly stated agenda: The songwriter wants to encourage us to start praying. Now, we should say that we're not here to defend the song, per se. It's pretty unremarkable. Rather, we intend to evaluate "Publisher's" presentation.

Here's the lyrics:

Bad worship songs - Free! by David Ryan Cook

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 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 the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not 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 this song, Free.

Audio link.

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