The Problem with Comer’s Cafeteria Approach to Spirituality - by Matthew Bingham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author as a Reformed/Calvinist makes his tradition the benchmark for evaluating John Mark Comer's book. However, Comer pulls from various traditions in formulating a different understanding of how to walk out the successful Christian life. This offends the author, primarily because Comer is violating the boundaries of denominations and theological schools of thought. 

Comer may be sensible and might have some good ideas, or maybe, he's off course and teaching falsehood. If the author believes the latter, he does not make a clear case. 

But either way, we certainly understand Comer's motivations. The Christian church, particularly in the Western world, is lukewarm, compromising, and increasingly irrelevant. To a substantial degree, it has lost its way. Therefore, though his approach may possibly be wrong, at least Comer knows there's a problem and wants to do something about it.

But the author wants to preserve his tradition in the face of supposed threats to it. Comer wants something else because he believes that traditional ideas aren't working. The author will try to make his case for possible heresy, but based on this article, we simply don't see it.

We should note, we are not here to defend Comer or his book. In fact, we don't really care for his ideas on Spiritual Formation. We are interested only in the author's presentation.

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

Christians Must Not Share the Stage with False Teachers - by Dave Jenkins

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

It's not that we disagree with the author. It's possible that sharing the stage with a false teacher gives the false teacher credibility. It's also possible that a pastor who does so might end up compromised himself. 

But the author's treatment of the topic is superficial. We have these issues:

• What, precisely, is a false teacher? Is it someone who simply has a different opinion about certain doctrines? The Bible tells us a false teacher is an egregious, public sinner, adulterous and manipulative (2 Peter 2:1-22). We should therefore be careful to accuse someone of being a false teacher.

• Related to that is the idea that perfect, pure doctrine is a marker of a true church or a genuine Christian. But this is not God's standard, it's man's. 

• How might a pastor "share a stage" with a false teacher? Does it mean inviting a false teacher as a guest preacher? Does it mean attending a non-profit fundraiser where other pastors might be in attendance? Does it mean standing up on stage at the same time and being asked to affirm a false teacher? 

• Really, a typical local church is in little danger of doing this. Most local churches keep to themselves, even to the degree that it violates the call to Christian unity. A lot of pastors are territorial. They don't want other churches "stealing" their sheep. They are so concerned about differing opinions and different practices that they isolate themselves out of fear.

• Lastly, one might wonder how a church's pastor, solid in doctrine and mature in faith, leading a discerning, stable church, could end up enticed and compromised by a false teacher and wander off into error. We just don't believe this is very common. We do know that pastors fall with alarming frequency, but these are mostly moral failures where the pastor was unaccountable to anyone. Doctrinal compromise in this scenario is not terribly common.

We should also take note of the author's Scriptural documentation. Very little of it has to do with sharing the stage with false teachers. 

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

Don’t Take the Supper at Youth Camp or Get Baptized in the Jordan - by Ben Robin

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

The author isn't here to explain the Bible, he's here to explain his tradition and church practice. He quotes some Bible verses and essentially inserts them into his pre-arranged doctrines. What comes out of that unfortunate combination bears no resemblance to what the Bible teaches.

Baptism is not a church ceremony, it is a statement by the one being baptized regarding his faith and commitment to Christ. It belongs to him, not the church. Anytime believers get together it is a manifestation of the church, and baptisms can occur.

Communion is not a church ceremony either. It's a community meal and fellowship time where the Blood and the Body is honored. Anytime believers get together to do this it is a manifestation of the church. Communion belongs to the those who gather, not the church.

In the end, we are not interested in the author's traditions. We are happy for him if he finds meaning in them. But we will not tolerate him misrepresenting the Scriptures.

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

A Brief Theology of Preaching - by W. Tyler Sykora

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

The author makes a good effort to explain his topic, and does get some of it correct. However, his church tradition gets in the way. As a result he interprets Scripture through his Reformed/Calvinist viewpoint, and misses some obvious things.

Thankfully, he does quote a couple of relevant Scriptures, but supplies no Scriptural documentations for his primary thesis. This is unfortunate.

We're going to cut him some slack, however, because he's pointed in the right direction. We are hopeful he will be able at some point to examine the topic free from doctrinal preconceptions.

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

They’re calling it a “Hate America” Rally - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich perfectly parrots the Leftist talking points that are disseminated all over the media landscape. Those talking points inevitably accuse the Right of what the Left has been doing for decades. We will note such occurrences with "Irony Alert."

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

Double predestination - by R.C. Sproul

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

Almost 3600 words. Only 2300 of them are actually Dr. Sproul's and not the quotes of others. He uses the word "Bible" and "biblical" a total of four times (not including quoted material). The word "scripture" is used once. 

But there is only a single Bible verse quoted: "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." That's it, just ten words out of 3600. Truly astonishing that a supposed Bible teacher can write so many words explaining a supposed Bible doctrine without using the Bible.

This is Bad Bible Teaching. There is no other way to describe it. 

The entire article is obtuse and impenetrable, filled with theological jargon and unexplained premises. One must wade through hundreds of words that seem to be written in English to finally arrive at an explanation of the topic of the article:

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.

We will try to untangle this further as we go, but the basic thrust of this article is to attempt to explain the method by which God chooses the "Elect" (those He predestined to be saved) while not actively choosing the lost for hell. He will do his level best to keep God from being to blame for the sin. 

This is the doctrine Dr. Sproul will try to explain. Where in the Bible do we find this? Unknown, since he never tells us.

Our opinion is that the predestination verses are descriptive of the first century and not us. Let's look at Ephesians chapter one. Here we see Paul making the claim about being predestined: 

Ep. 1:4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will —

Carefully note the use of pronouns. God chose "us," "we" were predestined. "We." "Us." Who is "we?"

Ep. 1:11-12 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, Ep. 1:12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

Oh. The ones who were predestined are those who were the first to hope in Christ. The first to hope in Christ were the earliest Jewish believers and a little later, the earliest gentile believers [Ac. 13:48]. That's not us.

So if only the earliest Christians were predestined, then what about us? Let's continue:

Ep. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...

Notice the switch in the pronouns? No longer "we" and "us." It's turned to "you." 

Paul began talking about how "we" (those who were first to hope in Christ, vs. 12) were predestined, but then in verse 13 he turned to his audience and told them "you also" were included, and that happened when "you" heard the word of truth.

Another example is Romans chapter 8:

Ro. 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 A careful Bible student would ask, "who did God foreknow?" Well, we can determine this from the context, which we find a few verses earlier in the same chapter:

Ro. 8:23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Notice how profoundly self-referential this is. Paul was referring to a very specific group of people. It should be clear that Paul's statement applies very narrowly. We think the Roman church would have understood that Paul was not referring to every Christian. We should also understand this and not be quick to insert ourselves into the narrative.

Paul makes a careful distinction in referring to the "firstfruits of the Spirit." The "firstfruits" are the very first of the crop. We should understand that not every Christian received the very first part of the Holy Spirit and we cannot be pert of those whom Paul was talking about - - Paul says this happened to "we ourselves." "We ourselves." They received "the firstfruits of the Spirit." 

Contemporary Christians have not received the firstfruits of the Spirit. Indeed, we are 2000 years removed from this. We believe the firstfruits of the Spirit was the initial Pentecostal outpouring. We were not there to receive this. No, we have received the continued outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which has be going on throughout the Last Days pouring out.

The Elect, therefore, are the very first believers (i.e., the firstfuits). The rest of us are the same as those in the Ephesian church. All of the Elect lived and died 2000 years ago. Which makes Dr. Sproul's explanation entirely moot. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is completely false.

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

Clarence Thomas Admits That He’s Coming for Our Rights - by Elie Mystal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article is rich in irony. So rich in fact that it is nearly overwhelming, both in its stark obviousness and also in Mr. Mystal's deliberate blindness to it. To spout off like he does about precedent, legal tradition, and of course, stare decisis, yet be completely unaware that his fellow Leftist ideologues on the Supreme court have for decades been doing exactly what he decries in Justice Thomas is astoundingly naïve. Or, devious.

The thing is, Justice Thomas as a strict constructionist isn't coming for anyone's rights. The whole idea is preposterous that a man whose highest objective is the return of the federal government back to its constitutional restrictions and divest it of its unconstitutionally gained powers would be after anyone's rights. Such an objective would necessarily increase individual liberties, not steal rights.

Further, it should be clear to constitutional "scholars" like Mr. Mystal that courts do not create rights, they create privileges. Privileges are subject to the whims of judges, culture, and politicians. Rights are given by by God and are unalienable. 

We have commented on Mr. Mystal's screeds before (here, here, here, and here.), and found him to be nothing more than a relay for The Narrative. The Narrative is the daily talking points and bumper sticker slogans disseminated by Central Command. Media figures and pundits like Mr. Mystal simply regurgitate this agitprop over and over until they actually believe it themselves.

So Mr. Mystal is not here to explain anything. He does not intend to defend constitutional principles. The truth is not his objective. Mr. Mystal is writing solely to serve The Narrative. 

We advise the reader to accept nothing he writes on face value.

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

What Is Limited Atonement? - R.C. Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a completely useless explanation of a completely useless doctrine. It is typical of what one gets when Calvinists try to explain the Bible. They never want to actually explain the Bible, they want to explain Calvinism. Over and over again. 

Limited Atonement, the third petal of TULIP, is a belief about process, not result. The result of Jesus' sacrificial death is salvation, which is the thing of importance, but Calvinism wants to debate about how those who are saved came to be saved, as if the doctrine would change the outcome. 

Therefore, Limited Atonement, like all of Calvinism, is a debate about irrelevant details. None of it matters.

Even though Dr. Sproul finally manages to quote (actually, misquote) a couple of Scriptures in the last paragraph, we must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

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

Who would Jesus slaughter? - By Rick Staggenborg, MD

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a medical doctor writing this. Yes, an educated man. He's supposed to be smart. 

But smart people do not comment on things they know nothing about, like the Bible. This man is happy to expound at length regarding a book he admits he's never read, for the sole purpose of impugning Christians for supposed hypocrisy. 

In truth, the issue the author brings is actually an excuse for pushing The Narrative. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points issued by Central Command and disseminated across the media landscape. They quickly become common knowledge, assumed but never demonstrated to be true.

In short order those who have another perspective are systematically mocked, denigrated, and attacked. 

This is what the author intends to do with his article.

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

HAVE WE SOLD THE CHURCH SHORT ON DEACONS? - by Stephen Watkinson

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

The author makes a vital point, that the congregation ought to share in the responsibilities attendant in operating the local church. That's why it's called the Body (1Co. 12:12). But the problem is, the author as a pastor is at the top of the leadership pyramid in his church, as is most every other pastor. 

However, there is nothing in the Bible about pastors occupying such a position. The church is to be led by a team of mature men: 

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...

A whole host of problems descend from the author's leadership model, one of which is the subject of this article. Even so, this is generally a good article about deacons.

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

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Life and Godliness - by Dave Jenkins

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

The author completely botches his topic. His entire premise, that the Bible is all we need and there is nothing else, is derived from a false understanding of 2 Peter 1:3, a verse that is not even talking about Scripture! 

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence.”

The author even quotes it. Yet he misses the fact that "His divine power" is what gives us everything we need. 

This is a serious error. It negates everything else he writes, and this means we must deem this article Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss "sufficiency" here.

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

Letter to the editor: Congress must address climate change, for our children Angie Winter

Found here. Our comments in bold

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

The letter writer is a supporter of the Citizens' Climate Lobby. This noble-sounding organization is a leftist advocacy group pushing for more taxes. They want to convince you into consenting to taxing yourselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend would supposedly mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice in step one they want a carbon "fee" [tax] which would be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy." The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. The only point where carbon enters the economy is when oil, gas and coal producing companies sell their products. Therefore, the intent of the Citizens' Climate Lobby is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies with an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point: "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Let's try to get an idea what this tax would mean to the oil industry. The government says that burning a gallon of gasoline creates about 20 pounds of CO2, and in the U.S. we used 134,506,764,000 gallons in 2013. That generates 690,135,280,000 pounds of CO2, or 345,067,640 tons. Just from gasoline. So the amount of the tax, just for the first year level, is $5.2 billion. 

The energy business intends to operate a profit, so this additional cost of doing business will be incorporated into the price of energy. This tax will be passed down in the cost of their product, which all downstream businesses will pay, and they will do the same with the price of their products. This will trickle down through the economy until it gets to the end user. You. 

You and I will pay this tax. All of it.

According to the International Business Times, U.S. oil company profits were $33.4 billion, only a part of which is gasoline, of course. "Refineries in the United States produced an average of about 12 gallons of diesel fuel and 19 gallons of gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil in 2013." So this means that gasoline is about 45% of a typical barrel of oil. So roughly, $15.3 billion of that profit is from gasoline.

Now, let's do the numbers. We bring in the $5.2 billion tax and add it atop $15.3 billion in revenue. This tax, at least for the first year only, will add 1/3 to the price of a gallon of gas, minimum. My 2008 Toyota RAV4 uses about 30 gallons of gas per month, or 360 per year. With the carbon tax added in, this vehicle will cost an additional $400 to drive, and again, this is just for the first year. 

Then add a second vehicle, as well as the same tax applied to your home's natural gas, each business's heating bill, necessary wage increases, the cost of manufacturing and transporting goods, and you might as well add 50% to the cost of living. Just for the first year.

Then, tax will increase by $10 per ton each year. At the end of year three, the tax will have tripled. 

Citizens' Climate Lobby tells us that carbon tax revenue would be rebated to the consumer. This is step two, above. As one reads further, we discover each household would receive a dividend from a government "trust fund," which contains the accumulated revenue of the carbon tax. Disbursements from this fund would supposedly cover the increased cost of energy resulting from the tax. 

Step three appears to be price and competition controls.

This continues for the few years until the cost of the tax and the rebate amount are absolutely huge. And yet no one in this circle of death seems to have any incentive to lower carbon emissions. The consumer getting reimbursed, and the producer is charging what he needs to.

In effect, what we now have is a perpetual motion machine. The government taxes energy, energy gets more expensive, the tax money is given to the consumer to pay to the energy company for covering the extra expense, the energy company gets a tax increase the next year of an additional 67%, (existing tax of $15 per ton plus another $10 per ton) which they also pass on in their prices. Even more tax money gets paid out of the trust fund to the consumer.

Hmm.

Now, imagine this plan being implemented. Your income no longer covers the cost of your expenses, because you are hanging on for dear life waiting for the arrival of the rebate check at the end of the year. Surprise, the check is less than you thought. But the next tax increase has already kicked in, and your income hasn't increased that much. Now you're in an even bigger hole than before, again waiting for the next rebate check. 

By year five, you can't buy gas any more, your gas powered vehicle is obsolete and valueless, you can't afford to buy an electric vehicle, which would make no sense anyway since electricity is largely produced by carbon fuels. You can't afford to heat your house or even buy groceries, because everything has tripled in price. The rebate didn't calculate its overall effect on the economy because the government never gets stuff like this correct.

Businesses don't get a rebate, even though energy costs have been passed on to them as well. Some businesses might try to pass on the expense in the price of their products, but this makes them hugely more expensive and people just won't be buying them because their disposable income is being used just to stay afloat. Each year gets worse until the economy shuts down.

This is what Citizens' climate lobby calls a free market solution.

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

Bad worship songs: Send the fire - Fieldes, Ellmore, Hughes (Jesus Culture)

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, Send the Fire.

Video link.

Who is judged at the Great White Throne? - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This confused and disjointed presentation gets almost everything wrong. This is the inevitable result of preconceived notions determining one's doctrines. The author is a Calvinist, and his Calvinism is the lens through which he reads the Bible. 

We find the doctrines of Calvin to be extraordinarily distasteful and have written about them extensively.

The author does quote some Scripture, happily. But he also combines bits of Scripture from various places and creates a Frankenstein monster out of the combination.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Are You Righteous? - by Jacob Crouch

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

For some reason the author thinks that our sinful polluted state persists after salvation. He thinks that the Christian gets a mask of sorts to wear, and God pretends we are righteousness because we still stay stained and polluted by sin. This sort of attitude is a mystery, because the Bible tells us we died and were raised with Christ. When Christ saves us we are made new and the old has passed away (2Co. 5:17). We were washed (1Co. 6:11). We've been cleansed by the blood (He. 9:22).

This is our status now. Thus the author's mini-quiz is based on a false premise. So the correct answer is, yes, I'm righteous. 

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

Does Calvinism Make God the Author of Evil? - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This article was recommended by the author in another of his articles, which we critiqued here.

Where do we start? If the reader came here to discover why Calvin was correct in his teaching, you will not find it. If you were interested in a biblical commentary on Calvinistic doctrine, you're in the wrong place. If you wanted a biblical explanation of the topic promised in the title, it isn't here.

The author is actually writing to explain Calvinism, not the Bible. He wants to defend it against Arminian "zealots." Just so the reader knows, the author wants theology to be divided into two camps, the correct Calvinism, and the incorrect Arminianism. 

Calvinists believe that God created and pre-ordained everything except sin and evil. Arminians point out that if God created and pre-ordained everything, then He must have created sin and evil as well. 

We would like to meet some of these Arminians and find out what they actually believe, because the author certainly doesn't explain. But what you will find is the same assertions and denials repeated over and over, followed by some Calvin quotes, then some ridicule of Arminians for the conclusions they draw about Calvinism. 

There are no relevant Bible quotes in this article. In fact, the Bible is actually irrelevant to the author's discussion. We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

************

Toxic radio keeps fouling Bozeman's airwaves - by Stephen Maly, Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is troubled that conservatives have started responding to leftist vitriol with thir own milder an more polite version. But rather than telling his fellow leftists to tone down their toxic rhetoric, he wants his side to have a platform to amplify the message.

Ultimately, this article is nothing more than pointless adolescent whining. So rather than analyze this shallow and unsubstantial rant, we will paraphrase the author using " ".

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

Perspectives on predestination - by Barry Hofstetter

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This preacher wants to discuss the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. At almost 2900 words one would think he has ample opportunity to thoroughly explain it, from the Bible. But only one Scripture is quoted or even mentioned.

He will wander through various points, not documenting any of them, and ultimately conclude that predestination is a great comfort and blessing because we know we are secure. But how does he know he is among those God has predestined? Well, he doesn't. 

We wonder why this preacher even bothered. He doesn't tell us anything other than an opinion. He speculates, dodges, and then tells us to trust God even though the Bible really doesn't give a satisfactory explanation. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why are we so polarized? Why is democracy is such peril? - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich once again provides his contribution to The Narrative. The Narrative is the daily marching orders from Central command, the Leftist talking points and bumper sticker slogans promulgated all over the media landscape. The Narrative isn't about the truth, racism, sexism, fairness, free speech, or democracy. It's designed for one thing: To advance the Agenda. Its sole purpose is further the Leftist goal of replacing The System. That's The Agenda, to dismantle society and remake it into their vision. 

So Dr. Reich issues the typical boilerplate complaints about eeevil corporations and eeevil capitalism, while bemoaning the loss of democracy. Whose fault is it that society is polarized? Eeevil corporations. Why is democracy suffering? Eeevil capitalism. Why are people polarized? Eeeevil oligarchs and authoritarians, of course. 

If all this seems like a non sequitur, it is. If you notice that Dr. Reich is a one-note samba, kudos. If you think that people like Dr. Reich completely overlook their own role in polarization, go to the head of the class. You know what we mean: Nazi, fascist, hater, misogynist, science denier, homophobe, racist... the list goes on and on, repeated ad nauseum. Leftists never miss an opportunity to denigrate, deplatform, demonetize, and destroy the livelihood and reputation of someone who doesn't toe the Leftist line. It's a way of life for them.

Apparently Dr. Reich is unaware of the vitriol the spews from the mouths of leftists. But more likely, he knows about it, embraces it, and recognizes its utility to neuter his political opponents and advance The Agenda. 

Which means he doesn't care about polarization except to the extent it is useful. In fact, he wants more of it. The Left wants to foment discontent among the Proletariat in order to overthrow the Bourgeois. This is the long-standing goal of the Socialist Left. 

And Dr. Reich is one of them.

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

State of theology survey - by Ligonier.org

State of theology survey. Our comments in bold.

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

Ligonier is a Calvinistic website, and their survey unfortunately reflects this bias. Although most questions are about generic theology, some of them are actually testing peoples' attitudes about Calvinism.

We are a little surprised that these largely unimportant doctrines would be a matter worthy of including in a theology survey.

In our blog we have discussed Calvinism at length.

Here are  those questions.

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

The True Gift of Discernment Humbly Displays the Fruit of the Spirit - by Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a pretty good article regarding an issue dear to our heart. 

Like the author, we have frequently found that those who have (or claim to have) the gift of discernment are a little too arrogant and prideful for our taste. In this blog we have deemed such people to be the Doctrinal Police. In addition, those who go further to attack or demean their theological opponents, displaying little or no fruit of the Spirit, are labeled with an additional tag  Scorched Earth Discernment.

However, our praise for the author comes with one caveat. The author, likely because he's a cessationist, quotes the major discernment verse, “the ability to distinguish between spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10) but he defines it incorrectly. His definition is "distinguishing between what’s good and evil" which he says "comes from careful study of the Word and consultation with wise brothers and sisters in Christ." This definition of discernment, "distinguishing between what’s good and evil," is actually lifted from a different Bible verse, Hebrews 5:14:

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Hebrews 5:14 is is also a discernment verse, but 1 Corinthians 12:10 and Hebrews 5:14 are really discussing different things. They both contain the same Greek word for "discernment." That word is diakrisis, which means a thorough judgment, i.e. a discernment (conclusion) which distinguishes "look-alikes," i.e. things that appear to be the same. 

Though the same word is being used the contexts are different.

The writer of Hebrews was explaining the need for gaining a growing understanding of righteousness and the elementary truths of the Gospel so as to avoid being taken in by false doctrine and false teachers. That is the point of this verse.

However, Paul was describing the spiritual gift. Discernment, like all spiritual gifts, is a supernatural empowerment, an ability given by the Holy Spirit. It comes as a gift, not by constant training. It is supernatural insight into the spiritual realm for the purpose of determining what spirit is involved in a situation. 

We also find this idea, the discerning of the spiritual realm, presented by the Apostle John: 

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

It is interesting that John's exhortation overlaps with both Hebrews 5:14 and 1 Corinthians 12:10 in the sense that a "false prophet" can be actually discerned both intellectually (the false prophet speaks falsely) as well as spiritually (the false prophet carries a false spirit). 

We realize this is an overly detailed explanation, but our point is the supernatural element of discernment must not be overlooked.

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

Does God Change His Mind? - by James Dolezal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an interesting topic, because there is what appears to be a conflict of information. The Bible presents two ideas that seem to contradict. As an eternal, perfect, all-powerful and all-knowing being, how can it be possible that God would change His mind? Yet as the author admits, there are Scriptures that suggest that God does indeed change his mind.

The author will focus on certain attributes of God, but without explanation will tell us these attributes exclude the possibility of Him changing His mind. Thus His immutability, His predetermined plan, His omniscience, and His perfection require that He doesn't change His mind. But these statements beg the question, why do these attributes exclude this?

And, the author wants God's divine characteristics to be pre-eminent over God Himself as if He were at the mercy of them. He tells us God is immutable, for example, which means He is unable to take another course if He chooses. Because immutability. 

Further, we should mention that the idea of God not changing His mind is built upon two statements in two verses, (1 Sam. 15:29 and Num. 23:19.) The first is about the judgment of King Saul, and the second is Balaam's statement to Balak about Balak's desire to curse Israel. We might suggest that these situations were possibly more geared toward the finality and certainty of God's purpose in these contexts rather than being an all-encompassing truth statement.

Another thing to consider is because God's nature is not like a man, His mind is also not like a man's, so that the way He thinks about things is not like a man. Thus, He does not act in the manner of man, He "...does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, [He's nothing like a man] that he should change his mind [like a man would].”

We should resist the notion that our understanding of how the mind of man works is the same as how the mind of God would work.

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

The failure of emotional religion - by Norman H. Street

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an astounding 4200 words, where the author wanders off on tangents, goes on extended expositions of unrelated topics, repeats himself over and over, and quotes Bible verses about things not under discussion (and often, leaves them uncited so that we don't even know where to find them).

There were times we had no idea what he was talking about, and other times we wondered why he was discussing a verse or idea at all. 

Yet he somehow managed to tie everything he discussed, no matter how far afield, back into emotion being a grave problem. 

But. Emotion isn't the problem. He writes: 

"So, while I am for emotion, I am against emotionalism."

Yet he uses the word "emotion" and "emotional" 30 times, and "emotionalism" but once.

Wow.

This is a complete nightmare. We must deem it Bad Bible Teaching.

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

DOES GOD SPEAK TODAY APART FROM THE BIBLE? - by R. Fowler White

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author manages to quote four Scriptures in 4400 words, but none of those Scriptures come to bear on the topic presented in the title. Yet he insists his interlocuters demonstrate their doctrines from the Bible, but he himself does not do this.

The author is a cessationist, which means he believes the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit ceased after the death of the last apostle and the completion of the Canon of Scripture. He does not discuss this at all. Instead he challenges two ideas:

• contemporary prophecy is imperfect 
• weighing prophecy is discerning the elements of a prophecy

He thinks that all prophecy must be perfect, but does not discuss what happens if perfect prophecy is actually delivered. He also does not contemplate the idea that a prophet who passes the test of being weighed is actually a prophet.

He will then close with some assertions about the sufficiency of Scripture and how the closed canon excludes contemporary prophecy, but doesn't really tell us why.

This is a long and confusing article. We must consider it Bad Bible Teaching.

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

5 Things You Should Know About Justification - by William C. Godfrey

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

One might think that if an author is going to explain what we should know about a thing, that thing should first be defined. Tell us what the word means. But the author waits for 683 words out of 950 to actually define justification.

He does provide us with a correct definition, thankfully. He writes: "Justification is God’s once for all declaration that we are righteous in His sight." The Greek word is dikaioó, to show to be righteous, declare righteous. So he's quite correct.

But even though he does eventually define the word he makes several missteps along the way, which ultimately negates his definition. These missteps come from a Reformed/Calvinistic viewpoint, which regards the interaction between the sinner and the savior as a legal transaction, or as some sort of exchange. But in fact, it is a sacrificial transaction, not a legal one. 

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

If God is Good, Omnipotent, and Sovereign, Where Does Evil Come From? - by Phil Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

If you came here to discover the author's biblical explanation of where evil comes from, you will be disappointed. The author never tells us. We can't imagine a poorer explanation of the topic. 

The author is here to defend his Calvinism. He assumes his premise, restates it, proves points not under discussion, and in the end simply offers repeated bare denials.

This is Bad Bible Teaching. There's no other way to explain it. 

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

Two tiers of inspiration? - The (In)Scrutable Observer (Dave Ulrick)

Excepted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author seems to be convinced he is successfully refuting contemporary prophecy, but he doesn't even get out of the gate. We are actually quite surprised and the superficial work done here.

Plus, he doesn't quote a single Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Audacious Prayer - Bryan Elliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a really excellent explanation of how we should pray. "Audacious" is the author's inference from the below quoted verse regarding persistence (Greek, anaideia, shamelessness). It is an apt word.

We have two issues, however. The first is when the author writes, "Godly audacity is asking even though we do not deserve it..." But there is nothing, anywhere in the Bible that tells us that we don't deserve what we ask for. Nor does the Bible tell us we do deserve it.

Deservedness/undeservedness in not a concept attached to our relationship with God. 

Second, the author concludes, "We must pray with boldness and daring..." Yes, quite correct. But though the author quoted the whole passage he missed a crucially important point. What are we to be asking for? What does Luke tell us is the objective for knocking, seeking, and asking? Jesus told us:   

"...how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

Our audacious persistence is for more of the Holy Spirit.

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

License to Not Sin - by Stan Gale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We might tend to agree with the author regarding many of the assertions he makes, but he doesn't tell us where they are in the Bible. Though he does quote the Bible at points, there are many other times we are left to our own devices as he jumps around the NT without telling us where he is.

But we also emphatically disagree with him when he misrepresents the sacrificial death of Jesus. For some reason Reformists/Calvinists are enamored with the idea that Jesus was punished by the Father. It's a macabre and false belief, which we will explain below.

Also, the author uses the word "license" in this article, but the meaning is never explained. It's not a commonly used word in the sense that the author uses it. The closest we could come is the freedom to break rules or principles. But we think he's tending toward the idea of an assumed permission to act because of certain freedoms.

Lastly, it seems the author is taking his audience for granted, that they possess prior knowledge of the background information upon which this article is based. Thus his explanation presumes certain assumptions not everyone might be privy to.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Bad worship songs: This is a house of prayer - by Mitch Wong

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, This is a House of Prayer.

Video here.

The New Birth and Conversion—What Comes First? - by Conrad Mbewe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is going to discuss a portion of the Reformed/Calvinist Ordo Salutis [order of salvation], which asserts that one must be born again before one can be saved. We covered this recently, but because of some unique claims we shall dive in again. 

So that the reader understands, the Ordo places "regeneration" before faith [conversion]: 

But there is no Scripture that tells us this, despite the author's various appeals to the Bible. In fact, when read in context, his proof texts demonstrate the exact opposite.

A quick survey of the Bible yielded a number of Scriptures that seem to presume salvation without the supposed prerequisite regeneration:

Ro. 6:7 ...because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

We see here that the unregenerate man is put to death in the new birth, which means he is forgiven (freed from sin). He does not experience rebirth in order to be saved.

1Jn. 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here we discover that eternal life is equated with salvation. It is clear the new birth is the beginning of eternal life, which of course must presume a concurrent salvation. That is, saved is born again, and born again is saved. They are the same thing.

But more to the point, what difference does it make? If we are born again then saved, or saved then born again, what does it matter? Why is it important? 

---------------------- 

Paul Washer meme: The lamb who must die under the wrath of God

 We found this meme on Faceborg:

Transcript:

Paul Washer

Jehovah Jireh? It's not talking about providing a car. It's talking about providing a lamb. Lord will provide a lamb who must die under the wrath of God.

Repent, believe in Christ as the Savior of sinners. He is the mediatorial Prophet, Priest, and King.

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

Assuming Mr. Washer actually said this, we shall note the three things that grab our attention regarding this meme:

1) The Sacrificial Lamb vs. Material Needs:

We think Mr. Washer is reacting against so-called "prosperity" teaching. This is understandable, because the "name it and claim" it folks are too often caught up in God as a piggy bank rather than God as the Holy One.

That being said, it is clear that Mr. Washer is setting up a false dichotomy, that the provision of the Lamb of God for our sin is in tension with the provision of material need. However, there is no tension; both can operate. 

The phrase Jehovah Jireh comes from

Ge. 22:14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

Here is where God provided a lamb to sacrifice so that Abraham wouldn't sacrifice his son. This of course is a type for the lamb of God God would provide for us.

Nevertheless, there is the dimension of the provision of material needs that cannot be overlooked:

Mt. 6:11 Give us today our daily bread. 

The Lord's Prayer is a pretty weighty testimony.

Ph. 4:19 And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. 

Here, Paul was in the midst of discussing the support he received from the Philippian church. And Paul promises all their needs will be met, and he was clearly not referring to Jesus' sacrifice.

2) Under the Wrath of God:

This is something we've covered often in our blog. Jesus was not punished by the Father, and He did not take our place. He died just like a sacrificed lamb did in the OT. The lamb was not punished, it was not regarded as guilty, and it did not substitute for the offeror. Similarly, Jesus' death was sacrificial, not substitutionary, and He was not regarded as guilty. He did not suffer the Father's wrath. He was not punished by the Father. The blood alone was enough.

3) Mediatorial:

This is a word not commonly used, so it is unfortunate that Mr. Washer finds the need to use it. We think that more conventional terminology should be preferred by anyone who thinks he's a Bible teacher. But since he used the word, let's explain.

We find one use of the word "mediator" here:

1Ti. 2:5-6 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

In contemporary understanding, a mediator is one that reconciles differences between disputants. However, this is really not the ministry that Jesus engaged in. The Father didn't have a dispute with us, and we didn't have a dispute with Him. The "one mediator between God and men" didn't negotiate with the Father or us. He didn't reach a compromise. 

Rather, His sacrificial death brought us into communion with the Father. His death, once for all, ransomed us from the grave and delivered us into the presence of the Father via a new and living way, by the blood. (Hebrews 10:19-20). 

Memes are obviously not detailed explanations of things, but they are intended to carry a message. And here the the message is substantially flawed.

Why You Can't Dodge Theological Questions - By Jake Meador

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author cannot conceive of Christians who don't elevate doctrine to the position he does. For him it's the raison d'être, but some Christians are just not wired that way. He thinks that's a critical issue, but isn't really able to articulate why.

There's also a little cognitive dissonance going on. He discovered to his surprise that charismatics aren't the evil heretics he thought they were. His experience contravened everything he thought he knew about them. Desperate to retain some vestige of separation, he invokes a statement made by the pastor of the church he visited, magnifies it, enhances it, and makes the result into a strawman.

We don't want to be too harsh on the author. He's just experienced something that calls into question what he thought he knew. We went through something similar in our faith journey from cessationist to charismatic.

Lastly, this is not a Bible teaching. The author does not even mention the Bible or quote any verse.

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

The Divine Blueprint: Exploring the Five Points of Calvinism - By Anthony

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This author does his best to explain the unexplainable, the Calvinistic TULIP. Calvinists love to explain Calvinism. It's what they do. They rarely explain the Bible except when there's Calvinism to be found. This of course means that Calvinists never explain the Bible, they only want to explain Calvinism. 

This is what the author does. He quotes Calvin, Calvinistic theologians, and a Calvinistic statement of faith. There are seven of these instances. But in the course of his explanation the author is only able to quote a single Bible passage and two or three verse snippets. That's it.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Pray in a Calvinist World? Prayer & Providence in Calvin’s Institutes - By Mason Craig

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

After reading this article multiple times, we were unable to ascertain if the author answered the question contained in the title. 

But he will spend a lot of time discussing "providence," using the term nearly 40 times, and never does he define it. So we will step in. "Providence" is idea that God is working out His will via the regular features of creation and plain old ordinary processes of life, as distinguished from a "supernatural" signs and wonders sort of thing. 

The distinction is artificial, however, since both are God working out His purposes. For Calvinists the distinction is necessary since they do not believe God works supernaturally in Christians anymore. Thus providence was invented to differentiate the working out of God's purpose sans miracles.

The author also uses the word "means" more than a dozen times, also without defining it. "Means" simply is the avenues God might use to implement His will.

Further, his presentation is very nearly a tautology. "God uses means to accomplish His plans" essentially means, "God does stuff, and He uses stuff to do stuff."

And, when he finally does give us hints about his terminology, we find that they are basic ideas stated with complexity.

Lastly, the author rarely uses Scripture to document his assertions, but profusely quotes Calvin.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Nation Interviews Zohran Mamdani - by Katrina vanden Heuvel and John Nichols

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Less than 30% of Democrats voted in the mayoral primary. Of those, 43.5% voted for Mamdani. So 12.9% of New York Democrats voted for Mamdani.

56% of registered voters in the city are Democrats so 7.2% of city residents voted for him.
New York City has a population of 8.2 million. Of those 432,305 or 5% voted for Mamdani.

But he's the Left's new hero. He's somehow got a mandate to do even more of what has caused New York City's problems. His agenda as a Socialist perfectly matches the agenda of the Democratic Left, the only difference is that Mamdani openly admits his Socialism while Democrats run away from it.

Today's article is a fawning interview by star-struck Leftists designed to facilitate The Message. The Message is the daily talking points distributed by Central Command to the talking heads, opinion writers, and Hollywood. The Message has one purpose, to advance The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling The System, i.e., the American culture, way of life, and the constitution.

So you read below will be nothing more than The Message.

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

Episode Thirteen, Bonus episode, final photos

  October 5th, 2024:

October 6th, 2024:

Episode one, introduction, here.

Episode two, disassembly and assessment, here.

Episode three, rough body work, here.

Episode four, quarters, here.

Episode five, toe panel, rockers, here.

Episode six, fenders, inner fenders, here.

Episode seven, the doors, found here.

Episode eight, tail light panel, hood, found here.

Episode nine, Hood, trunk, windshield gutter, cowl and firewall, heater box, found here.

Episode ten, Back glass gutter, grill, found here.

Episode eleven, headlight extensions, core support, roof, found here.

Episode twelve, final body prep and reassembly, found here.

Episode thirteen, bonus episode, final photos, found here.

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

These are the photos for the sale of the car. The car has been listed but hasn't sold, so I took down the ad and waited out the summer. The new ad will feature these shots. Hopefully it will sell.

Scripture Alone is Unscriptural - by John C. Wright

Found here. A fresh and interesting perspective on an old debate. While distinctly Catholic, the author makes some very good points.

Hoever, his defense of certain unique Catholic doctrines is surprisingly faulty. We will cut him some slack, however, for his otherwise brilliant analysis. 

------‐--‐-------‐------

How not to submit to a tyrant - by Robert Reich (Harvard)

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich cannot even remember what he believes from day to day. Are rich institutions evil or good? Is having billions of dollars evil or good? Should powerful government be resisted or embraced?

Today he defends the extremely rich (but apparently virtuous) institution called Harvard for resisting the will of government. And tomorrow he will blast extremely rich (and evil) businesses, likely for not paying their fair share of taxes or for resisting some government dictate. 

It's also worth noting that Harvard has experienced a surge in donations since Trump's actions,

...with $1.14 million collected in under 48 hours...

So it seems that if Harvard doesn't like Trump's dictates, the obvious solution is to stop taking federal money. It's clear that private donors are willing to take up the slack.

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

The Risk of Tolerating False Prophets in the Church - By Elizabeth Prata

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

Ms. Prata once again engages in sloppy, error-filled Bible exposition. She has a preconception about false prophets and women teachers, and wants to force this template upon her topic. In this case, it's the issue the church in Thyatira had with Jezebel. Ms. Prata's agenda is forced upon the text.  

Let's explain. The seven letters in Revelation were written in very specific contexts using imagery and language that is particular to the church being addressed. Some theologians have theorized that these letters represent seven evolutions of the Church over the course of history, but we don't think so. The details of each letter are very specific and are at odds with such a theory.

For example, the letter to Thyatira is the only letter that calls out a person by name for sin. But Jesus was not judging Jezebel so much as He was correcting the Thyatirian church for tolerating her false teaching and immorality. All that Jesus required was that she repent (2:21), but she didn't. And for those who committed adultery with her (or figuratively, deviated from the faith by following her strange teaching), they also were given a way out by repenting.

Then Jesus addressed those who rejected Jezebel's false teaching (which involved secret meanings and esoteric knowledge [2:24]). They were commanded to persevere, and if they do they will be given authority (2:26) and the morning star (2:28).

So this was not a false church, it was a church that tolerated false teaching. It only needed to repent to be restored to a great promise. Ms. Prata wants it to be about false prophecy and women in leadership, but it's not. She wants it to be about doctrine, but it's not. 

She wants it to be about a church that ends up condemned, so that she can extend it to present day churches she regards as condemned.

Lastly, Ms. Prata manages to quote only a couple of snippets from the subject passage, plus another unrelated verse at the end. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

Here's the passage:

Re. 2:18-29 To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 

24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations — 27 `He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’ — [Psalm 2:9] just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

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

90 years later, Social Security still delivers for Montana - Tim Summers Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author is an apologist for the status quo, based on his vested interest in keeping his constituency happy. We don't begrudge him this, but we do take issue with the amorphous language and vague factoids he promulgates.

He does his best dance for us in order to present SS as a great thing, a wonderful success story, and popular beyond imagination. His word choice is carefully designed to make it seem like SS is saving seniors from certain death.

If one manages to survive until the end, the author's cheerleading veers into a little bit of truth, hidden in the fourth to last sentence, the "solvency gap." This successful and popular program has a problem, a problem that directly comes to bear on the topic the author has raised: "Social Security delivers for Montana." But he doesn't discuss this at all. 

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

Irresistible Grace - by Joel E. Smit

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is the second appearance of this author in our blog. His previous article did not fare well under analysis, so we have hope that he will acquit himself better today.

Unlike the previous article, today the author barely quotes Scripture, which means most all of his assertions are undocumented. We want to know where in the Bible these ideas are found. However, the author has no intention of teaching the Bible, he's teaching Calvinism. 

In particular, "irresistible grace." That is the topic of the article, yet the author cannot bring himself to quote a single verse that contains the concept. If the Bible teaches it, we want to know where.

Oh, but he can quote a Statement of Faith as well as a couple of theologians. And a hymn. Just not the Bible.

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

How to Choose Music for a Worship Service - by Jon Harris

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is a pretty good article on the whole, but we have a few comments.

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

Bad Worship Songs: Give me Jesus (Gamoba, Avers)

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, Give me Jesus.

Letter to the editor: Social Security supports those who paid into it — and the economy - by Carol Stewart

Found here.

This barely coherent letter to the editor repeats all the typical leftist bumper sticker slogans about Social Security. It almost seems as though she copy and pasted sentences from various leftist websites in order to construct her letter.

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

What Promise Did Jesus Give Before His Ascension? - Ligonier Editorial

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We enjoyed this presentation. It was informative, biblical, properly documented, and well written.

Until the last paragraph.

The unnamed author, having done such a fine job up to now, inexplicably veers off course and opens a theological can of worms, even prefacing this last paragraph with "of course," as if it was self evident these things were true. But these final two sentences contain several undocumented claims and inscrutable statements: 

Of course, the Holy Spirit had been with the covenant community before the new covenant day of Pentecost, for He regenerated old covenant members and gave them the gift of faith. He had to do so because the only way that anyone believes in the one true God under any covenant is by being born again by the Spirit (see John 3:3). 

We have questions. 

• What is a "covenant community?"
• What does it mean that the Holy Spirit had been with the covenant community?
• How could there be a "covenant community" if the new covenant had yet to arrive?
• Who are "old covenant members?"
• How could "old covenant members" be regenerated before Pentecost?
• How could "old covenant members" be born again?
• Is there a difference between being regenerated and being born again?

We don't find the phrases "covenant community," "old covenant members," or the word "regenerated" in the NT. So the author needs to explain his terminology, and then tell us how terms like "covenant" comes to bear on the topic.

The Bible doesn't tell us that anyone was regenerated or born again before Pentecost. It is a claim of substantial import that salvation by faith and rebirth was a reality before the poured out Holy Spirit (Ac. 2:17), one that needs to be biblically documented. 

If being born again was possible before Pentecost, then Pentecost becomes irrelevant. We would therefore suggest that it wasn't possible to become born again prior to Pentecost. It requires the indwelling Holy Spirit to be born again, and He had not come yet:

 

Jn. 16:7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Lastly, the author quotes absolutely zero Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Please stop insisting ‘God told me’ - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We would agree with the author that "God told me" is problematic, but not for the same reasons. We take issue because the statement is a conversation-ender. He takes issue with it because he's a cessationist and doesn't believe the gift of prophecy or any other sort of "supernatural" manifestation is available for the contemporary Christian. 

We think the prophetic spiritual gift is or should be in operation today, because we live in the "last days" (He. 1:2), where the Holy Spirit is poured out and our sons and daughters prophesy (Acts 2:17). As to how that should manifest we leave that discussion to church leadership. 

The bottom line here is that the author expects every revelation from God is Prophecy with a capital "P." And for unexplained reasons, every revelation must be confirmed by signs and wonders. We long for the author to make a biblical case for these astounding claims, but alas, the author manages to quote but a single ancillary Scripture. 

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss prophecy in some detail here and here.

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

Rescuing Faith from Capitalism: A Theological Response to Project 2025 - by Mike Rivage-Seul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This tarot card-reading "theologian" wants to tell us what the authentic Christian faith is. Really. Amazingly, while proclaiming another Jesus, he is somehow able to simultaneously determine when someone is being heretical. His theology is identical to the Left's political agenda, and his presentation is brain dead bumper sticker Leftist slogans.

As is typical for Leftists, the author does not write to inform or explain, he writes to serve The Agenda, which is the overthrow of the system. It has nothing to do with any form of Christianity, because it is a political agenda, not a faith agenda.

Thus, as far as a "theological response," there isn't one.

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

Easing Comer’s Fears on Penal Substitution - by Derek Rishmawy

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The author wants us to accept the Reformist/Calvinist view of Jesus' sacrificial death, but doesn't give us a single biblical reason to do so. In fact, thought he provides a long quote from Calvin, he only manages to quote a single tangential Bible verse.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

Jesus' death was sacrificial, not substitutionary, for He spilled His blood to wash us clean:

He. 13:12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.

1Jn. 1:7 ...and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 

Why? The OT sacrifices were typological, representative of the greater work of Christ. So in substance there are direct parallels between a sacrificed lamb and the sacrificed Lamb of God:

• The animal wasn't punished. Jesus wasn't punished.
• The animal didn't substitute. Jesus didn't substitute.
• No one was wrathful toward the animal. No one was wrathful toward Jesus.
• There was no need to punish the sacrificed animal, the blood was enough. There was no need to punish Jesus, His blood is enough.

We discuss PSA in more detail here.

Why is this important? Because when Jesus offered Himself He totally pleased the Father. His spilled blood washed away our sins. He was not forsaken, punished, or abandoned by the Father. 

We must not dishonor God by misrepresenting Him.

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

Examining Dream Claims in Christianity - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

It is rare that we find Ms. Prata profusely quoting Scripture. Too often she quotes none at all. But the problem with the below article is that she doesn't get a single explanation or application of the quoted Scriptures correct. It's that bad.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

The Orthodox Christian view of sin - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Ratliff will tell us that either you believe in Original Sin or you believe in no sin at all. But there's more than two alternatives. 

-------

Covenant Theology for Kids: A Beginner’s Guide - Meredith Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have noticed that covenant theology is a topic coming up more frequently in recent times. The same sorts of people who advocate for Calvinism are also on-board for this brand of theology. We critiqued one explanation here, and another here and found both to be lacking.

We should note that we have not sought out explanations of covenant theology or made any deep dives into it. We simply comment when given an opportunity. So we really don't have an axe to grind.

Today's article recites standard Christian doctrine, but claims it as covenant theology. It appears, therefore, that covenant theology simply rebrands biblical concepts with new titles and then represents itself as unique.

One of the links the author provides leads us to an article that mentions an alternative understanding, dispensationalism. We don't know why we should prefer one over the other, or if there are more alternatives than these two. On the whole, the issue seems like an intellectual exercise with no practical benefit. Covenant theology doesn't change any obligation or privilege we have as Christians, and as such is of little benefit.

Lastly, in her title the author proports to offer us "a beginners guide" to teach covenant theology to kids. As such we would expect to find a basic explanation of the origin of, and reasons specific to covenant theology, how it better explains Scripture, and what particular benefit there is in knowing it.

She does none of this. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Saccharine Lyrics: A Response to Kendall Lankford - by Nathan Wright ("How Deep the Father's Love for Us")

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We did a thorough examination of "How Deep the Father's Love for Us" here. The lyric in question is 

How great the pain of searing loss

The Father turns His face away

Reformed doctrine teaches that the Son was imputed with our sins, the Father punished the Son in our place, and that punishment satisfied the Father's wrath. This is known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is the supposed reason the Father turned His face away, that He was unable to look upon the totality of sin imputed to Jesus.

None of this is found in the Bible. We consider it to be a false and pernicious doctrine. Jesus was not imputed with our sin. Rather, He carried and lifted our sin to the cross like He was taking out the garbage. The Father did not punish Jesus. Rather, Jesus died and spilled His blood to wash us clean. The blood was enough. Nothing more was needed, especially not the punishment of Jesus. 

We discuss this in detail here and here.

But more to the point. Mr. Wright will go on and on about Mr. Lankford's word choices, writing style, and lack of understanding. Since this is a technique frequently used by political Leftists, we are disappointed that a supposed Christian would descend to such tactics. However, since the bar is now set low, we shall at times also engage him on his terms and similarly deal with his logical shortcomings.

Happily, Mr. Wright will eventually get to the doctrinal issues, only to gloss over them. His defense is basically just a restatement of what he believes. 

We must consider the Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Why Reformed Soteriology Matters - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have commented on some of the author's other articles, and without exception we have also found them to be obtuse and uninformative. 

There are times when the author is completely inscrutable. He uses terminology he doesn't explain, refers to the theology of others but doesn't explain, and quite simply, doesn't actually explain anything. Nothing. 

Plus, he quotes but a single Scripture, one that doesn't explain his presentation. On that basis we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

He does provide a quote from the Canons of Dordt. So that the reader understands, Centuries ago, Reformed/Calvinistic theologians gathered together in something called the Synod of Dordt to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. The Canons of Dordt were the defenses of Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine and the refutations of Arminius. In addition, Arminius was declared a heretic.

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