Farewell to "60 Minutes:" It just went the way of the Washington Post's editorial page - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Sometimes leftist mouthpieces like Dr. Reich are so over-the-top with irony it's a wonder they can keep a straight face. Every single accusation Dr. Reich raises against Trump and the political right exactly matches what the Right has been complaining about what the Left have themselves been actually perpetrating for decades. Every single concern he raises is something the Right has already raised about the Left. 

Every single encroachment on freedom. Every single expansion of government power. The specter of using the government against one's political enemies.

All of it. 

The Left has been doing it. With impunity. For years, if not decades.

So when we read something like the article below, we can scarce believe our eyes. 

We've seen these words before, uttered by ourselves. With a brazenness seldom seen, Dr. Reich simply appropriates the Right's complaints against the Left and reverses them. He's not even particularly creative about it. 

Astonishing.

We do have a bit of solace, however. The worries of the Right now are the worries of the Left. They now know how we've felt for decades. 

Good.

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

The Reality of Eternal, Conscious Hell - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have examined the writings of this unnamed "Publisher" before, and have found them invariably superficial and base. He is not a competent Bible teacher.

Even when we agree with him. We agree with "Publisher" about the nature of hell. But he so poorly explains his reasoning that we decided we must once again analyze his presentation. We will discover that in typical fashion he is unable to articulate the biblical case for his doctrine.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

What Does God Think of Your Church’s Worship? - by Scott Daniel

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We nodded our heads in agreement as the author explained the biblical basis for proper worship. He offered pertinent Scriptures, insightful commentary, and appropriate cautionary warnings. But as we read we waited and waited for him to tell us exactly what is biblical worship. How does God want us to worship him? What does it look like? And where is this instruction found in the Bible?

After almost 900 words, the author drops it on us right at the end, without any cited Bible reference or explanation:

...don’t go “off the registry” to bring the Lord an insightful skit or a poignant movie clip or an interpretive dance. Our Triune God has registered for Bible-reading, Bible-preaching, prayer, congregational singing, and the celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper . . . so bring him what he asked for!

We are flabbergasted. THIS is the author's instruction on what constitutes proper worship? 

Let's start by defining terms. "Worship" is the Greek word proskuneó, which means 

to kiss the ground when prostrating before a superior; to worship, ready "to fall down/prostrate oneself to adore on one's knees"

Now take another look at the author's list of do's and don'ts. Does the reader see anything in his list that even comes close to worship in the biblical sense of the word?

Let's explain. When the author talks about worship, he's not referring to the activity of worshipping or the heart posture associated with this. The author's idea of worship is not actually engaging in the worship of the Lord. No, worship for him is the way a church service should be conducted. The way his church does things. They way his tradition has done things.

This is what the author meant when he mentioned the "regulative principle of worship." This phrase isn't a casual idea, it's an official doctrine of Calvinism/Reformed Christianity. Calvin himself wrote,

God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word.

Calvin, like the author, was not describing worship itself, he was describing a proper church service.

This means that a proper church service does not include skits, movie clips, or a dance because those things are not found in the Bible. Ergo, they are not "worship." But, stuff that the author's church does and his church tradition has practiced, like reading the Bible, preaching a sermon, praying, singing, baptizing, and communion, those are worship because they are things to include in a church service. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Keeping Sovereign Grace in Gospel Partnerships - by John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Piper enjoys a reputation as an excellent Bible teacher, but we have examined several of his explanations and have found them lacking. 

He is Reformed/ Calvinist in his doctrine. Reformed/Calvinists do what they always do: Explain Calvinism. They never explain the Bible unless they can transform it into an explanation of  Calvinism. This is exactly what happens here. Dr. Piper is asked about why his group identifies itself as Reformed/Calvinistic, but instead of answering he devotes his long response to explaining Calvinism.

More to the point, Dr. Piper never defines the terms he uses and never explains Calvinistic concepts like "sovereign grace." He presumes his audience is Calvinistic and therefore already knows all the ins and outs of these doctrines. So in the end Dr. Piper doesn't really explain anything, he's just reciting and reinforcing Calvinism, and assumes his audience is nodding their heads in agreement.

But worse, the question he is asked is never answered. And, he produces not a single Scripture that proves his doctrines. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

A Decent and Orderly Case for Raising Hands in Worship - by Sean DeMars

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

The author of this article is a part of the Reformed stream of Christianity. He is writing because his church tradition demands conformance to a particular way of doing Sunday church. Generally speaking, Reformed church services are characterized by somber, emotionless, reverent proceedings, which means no physical expressions of worship. It's considered chaotic and perhaps even sinful to express any physical response during a church service.

The author courageously advocates for obeying the biblical command to raise one's hands in worship. The Bible does not recommend it or leave it to a matter of preference. It's required. The author himself cites some of these biblical commands. Therefore, we would suggest that Reformed churches are violating Scripture by not raising hands, and should immediately repent. 

This deeply entrenched tradition is why the author is treading so lightly. One can almost feel the reluctance to simply come out and say what the Bible tells us. He couches things in terms of carnality and offending one's brothers, but never considers the fact that this reserved, non-physical worship might also be carnal and offensive. The bottom line is he is worried who will be offended by his advocacy. 

And that may be the key concept. The author is primarily concerned about offending people with his raised hands. What will people think? Will they disapprove? Will he cause them to stumble? The author deems it a matter of edification, but we think that's a diversion. Lifting hands or not lifting hands has no impact on edification, but has a lot to do with offending peoples' sensibilities. And sometimes those sensibilities should be offended.

In any case, we welcome our Reformed brothers and sisters to biblical worship.

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

The Agonizing Prayer - by Jerry Bridges

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This may be one of the worst Bible teachings we've ever read. We don't say that lightly. The author completely perverts the work of the cross, rejects the meaning of terms because they conflict with his doctrine, and lies to us about the Bible.

This is so astonishing that we found ourselves at loss for words. He writes:

The theological term for Jesus’ act of drinking the cup is propitiation. A modern dictionary will say that to propitiate means “to appease” or “to placate.” I find these definitions unsatisfactory...

Did the reader catch that? The meaning of a word is unsatisfactory because it is at odds with his doctrine. This is the unfortunate logical extension of the author's Calvinism/Reformed doctrine, the precepts of which are, we believe, deception. Yes, we must conclude that if one's doctrine supersedes the meaning of Bible words, it can only be deception.

On what basis does the author reject the propitiary nature of Jesus' sacrificial death? Certainly not a biblical one, because he supplies no Scripture that tells us the Father punished Jesus in our place. Here's the author's problem. If Jesus did propitiate (turn way the Father's wrath), then the Father, being satisfied, had no need to punish Jesus. The author cannot accept this, because His doctrinal tradition teaches that the Father punished Jesus in our place.

This article eminently qualifies for our label, Bad Bible Teaching. We discuss the substantial problems related to Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss how substitution contradicts propitiation here.

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

What False Teachings Should Make Me Leave a Church? - John Piper

Found here. Our comments in bold.

It's interesting that Dr. Piper's advice is generally good regarding what to do if a person is in a church where the pastor is falsely teaching, but the subject verse is not about that. John was warning "the chosen lady" about itinerant false teachers. Such people ought not even be guests in her house.

Side note: Who was this lady? Was she in the leadership of a church needing encouragement and exhortation? Was she a nobody trying to decide whether or not to stay in a church? Why does John refer to her in such glowing terms?

This is important because Dr. Piper is applying the subject matter as if it's advice to a person or to a church. This muddles the issue considerably when we read the letter as a whole.

Ironically, though Dr. Piper provides some good teaching he misses the point of the letter, which means we must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

Lastly, in the midst of good teaching he reveals his Calvinism/Reformed doctrine. We have written extensively about the false teaching that Jesus was punished by the Father.

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

The courts of heaven - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

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

The Silent Drift Inside the Charismatic Church - By Stephen Strang

Found here. We agree with author, this is a great concern, not only for Charismatics but also regarding conservative and fundamentalist churches. Mr. Strang makes the clarion call for us to be the Holy people God has called us to be. This is applicable to the whole Church, not just charismatics.

It's an issue near and dear to us, as we have recognized the pressure of the Holy Spirit ourselves to repent and be obedient. This conviction was recently reinforced by Mitch Wong's song "Stronger Man," which contains the lyrics, 

A Holy God lives in a holy house

If it's not holy then get it out

So although Mr. Strang is a charismatic, his word must not be dismissed by conservative Christians.

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

The Real Reason Many Reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement - by Phil Cotnoir

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

After we read this article we were dismayed to find no biblical arguments. In fact, we found no Bible verses or references at all. So we asked the author for some biblically-based commentary. He first recommended an article by Derek Rishmawy, which we had already critiqued back in August. It had very little in terms of biblical documentation.

When we pressed farther for a biblically documented article, he referred us to Thomas Schreiner's article, which we critiqued here. He also referred us to Geoffrey Butler's article, critiqued here.

Sadly, none of these articles provided us with the needed biblical documentation. When the Bible was quoted, it was most often to bolster ancillary ideas. When the moment came to document the key claim, Bible documentation disappeared.

We supply our biblical reasons for rejecting PSA in the links above, but we take a deeper dive here. To summarize:

• The Father did not punish Jesus for our sin because the Blood alone is enough to appease the Father's wrath.
• The Father did not forsake the Son. Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 because it's a messianic Psalm. Jesus was not bemoaning His abandonment, He was pointing to the Psalm as being fulfilled right at that moment.
• Jesus did not die so we wouldn't have to. We must die too.
• Jesus death was not atoning, it was propitiating. 
• Jesus did not pay for sin, He paid for us.

The reader is encouraged to read our links and come to his own conclusion. 

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

Why the Church of Christ worships without mechanical instruments

 Meme found on Faceborg. Our comments in bold.

The Church of Christ is particularly known for refusing to worship with musical instruments. It might have other distinctive doctrines as well, but we are here only to consider the issue before us.

As we reviewed the information provided above, it soon became apparent that most of it was not relevant to this particular doctrine. Generally it's sound, biblical information, but very little of it comes to bear on using musical instruments in worship.

The salient point seems to be, if it's not in the NT we don't do it. A sub text to that would be, some historical personages agree with us, along with unnamed scholars agree with us. This is thin stuff, indeed. The foundation of this doctrine is essentially an Argument From Silence.

The principal issue in our minds is the arbitrary nature of the line being drawn. Upon what basis is doctrine determined by dividing the NT from the OT? Upon what basis should a doctrine be derived only if the information is repeated in the NT? 

We could draw our own arbitrary lines. How about the 10 commandments, for example? The only one not repeated in the NT is the Sabbath. So we should work seven days a week. Or, maybe we should only embrace the commandments Jesus Himself reiterated: 

Matt 19:17-19...“There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments." 18“Which ones?” the man asked. Jesus answered, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, 19 honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

These are the only ones that are important because Jesus didn't repeat the others.

Let's take the matter further. The Bible never records the early church as constructing houses of worship. The Bible makes no mention of pastors leading churches. The entire structure of a Sunday service as practiced today is not found in the Bible. 

But this one thing, musical instruments, is made into an issue worthy of causing disputes and divisions in the Churches, yet it's not even a key doctrine regarding how to be saved or how to live a holy life.

Therefore, in our view it's not relevant.

It is a precarious thing to derive doctrines from what the Bible doesn't say. 

As a final note, we have no opinion about the Church of Christ in general. We are only intent on analyzing one of their doctrines.

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

Transcript:

What Democrats Must Pledge to America - Ten ways to make America more affordable - by Robert Reich

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

Dr. Reich isn't even a Democrat, he's a progressive, a Bernie socialist. But he has advice for Democrats, the ones who most closely align with his totalitarian tendencies. And that advice is to do more of the same. Increase taxes, alienate and divide people, and most importantly, tear down the System in order to replace it. He wants them to go even more Left with the exact same strategy. 

So everything on this list is old news, old agitprop, the same things that the Left has been complaining about for decades. In our view, it's astonishing that their rhetoric continues to work on people. Even though we no longer have capitalism because of the incremental installation of Socialism, and haven't for a long time, capitalism is always to blame. And people seem to buy it.

It's tried-and-true, by the book revolution. That's what Dr. Reich wants.

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

Substitutionary Atonement - An Essay By Thomas Schreiner

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

In our blog we have looked at articles by Mr. Schreiner before, and invariably have found them to be lacking. Today's article is no exception.

Like too many so-called Bible teachers, Mr. Schreiner tells us just enough of the truth to make us nod our heads in agreement, then slips in his doctrine right when we least expect it, completely out of left field.

This is a common technique with Calvinists/Reformists. They begin by accurately conveying a Bible truth in order to set the stage for their Calvinism. They never explain the Bible unless they can include some tenet of Calvinism. It's a disturbing tendency, which suggests spiritual deception is at work.

We consider the idea that the Father would punish Jesus for our sins to be offensive and pernicious. Jesus died to spill His blood as the Lamb of God. His sacrifice is sufficient for our sin. His blood is efficacious. His death is enough. Nothing else is needed for our forgiveness, certainly not the additional act of punishing Jesus. The shed blood is enough.

We cover Penal Substitutionary Atonement in some depth here. Elsewhere we examine the idea that the Father's wrath in fact was not propitiated by the blood if He punished Jesus. 

Lastly, we note that the author will state and restate his premise repeatedly, but never really make the case for it. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Appeasement of a Monster God? A Historical and Biblical Analysis of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - By Geoffrey Butler

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Though this article clocks in at over 6000 words, we were only interested in the section dealing with the author's biblical case for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That section, quoted below, is about 2450 words.

What we will find is the author is steeped in Reformist/Calvinist theology, so much so that he cannot see any other possibility. He does what all Calvinists do, explain Calvinism. That's what they do at every opportunity. They don't teach the Bible per se, they teach their doctrines.

We therefore must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We discuss Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss propitiation here.

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

The White House Press Tracker Is a Parody of Media Criticism - Chris Lehmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

At a little over 1600 words, the author has ample opportunity to explain the supposed problem. He does manage to cite a couple of somewhat relevant issues, which of course are viewed through his Leftist lens, but he simply denies and moves on. The very media Trump criticizes is what the author relies on for his rejoinders.

But at its base, the purpose of the article is not to discuss the Press Tracker website, it's to hurl invective at Trump and consevatives. These same tired tropes are recycled again and again. We've heard it all before, and we know it's nonsensical. But that's the way the Left does things. 

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

A Propitiation for Wrath - by RC Sproul

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Sproul was a Reformist/Calvinist, and this doctrinal perspective infects his explanation of propitiation. He provides the correct definition, only to immediately revert to his Calvinism.

Perplexing.

So the reader understands, Reformists/Calvinists believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is the unbiblical idea that the Father punished Jesus in our place, turning the wrath of God away from us.

We discuss Penal Substitutionary Atonement here. We discuss propitiation here.

Lastly, Dr. Sproul quotes but a single Scripture, one that does not support his pernicious doctrine. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

How Many Keys Are There? Who Has Them? - Rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

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

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

The Trump Administration Is Quietly Preparing to Bring Back School Segregation - by Chris Lewis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This is an astonishingly self-unaware article. The Left has long advocated for and implemented segregation to this very day:

• Exclusion of Jews from campus
• Black-only housing
• Women-only colleges
• Gay-only campus safe zones
• Exclusion of unapproved points of view

The author decries the actions Trump is taking to dismantle the Office of Civil Rights, but he tacitly admits it has been engaging in reverse discrimination by favoring disadvantaged races in order to undo the historic damage done by racism. It's very nearly laughable that the author is concerned about the danger Trump might pose when the Left has already been doing this very thing for decades.

We have deemed this phenomena Mountain Man's Law, which is the Left's propensity to accuse its opponents of doing what it has been actually doing.

We should also note that the author actually doesn't care about segregation. The plight of blacks does not concern him. The author isn't intending to inform, explain, or increase understanding. His sole purpose to to disseminate The Message. The Message is the daily talking points provided by Central Command. These slogans are repeated day after day by talking heads and media pundits regardless of truth or accuracy. 

The objective is to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the dismantling of The System. The Left wants revolution. It wants the Proletariat to rise up against the Bourgeois. It wants to convince people that they aren't getting their fair share, that the rich whites are keeping the poor down, that billionaires are getting rich by stealing from the poor.

The system itself is guilty. Systemic racism, sexism, and repression means the System must be replaced. That is the goal of these revolutionaries. They have been persistent in incremental change, being satisfied with slowly infiltrating our institutions, traditions, government positions, and corporate boardrooms. Though preferring to execute a bloodless coup, they are more and more willing to spill a little blood for the sake of The Agenda.

The reader would do well to keep this in mind as he reads the below article.

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

Why I Stopped Being a Calvinist (Part 4): The Heresy of Monergism - by Robin Phillips

Found here. The author takes a deep dive here, and does some excellent work.

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

If all Calvinism were to be encapsulated by a single term it would be the word Monergism. The term comes from the Greek mono meaning “one,” and erg meaning “work,” and describes the notion that salvation is affected by only one agent, namely God. As R.C. Sproul explains it, “A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person… A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things.”

While there is certainly a sense in which the Bible teaches that God is the only agent effecting salvation, Monergism goes wrong in denying that human beings are able to co-operate in the process of regeneration and salvation.

Monergism arises out of the fact that Calvinists are deeply uncomfortable acknowledging any synergy between the divine will and the human will. Indeed, a Calvinist will say that when a man or woman appears to co-operate with God, this is only because the Lord first predetermined that he or she should do so, thus preserving the sense in which only one agent is operative.

The total depravity of Total Depravity

Introduction

The so-called doctrines of grace continually and annoyingly cross our path, because Calvinists always teach Calvinism. They never teach the Bible unless they can cover some aspect of Calvinism.

"Total Depravity" is one of those doctrines. It is important to Calvinists because it interfaces with other parts of Calvinistic doctrine. Calvinists believe in predestination, that long ago God chose those who will be saved. His will is irresistible; therefore, if a person is predestined he will inexorably be saved and cannot lose his salvation.

Thus Total Depravity is required because God does everything. It's all previously lined out by God's will. You cannot assent to salvation or put your faith in Jesus. That's deemed a "work." Or, perhaps more accurately, your participation is irrelevant because you are chosen to be saved or you are chosen for hell. You are essentially a robot. Your destiny is already determined. Nothing you can do will change this.

Calvinists will go to the mat to defend their doctrines. It is difficult to understand why. Why is it important to know we as Christians are totally depraved? What difference does such knowledge make in our service, worship, or daily walk? How does it change our generosity, our evangelism, or any aspect of holiness?

Well, it doesn't. Calvinism makes absolutely no difference in any obligation or privilege we possess as Christians.

Theology is foundation of knowledge - by John C. Wright

Originally titled "The Ship of Theseus and the Demon of Descartes."

Found here. A very good article.
------------

This is a reprint of a column from a few years ago, but which bears repeating. Once the Church is restored to primacy, philosophy and related arts and sciences will likewise be revived, and the shameful neglect of generations undone. 

Philosophy traditionally was divided into seven major branches:

• Epistemology: the study of knowledge. What is truth?
• Logic: the study of formal reasoning. What follows truth? Wither leads it? What conclusion must be true if a given statement is true?
• Metaphysics: the study of first principles. What precedes truth? Whence come it? What premise must be true when a given statement is true?
• Ethics: the study of virtue. What ought men do to be true?
• Natural Philosophy: the study of the visible order of creation.
• Aesthetics: the study of beauty, both in creation and created by man.
• Theology: the study of the invisible order of creation.

Theology includes the study of revealed truth, which of necessity touches all these foregoing studies. Theology alone unifies all branches of philosophy, hence is rightly called their summit, culmination, and queen.

From these seven, several further branches spring:

• Epistemology includes Empiricism, Rationalism, Revelation, and perhaps more.
• Semantics, which asks how words are used, is a handmaiden to Logic, as statements must be put in signs or words. Geometry is logic applied to figures and ratios; Arithmetic is geometry expressed as magnitudes.
• Metaphysics, the study of first principles, includes Ontology, the study of first substances.
• Ethics includes Politics, which is the art of how to live in civilization, which necessarily includes Economics, the study of the trades in goods and services.
• Natural Philosophy includes the study of the inanimate world, Astronomy and Ballistics, Geography and Geology and Meteorology, and the various elements and energies of which they are composed, and includes also naturalism, which studies the growth and decay in due season of flora and fauna, their origins and destiny, and includes the study of man, his nature and his works.
• Aesthetics, ironically, also informs Rhetoric, which is the study of the figures of pleasant and persuasive public speaking, since persuasiveness is a type of beauty.

(...)

Six Ways Zohran Mamdani Can Make New York City Affordable Again - by Kiren Gopal

Found here.
----------------

New York City is a textbook example of repeated leftist intervention into the economy. These interventions have yielded the current destitution that is NYC. Having endured decades of Left wing governance, the city is falling apart, unlivable and unaffordable. 

So what does the author propose? Even more of the same. Astonishing. 

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

Three reasons Russell Brand should not be baptising anybody - by Stephen Kneale

Found here. Out comments in bold.
------------------------

The author doesn't reference or quote a single Scripture in over 1800 words. Neither does he explain any Bible principle. He's actually writing an opinion piece, not a Bible teaching. Essentially, the author is explaining his church's traditional practice and how Russell Brand is violating that, as if Brand should conform to the author's preferences.

That's really the issue here. But Brand is not a member of the author's church or denomination, so his opinion about Brand is really irrelevant. In fact, we are gladdened by Brand's obvious passion resulting from his truly powerful salvation. So if Brand eschews dead tradition in favor of something that violates the author's sensibilities, well, we're ok with that.

Lastly, because the author neither quotes nor teaches the Bible, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Mysticism and the Authority of Scripture: Why the Word Is Enough - by Dave Jenkins

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

The author is a opposed to mysticism because it is experiential, then he is ok with experience. He sets up a number of false binary choices and wants to force us to choose one or the other. He uses conventional language but redefines certain words to suit his doctrine.

The author never actually tells us his underlying assumption, that the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit have ceased, and that the only way God speaks today is through the Bible. This is known as cessationism, where there is no such thing as contemporary prophecy, tongues, healing, impressions, or words of knowledge (we have dealt extensively with cessationist arguments here). 

But the big problem is he that lies to us about Scripture. He misrepresents the meaning of verses to serve his agenda.

We must consider this to be Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Crowdsourcing a. 50-year Progressive vision - By Rob Kall

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

This is a mind-numbing list of Leftist pink unicorn cotton candy fairy tales. The author could have saved us a lot of time by simply telling us that he wants to overthrow the System and install Socialism. 

On one hand he wants free everything, but also wants to eliminate the wealthy, which is the source of funding this nightmare. He wants local governmental autonomy and central federal control. He wants free speech and conservatives silenced. He wants the elimination of authoritarianism, using authoritarian means.

It's a child's vision, naïve and puerile. "Everybody gets all the chocolate they want." It's a beauty queen's ambition. "I just want world peace." It's Rodney King's "why can't we all just get along?" It's touch toes, hold hands, and Kumbaya. It's John Lennon's "Imagine" playing 24-7 on a radio you can't turn off.

The author thinks that these "1001 Things To Add To a Country" can be be incrementally installed (as has been the Marxist strategy for the last 100 years), but no country or society could survive this. Even a country as large as the US would soon teeter under the weight. Besides, even though Socialists are a pretty patient group, the young upstarts will inevitably call for revolution, bloody if needed, when the Socialist Old Guard takes too long to install the Worker's Paradise.

We don't expect the reader to read all of it. We were barely able to ourselves. But we do note that the author was somehow able to miss a couple of significant things:

• Free cars
• Free weed
• Free cell phones
• Free lobster and prime rib

A little more seriously, we should notr the author mentions nothing about vacations, art, music, or athletics. Not a peep about space travel, transportation, wind farms, solar, or even any mention of electricity.

Lastly, we note the author uses the term "progressive" 29 times but never defines it. We find it odd indeed that hoary old ideas like these are "progressive" in any sense of the word. Progress implies a continual improvement and a brighter future, not looking back to dead Socialist tyrants and their ideas for totalitarianism and genocide.

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

Echoes of Jezebel: Modern Warnings from Ancient Judgments - By Elizabeth Prata

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

It's been a couple of months since we last published a critique of an Elizabeth Prata article. We do not wish to dishonor her, but sadly, we cannot recommend her as a competent Bible teacher.

In today's article she attempts to apply Ezekiel's condemnation of false prophets to contemporary women and contemporary prophecy. It's clear that she's operating from the unstated premise that there are no prophets today. It would be helpful if she actually told us this, but we are consigned to guess it.

In particular, she is against women prophets. She writes: 

God rarely bestowed prophetic ability on women. 

This is what is sticking in her craw, women prophesying. She wants OT prophecy to be the domain of men only, then extend that to our day. So because only a handful of women prophesied in the OT, this would mean women prophesying today is unbiblical. This is the conclusion she wants us to draw.

But more to the point, what does the NT say about women prophesying? This is something Ms. Prata didn't bother to address. 

Ac. 2:17 In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

Seems pretty clear. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost means God's servants, men and women, will prophesy in these "last days." We are still in the "last days," so women should still be prophesying.

1Co. 11:5, 16 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved... 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God.

Women were praying and prophesying in the Corinthian church, but they failed to cover their heads. Paul corrected this, telling them that this is the only practice of the Church. Does Ms. Prata's church embrace Paul's position? 

Sometimes when we read Ms. Prata's teaching we are mystified at the level of misinformation (or perhaps deception) at work here. We must therefore deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Dr. Martin Luther King Would Approve of Zohran Mamdani - By Dr. Lenore Daniels

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

The agitprop is strong in this one, Obi-Wan. 

With nearly impenetrable prose, the author goes on and on about her caricatures, liberally employing well-worn Socialist tropes and bumper sticker slogans in a vain search for a coherent thought. 

Remember, this woman has a PhD. 

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

Covered by the blood - Rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

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

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

Election - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Ratliff is back too soon. And once again he's here, not to explain the Bible, but to explain Calvinism. As we've discussed before, that's what Calvinists do. They will never explain the Bible unless they can expound on the virtues of Calvinism. This is a constant reiteration of Calvinistic doctrine over and over, done in a manner strikingly similar to the way political Leftists argue for their ideas.

It's truly cultish behavior.

A favorite topic of Calvinists is the idea that God chose who would be saved long ago. This is the doctrine of predestination. Those who are chosen are "the Elect." So here Mr. Ratliff will yet again explain election, which he has done many times. 

Since we have addressed these Scriptures many times before we shall try to not repeat ourselves except to spotlight the basic errors Mr. Ratliff makes.

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

If-Jesus-returns-kill-Him-again.com - Darwin Bedford

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

This guy is a true believer. We're not going to respond, since the level of intellect at work here is self-evident. So just grab a cold one and sit down for a good laugh or two. Or, pity this poor soul who can barely put together a coherent thought.

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

Thoughts from a 90 year old saintly woman - revised 12/10/25

I have known Jeanette for about 15 years, ever since I came to this church. She had been there for years already. She is known in the church for her memorization of Scripture. She loves to play cards with friends, and is the main door greeter for Sunday mornings, despite her increasing difficulty to stand.

It seems we are inevitably attracted to the attractive, articulate, clever, and charismatic personalities. Christians seem to gravitate to the talented and the outgoing. But one lesson I have learned from the Lord is to never underestimate or minimize the background people in the church. The awkward, the elderly, the ignored, the introverts, the weird ones, the rejects and the cast offs. No one really pays attention to them.

Like Jeanette.

There is a gold mine of wisdom, insight, and perspective in these people. But few of them have opportunity or outlet. Yet they remain faithful, year after year. So, I am so blessed that Jeanette chose to write down her thoughts and asked me to share them on my blog. I hope you are blessed as well.

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

The Cross is proof of God’s grace - by Mike Ratliff

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

Calvinists are quick to talk about Calvinism. They never teach the Bible, per se, they teach Calvinism. They explain it. Go over it over and over. They never depart from chronicling the tiniest nuance of Calvinistic doctrine.

But Calvinists never explain the Bible.

The author is a Calvinist, so he believes that long ago God chose those who would be saved. This means that since these chosen ones get saved at the exact moment God ordained, they are bystanders in the transaction. They don't make a decision to agree to salvation. They are not participants. They do nothing at all.

Further, most Calvinists will say that God ordains all of existence, that our day to day lives, events, circumstances, and decisions have already been laid out. From these ideas come a whole host of problems, like

• If God chose the saved for heaven, He must have chose to send the lost to hell
• Human choice is an elaborate illusion
• Neither the saved nor the lost have any reason to lead virtuous lives
• Life itself is fake

Now to be sure, Calvinism has developed explanations for all these problems, some of them quite elaborate, others tortured. This is what Calvinism does: It creates problems that need workarounds.

Thus the author has an undocumented presumption: Everything is pre-ordained, including salvation, everything in the salvation process is a actuated by God: Grace, forgiveness, new life, even faith. It's all from God. 

Oddly, he never demonstrates this from the Bible. 

One last thing: It's irrelevant. Whether the saved are predestined or not doesn't matter. It changes nothing. People will get saved every day. Does it matter somehow that they were chosen or not? Nope.

Calvinism is a useless intellectual exercise.

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

Contract For American Renewal 2026 - By John Rachel

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Way back in the mid 1990s a group of Republicans introduced the "Contract with America," an eight point economic plan intended to bring some sanity to the massive government budget. They were roundly mocked by the Leftist media and the Democrats at the time.

Fast-forward a few decades and now the Left has its own contract. The difference is, while the Republican contract was reform-oriented, the below "Contract for American Renewal" is more of the same thing the Left has already been implementing for 100 years. 

It's truly amazing how the Left recycles the same failed ideas day after year after decade as if this time they will finally work.

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

8 Questions About Predestination - by: Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley

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

We've spent a lot of time in this blog examining the Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, because it seems to be the lynchpin of this branch of Christian theology. Today we review the explanation of these credentialed men to ascertain if there's reason to believe in universal predestination.

The authors do quote some Scripture, which is an all-to-rare occurrence among so-called Bible teachers. Unfortunately, they do not quote certain Bible references, and when we go to read them we find that the verses do not say what the authors said.

Therefore, we must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Spiritual Gifts Are for Service, Not Personal Fulfillment - by Matt Emadi

Found here. 

-----------

A very good article and a sober reminder that our spiritual gifts are not indicators of superior spirituality and do not entitle us to a position.

On the flip side, a savvy church leadership will endeavor to discover the spiritual gifts of their congregants, and seek to install these people in ministry as they discern it to be appropriate. Thus the church has an obligation to perform its function as well by identifying, training, and releasing people into ministry. This happens to have a side benefit of mitigating the issues the author will bring forth below.

Therefore, a healthy church is one where the leadership brings to maturity its people, and where the people embrace the discipline and eventual release into ministry within the body.

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

A Wealth Tax that Will Work - How we build a better future despite Trump and his Republican lapdogs (Part 1) - by Robert Reich

 Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich spouts the Leftist line with facility. It rolls off his word processor like so much effluent. He perfectly parrots The Agenda (the decades-long effort to overthrow The System), while pretending to embrace "equality," "democracy," and "fairness." In actual fact, the Left is actually intent on causing more and more problems, with the idea that finally people will be ready for a different system. 

That's the goal of people like Dr. Reich. And that's the purpose of his article today. So nothing you will read here is intended for telling the truth. It's for manipulation and distraction. It's to get you riled up at the horrible injustice of people having a lot of money while other people suffer and die.

That's what Dr. Reich wants you to think. Don't fall for it.

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

Crushed, Stricken, Victorious - by Robb Brunansky

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

The author is intent on inserting a life lesson into Isaiah 53, that God is trustworthy, but this is simply not found there. Nonetheless it is the author's theme, for better or worse. And as we will discover, it is definitely for the worse. Rather than teaching about the substantial prophetic imagery here and showing us the power of this passage, somehow he seems to want it to be about something else. 

Jesus had precious little to say about trust. This is the sole example:

Jn. 14:1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

"Trust" here is pisteuete, which means to have faith or believe, while "trustworthy" is pistoi, which means faithful, is found here:

Lk. 16:12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

It seems like the NT concept of trust is at variance with the author's understanding.

Further, the author also teaches the Reformist/Calvinist false doctrine that the Father punished Jesus for our sin. We will discuss that below.

Lastly, he writes over 1200 words, but aside from the tangential introductory Scripture only eleven words of Scripture are quoted. Astonishing. How is it possible to teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must consider this to be Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Jack Hibbs: What the Bible Really Says About the Millennial Reign of Christ - By Abby Trivett

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

Charisma Magazine has some pretty good articles, but also some truly off the wall stuff. And there's some stuff that is plainly wrong. Though we usually examine the follies of cessationist Reformists/Calvinists, we are not reluctant to take charismatics to task when necessary.

Today it's the latter. We are not acquainted with Jack Hibbs and have never heard his teaching before. So we have no dog in the fight. In the video below, Mr. Hibbs intends to explain the millennial reign of Christ, and he will make up things out of thin air, turn Scriptures on their heads, and make a big to-do about a topic that frankly has little relevance to the Christian walk. That's right. Knowing about the millennium has little to no benefit.

The below article is a actually another writer's summary of this video. It's is only 400 words but it looks a lot longer. That's an irritating feature becoming more and more common on the internet: Web pages are inundated with ads, recommendations for other articles, and all sorts of other filler material, making the article appear longer and more substantial than it really is. This also makes it difficult to read, distracting to the point where we are simply tending to avoid these sorts of websites altogether. 

The writer of the article apparently intended only to regurgitate Mr. Hibbs' presentation without critical evaluation, which suggests that she agrees with it. In addition, there's a frustrating lack of Bible references, which is a shortcoming reflective of the video as well. 

So. What does the Bible say about the millennial reign? Well, 8 verses: 

Re. 20:2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.   

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth — Gog and Magog — to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 

9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 

That's it. There are other verses thought to be about the millennium, for example, Isaiah 65:25, Zechariah 14:16, Zechariah 9:10, and Jeremiah 30:9, but this is speculative at best.

Lastly, we should note that though Mr. Hibbs employs the Bible, but he will rarely directly quote it. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

Is Elon Worth It? Is he a net positive for humanity or a net negative? - by Robert Reich

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Dr. Reich never reveals his premise. He seems to think that he has the right, even the ability, to evaluate a person's value to humanity. Musk is involved in negotiating a compensation package for himself, and it's a big one no doubt. This is, of course, a private transaction involving consenting parties. The shareholders of Tesla may or may not approve. Is Elon worth it? That's up to them, not you, Dr. Reich.

In fact, Dr. Reich is sticking his nose where it does not belong. He's not a party to any of this. So why is he arrogantly assessing Musk's human worth? Because Dr. Reich is a Leftist, and Leftists think that they should be involved in other peoples' business. Well actually, they think they should be in control. Why?

Musk, by virtue of being rich, gained his wealth via exploitation. He strolled into the houses of poor people and help himself to their bank accounts. This means he's part of the bourgeois and needs to be taken down. Dr. Reich presumes himself to be part of the proletariat, the oppressed lower class that must rise up to overthrow the bourgeois. Yes, Dr. Reich is worth millions, but he's nowhere near as rich as Musk.

Maybe he's hoping the mobs will come for him last?

It's about class struggle; this is Dr. Reich's unstated premise.  The rich are evil. They are parasites on society. None of what they got was obtained without taking it from someone else. So it's very easy for Dr. Reich to amplify Musk's faults into him being a "hazard to humanity." Catch that? Musk is not simply a rich and successful businessman, he's been evaluated and condemned. 

Thus it is understandable, if not desirable, to terminate this menace.

This is Dr. Reich's moral compass. We should not dismiss him or other Leftists so easily. We should know by now what they're capable of.

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

Three Crosses; Two Sabbaths; One Empty Tomb: The Timeline Of Holy Week - by Dr. Thomas E. Rush & Pastor Nathan Rush

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

Jesus said he would be in the grave for three days and three nights. The obvious problem is Jesus could not have been crucified on Friday if He was resurrected on Sunday, which is the traditional view. No matter how innovative the solution, there's just not enough time.

We stumbled on what we thought was a sensible and simple solution to this problem, which we proposed and posted here. But ever since we've been wondering if anyone else had also covered this ground. In today's article the authors echo our solution.

It doesn't completely agree with our calculation, but it's close.

We must note that the authors make several ancillary misstatements about Jesus' sacrificial death, which we corrected. In addition, these and other additions add unnecessarily to the length. This article could have been half as long.

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

Universal reconciliation: conversation with a Faceborg friend

Posted by a Faceborg friend:

THE GOSPEL is not universalism based on ignoring sin — it’s universal reconciliation based on the finished work of Christ.

Me: A distinction without a difference, isn't it?

Friend: Universal reconciliation does not "ignore" sin. Rather, it confronts sin through the finished work of the cross; in that He made Him who knew no sin to BE sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him! (Christ) 2 Corinthians 5:21

Me: But if everyone gets reconciled, sin is irrelevant since the result is is the same either way.

Friend: Because somebody's got to BURN!!! But that's NOT the heart of God, nor is it His will! 2 Peter 3:9 This isn't some sick game where some get to win, and the rest have to lose. Do a word study on the Greek word "pas" (all).

. . . and by the way, sin IS irrelevant, except for those Evangelicals who worship sin and hell more than they do the redemptive heart of the Trinity!!!

That's why the Finished work, on the cross is Good News!!!!!

Me: You brought up sin, not me. If sin is irrelevant, so is the cross.

A Sketch of the Premillennial, Pretribulational Rapture of the Saints - By David Huffstutler

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

This is a textbook example of how to fit a doctrine into the Bible. We have long had complaint with the pre-trib rapture teaching. Those who teach this doctrine are inevitably obtuse and confusing. But we had some hope the author would be able to supply a coherent explanation. Alas, he could not.

In fact, the crucial concept that the rapture would occur before the Tribulation is never biblically demonstrated.

We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

In our view, the rapture is on the Last Day of the last days, the Day of the Lord.

-----------

Download the Free Ligonier App - Ligonier

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We found this to be extremely odd. Reformists/Calvinists are really big on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), contrasting this doctrine with the eevil charismatics who they say want to add to Scripture with prophecy and tongues.

But notice that this helpful new app from Ligonier doesn't seem to contain a Bible. But it's chock full of extra-biblical information. 

It continually amazes us that these folks don't see the irony of this.

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

Letter to the editor: By not allowing a local sales tax, we are 'kinda stupid' - by Orville Bach

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

This letter writer supports more taxes, which is what a typical Leftist would do. But he goes farther and tells us we are stupid for not wanting more taxes. Specifically, a local option sales tax.

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

Translations that don't improve the Bible - Colossians 1:21-22, TPT Bible

Introduction

There are a lot of Bible translations. A lot. Naturally, some are better than others. This can be "better" in word-for-word accuracy vs. "better" in the accuracy of the thought being conveyed. The word-for-word translations are highly accurate but can be difficult to read for those who tend not to be highly educated in theology, while thought-for thought-translations can flow more naturally for the casual reader, even though they cannot provide the same level of precision. 

It's an ongoing debate in Christians circles, one that we will not settle here.

A third category is a paraphrase, which places readability way higher in priority. Neither word-for-word nor thought for thought, paraphrases are story-based, more aligned with characters and the mood. These are the loosest in terms of accuracy, and generally thought of as not suitable to use for study.

The last category we want to mention is those translations that conform to one's preconceived doctrines. Such a translation comes with an agenda, like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The NWT was written specifically to reflect the doctrines of the Witnesses. 

But even so-called "reliable" translations often have built-in biases themselves, particularly when it comes to Reformed/Calvinistic doctrines. It is not unreasonable to say that pretty much every translation carries some of the doctrinal bias of their translators. But generally, they are trustworthy and usable.

Given this, it shouldn't surprise us that The Passion Translation (TPT), by Dr. Brian Simmons, comes with its own bias. This bias is toward a particular brand of charismaticism that comes out of Bethel Church in Redding, California. Bethel is known for its sometimes spectacular claims regarding the manifestation of the supernatural. Some regard Bethel as a cult, while others consider it to be at the forefront of what the Holy Spirit is doing. 

This is also a debate we will not settle here.

There are notable connections between Dr. Simmons, Bethel church and its leadership, and Dr. Simmons' educational experience. So the main question we seek to answer is, does TPT carry a doctrinal skew based on its connections to a church? And, does Dr. Simmons have any formal, rigorous training in a recognized institution that would qualify him as a Bible translator?  

Lets deal with second question first. Please bear with us as we cover some background information.

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.

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